INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU
Report continued from volume A.
1751
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (NOVICE DRIVERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS)
Continuation of debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 122, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): It's quite a pleasant change to be able to get up and speak very favourably of a bill that the government is bringing in.
Those people who have been following the Legislature for the last few years will recognize that I have been pushing for graduated licensing on behalf of the PC party for at least a couple of years, and my colleague the member for Wellington I believe was pushing for it before that.
In fact, two years ago, our caucus asked that we should have a standing order 125 review of this; that is, a 12-hour review of graduated licensing. For various reasons, the government always managed to fob me off on doing that. But we really should have been doing that two years ago. Had we done that, I believe perhaps we would have had the legislation earlier.
It is quite ironic that the government is coming forward with this legislation after so much prodding and after bringing it in, in the springtime, in draft form so that we're only getting the bill through the House now, and it's only going to be implemented in the spring of next year, and yet photo-radar, which the government also claims is a safety measure, but surprisingly, one that brings in revenues for the government, is being brought in immediately.
Photo-radar had first introduction on June 1 this year and already we have the legislation moving at a rapid pace through the Legislature. The government used closure to stop second reading of this from continuing any further. The government would suggest there have been five days of debate and it knows quite well that isn't true. In fact, there have been four days of debate plus 20 minutes, so it probably adds up to just a few hours of debate.
They closed down the second reading, and worse than closing down second reading, they refused to have public hearings. The amazing thing is the minister suggested in this House in a question that there were to be public hearings. How there could conceivably have been public hearings when we were allocated two days in committee, which wasn't sufficient time to do justice to clause-by-clause, let alone any public hearings, is rather insulting.
Let's turn to the more pleasant task at hand, and that is talking about legislation that the government should have brought earlier but is bringing forward now. It was quite a pleasant experience to sit on a committee where all members of all parties were speaking in favour of the merits of this legislation.
We had a very thorough review as we travelled around the province. We had presentations from people who believed this was good legislation, we had presentations from those who believed this legislation didn't go far enough, and we had presentations from people who believed it was too draconian.
I believe that in the end the legislation strikes a reasonable balance, a balance which is unlikely, in its present form, to be challenged under the charter, which is something to be desired because we cannot frankly afford to be funding all kinds of charter challenges. That, unfortunately, is not the case with photo-radar, which the Attorney General has already admitted is probably going to be subject to a charter challenge. As I say, it's ironic that it took two years for the government to respond with graduated licences and yet only a matter of weeks to bring forward photo-radar. That is a revenue grab.
In May 1993, CTV had what it called the National Driving Test in which 31,000 respondents phoned in their concerns about this, and overwhelmingly we found that the consensus was supportive of graduated licensing. In fact, it could be suggested that the concerns expressed by the people who phoned in were that the government's proposal wasn't strenuous enough. They believed that newly licensed drivers should have at least two years' experience in that category, and that there should only be one passenger in the car as compared with this legislation. They said that the accompanying driver should have at least four years' of experience, 0% blood alcohol while driving, the curfew should be between midnight and 5 am and drivers should be restricted to roads and highways with a speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour.
The legislation, as it has come forward, is quite close to that model, not quite as strict, and the reason, I believe, is because the people in the Ministry of Transportation, the professionals, did a very good job of persuading the committee as to the merits of this particular structure in terms of fairness and ability to be respected by the young drivers, which is most important because indeed this legislation will only have secondary policing. That means that police will not stop young drivers specifically to find out whether they have an accompanying driver with them or whether they have 0% blood alcohol.
The alarming aspect about this is that in introducing photo-radar the government runs the risk that it is simultaneously bringing in a program which will reduce the secondary policing. By secondary policing, I mean where people are stopped for a speeding infraction and then, as a result of that speeding infraction, are checked as to whether they have the proper licensing, the accompanying driver and 0% blood alcohol.
1800
There is no doubt about it that driving with alcohol, when drivers are new to the road, is extremely dangerous, and we must stop the carnage that's on our roads. We know that the statistics for 1991 were that there were 90,519 injuries, which resulted in 1,102 deaths. That's far too many. One death is far too many, so we applaud the government in moving forward.
The Ministry of Transportation estimates that the cost of accidents is $4 billion. The cost of health care, property damage, insurance claims and lost wages is $4 billion.
Let's just think of that in terms of the deficit that this government is running. If we were to get the real numbers, not the numbers that they've cooked up by hiding some of the debt, but if we got the real deficit numbers, we're probably pretty close to $12 billion. So $4 billion, one third of that, is estimated to be the impact to the province in lost wages, which taxes are paid on, and insurance claims and property damage and health care, which is certainly compelling reason why we should have this legislation.
We know that it is the leading cause of death in 16- to 24-year-olds. The experience of New Zealand, where they've had such legislation for some time, was that in the first year there was a 25% drop in fatal accidents, and deaths in 15- to 17-year-olds were down from 120 people per month to 70; that's a 40% decrease, and let us not forget that New Zealand is a very small country, yet we can see that kind of drop as a result of this legislation.
There were concerns expressed during the committee hearings, particularly by rural residents, and they revolved particularly around the length of time the experienced driver had to have in driving. This legislation calls for four years of experience, and that is to be measured from the first day. If we imagined that graduated licensing had existed for some years, that would be from the first day that the person had a graduated licence to four years from that point. Then they would be eligible to be an accompanying driver.
That was a compromise, once again, between those people who believed that you needed a longer amount of experience, and those who would suggest that perhaps one or two years' experience was appropriate. Throughout this bill we see the compromises that are made in order to get the various parties to buy into this scheme.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada was somewhat disappointed that this scheme was not more strenuous but was happy to the extent that there was a graduated licensing scheme being introduced.
The concern among rural residents with respect to the years of experience revolves around the fact that very often in rural areas parents don't have the availability of transit for their children, and so as soon as they can drive, they get the use of a car. Quite often a sibling may be the accompanying driver. At the moment an accompanying driver may have passed the test only the day before, because level 1 of the graduated licensing scheme is very similar to the present 365 driver's permit, which allows people to drive for one year with an accompanying driver.
Typically, in this province it's taking about four months to get a test. Under this scheme it requires that you drive for one year. However, that can be reduced to eight months if you take an approved driver education course.
The driver education course was something which a lot of us on the committee at the early stages of the committee believed should be made mandatory, but we were persuaded by both the driving schools, which certainly had a vested interest in getting people into the driving schools, and members of the staff of the Ministry of Transportation that if we were to make it mandatory there wouldn't be as much commitment to driver education. We were persuaded that it was indeed a good idea not to enforce that, but we encourage it by allowing drivers who take such a course to come out of level 1 and take their level 1 test at the end of eight months instead of one year.
So there's a strong incentive, and that's only four months longer than is common at the moment of four months to get your test. It isn't an unduly great hardship on people in rural areas. Nevertheless, there was a concern expressed constantly, both by rural members of all parties who were on the committee as well as the people who came to us from the rural areas to make presentations.
I believe there is an ability within Bill 122 for the government after the fact, under the regulations to be able to make some exemptions if it deems it necessary. The reason I come to that conclusion is reading clause 57.1(1)(n), "exempting novice drivers or novice drivers with a driver's licence of any class or level from any requirement under this part or any regulation made under this part and prescribing conditions for the exemption." I believe the government has given itself the ability to address that, and that's reasonable.
That is the reason I will not be pushing for any exemptions, although there is some concern among some of the rural members that perhaps there should be an exemption, and I would urge the government to revisit this after maybe a year's experience.
There was also some concern among rural residents about the question of 0% blood alcohol. In fact, people from all across the province were suggesting that the regulations relate to the accompanying driver, that they should have 0% blood alcohol as well as the learner driver.
The staff from the Ministry of Transportation persuaded me that indeed it would lay us open for a charter challenge if we were to go to 0% blood alcohol in the same way as we have it for the learner driver. The reason for that is that the ministry apparently has a legal opinion on file which suggests that a charter challenge could ensue from such an enforcement.
As I've said, the enforcement is secondary. What we have to look for with this legislation is that parents fully participate in this legislation. This legislation gives the parents the ability to say to their children: "You cannot drive between these prescribed hours, between midnight and 5. You cannot drive without an accompanying driver until you've passed the level 1 driving test at the end of either one year or eight months." But we have to rely on the good sense of the parents to enforce that because the police will not be out trying to check whether people are complying with this regulation.
We often talk about enabling legislation when we pass legislation for municipalities. I would call this enabling legislation for parents, but it is a concern indeed that at the time the government is bringing forward photo-radar, we're going to see a reduction in that secondary enforcement, and that's what we need to be very wary of. I think that in reviewing the success of this program in a year or so, we should also take a look as to how successful we've been in terms of enforcing that.
The inconvenience to rural residents also runs around the aspect of the ability of their children to move farm equipment around. Farm equipment, it was explained, could be quite dangerous and it was suggested that we should be encouraging, through legislation, special education with respect to farm equipment. As it was pointed out by one of our rural members, if you have a trailer with some hogs in it and they move suddenly as you're going around a corner, a young driver would not have the experience to be able to handle that. So we do encourage the ministry to build into its training some component to teach young drivers how to handle farm equipment if they're going to be handling farm equipment.
1810
As I've said, there were a lot of tradeoffs in this legislation, and I think it's a reasonable amount of tradeoffs that will save lives and will get the cooperation of everybody.
The most restrictive aspect is undoubtedly the question of eight months' driving before they can take the test. I've pointed out that in terms of the four months it's taking now, we're only asking for an extra four months. Certainly, all the parents who came before us who'd lost children as a result of auto accidents would very happily trade off those four months. But we have to reach out to those people who are saying that this is unfair to people in rural areas and try to persuade them that this is a reasonable way of helping them to save the lives of their children.
There was discussion about the passenger limits. The original legislation restricted the number of people in a car to the number of seatbelts. This has been amended. There were only two amendments that were made to the original draft bill, and that is that there should only be one passenger in the front seat, and in fact that passenger, in the case of level 1, must be the accompanying driver. This was considered to be reasonable because of the distraction value of having a lot of people in the front seat. Many people suggested to us that we should have it absolutely limited to one passenger in the car, but it was pointed out that in rural situations this would be a terrible inconvenience.
Turning once again to the question of exemptions, there was concern with respect to those people who are working overnight, maybe in some restaurant or going to some educational institution, that the restriction, the curfew between midnight and 5 am, was a problem. In level 1 it isn't a problem, because in any case in your 365 you are restricted to having an accompanying driver and that accompanying driver can drive during that period. So we feel that we made the right decision in terms of those tradeoffs.
I'd like to comment on the professionalism of the staff at MTO. These are people who have often dedicated 20 or 30 years of their life to working for that one ministry. They are extremely professional and understand the questions of safety, and they guided the members of the committee very well during these deliberations. We had some quite difficult decisions to make in terms of should be tighten up the legislation. I for one was certainly in favour of tightening up the legislation when I first saw it. I've been convinced by them that it was reasonable.
The last point I wanted to make was on the question of reciprocity with other jurisdictions. The concern was expressed that those people coming from countries or territories which didn't have reciprocal arrangements with Ontario would be unnecessarily hardshipped by this legislation. In fact, if they've got two years of experience, they will immediately go into level 2 and will forgo the need to have an accompanying driver or the curfew or the series 400 restrictions. I think that's reasonable, because we must have a fairly watertight system which will ensure the safety of everybody on our roads.
It's pleasant to say that we support the government on this. We would like them to have moved it through much quicker, but let's get on with it and let's have a safer Ontario.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Are there any questions or comments to the member for York Mills?
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to respond very briefly to the presentation made by my colleague the member for York Mills, which I saw from my office. He spoke very eloquently in support of the bill, the principle of the bill. I think he's played a very constructive role in the development of this bill. Certainly, this idea is not new. It's been kicking around for quite some time.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada has been endorsing the concept of another level of driver's licence for some time. We already have a graduated driver's licence in may ways, conventionally known as the 365, and then the permanent driving privileges, so there are already two levels of graduation, if you will. This additional level is a positive step.
I know that in rural Ontario, in the riding I represent, Wellington county, there are going to be some concerns about it, and I hope the government will be willing to look very favourably upon the concerns that will be presented. I understand my colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville hopes to speak to this bill today, and I think it's important that the differences that exist in rural Ontario vis-à-vis the city be recognized.
In rural Ontario we don't have the access to the absolutely superb public transit system that the city enjoys. It makes it such that we have to have our cars. When the government brings in taxes on fuel, we find it's very difficult for rural Ontario residents because they really have no choice; they have to have their cars, they have to drive.
I want to give the minister credit, just to tone down a bit, for the way he entered into the discussions on this bill. The idea was referred to a committee prior to it being legislation, and I think that's a positive reform that the government would do well to do more of. Certainly, the role that was played by my colleague the member for York Mills was exemplary in a positive and constructive way, and I'm looking forward to further comments this evening on this bill.
The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who have questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for York Mills has two minutes to respond.
Mr Turnbull: I would thank my colleague, and I'd further maybe get something else on the record, the question of older drivers. It's from a presentation that was made by Royal Insurance Co of Canada to the committee and it illustrates that even older drivers should be subject to graduated licences.
The case study: "A 28-year-old newly licensed driver was travelling with his wife, two children, another couple and their one child in the vehicle. The two men occupied the front seats and were belted. The two women, the insured's six-month-old infant and a four-year-old child as well as their friend's two-year-old were in the back seat and unbelted. The four-year-old announced the need to make a rest stop just as the vehicle approached an exit from the 401. The father attempted to slow the vehicle sufficiently to exit from the highway. He lost control and the vehicle rolled three or four times. His baby was ejected from the vehicle and crushed when it rolled on top of her. His four-year-old sustained minor injuries and his wife sustained a 12th thoracic vertebra fracture. His friend's two-year-old child sustained catastrophic brain injuries and the child's mother sustained a lumbar fracture which disabled her for some time."
That explains that indeed we should be applying graduated licences to adults, not just to younger people, as has perhaps been suggested.
I thank my colleague the member for Wellington for his comments and his concern about rural residents, which I think were very carefully considered and I believe can be accommodated in any future changes under regulations, based upon the way the bill has been drafted by the ministry.
The Acting Speaker: Are there further speakers?
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too would like to pick up on a fact that the member for Wellington brought forth, that being from rural northern Ontario and knowing the minister is from northern Ontario as well, I would certainly like to support this legislation in principle; however, as has been indicated in previous speakers' comments, the minister and the ministry should take a look at those very particular circumstances that face young drivers and drivers in northern Ontario.
It's been said on a number of occasions that we don't have the public transit that the people in places such as Toronto or Ottawa or the larger centres across the province have. I think the minister has to take into account the fact that we in northern Ontario depend much more on our ability to get out and to use the vehicle at our disposal. I have been approached by a good number of parents who look for that date when their son or daughter turns 16, because that ends, for them, the drives down to the local hockey arena at 6 o'clock in the morning, and for the practices in swimming.
They look forward to that date. I know they are kind of worried about what this legislation will do in terms of relieving them from those pressures. Again, I speak on behalf of a good number of young people in the riding of Kenora and across the north.
Something that alarmed me when I was listening a little bit earlier today was to note that there were hearings into this legislation; however, the hearings always took place in Toronto, Ottawa and St Catharines. If I can get the minister's attention, I must say, Mr Minister, that I'm quite surprised. He doesn't seem to be listening, but I am quite surprised that we did not have any hearings go possibly up to northern Ontario to hear those views that are quite different from those of southern Ontario who have access to public transit.
1820
I realize the importance of this legislation, as a former educator and as a person who has been associated with young people. I can recount a good number of tragedies. I can recount tragedies where we lost young people between the ages of 16 and 24. Whenever we take a look at the studies, whether they be done by the Insurance Bureau of Canada -- I don't care who does the studies, but we find that this is an area where accident rates are high and the fatalities in this age group are extremely high compared to other age groups.
This has been reinforced by a good number of statistics by a good variety of sources. I respect those statistics and, as I say, from personal experience, from knowing of five young girls, all under the age of 24, coming home from graduation actually, all being killed in a car accident very close to my riding, and knowing the person who had to go out and tell the parents, who happened to be down in Lake-of-the-Woods at that time on a houseboat, and knowing what he had to go through. Just having a bit of that personal background gives me the assurance that this is good legislation if the minister takes a close look at what it does to different areas of Ontario.
My leader, the honourable Lyn McLeod, has been quoted as saying on a good number of occasions across the province -- and of course being from the north, she knows -- that one size does not fit all. I think this is the perfect example of where this legislation will not fit all the circumstances across the province. I hope the minister will take a look at the amendment being put forward by my colleague, where he says that maybe the driver who has to be in the front seat with the young driver doesn't have to have four years' experience. Maybe two years' experience will be sufficient for that purpose.
I truly hope the minister watches the statistics as we get into this. As he's indicated, we'll be looking at the passage and possibly putting into enforcement in the spring, and I hope he watches very closely those areas it will affect.
Is this a new idea? Any of us who have been around the House over the past few months have heard that this is not a new idea. Being a pilot and an aviator, I have experienced the graduated licence where anybody who flies will know that we go through a very stringent system of graduated licensing, and it has had effect. When we speak of driving records, we take a look at New Zealand, a place where graduated driver licensing has been in effect, and we hear about the 25% reduction in accidents and serious injuries. I think that's very important.
I go back to the point on areas without public transit. The minister is going to have to watch this very carefully. These are quite often, as you would agree, areas of very low traffic volume. I in particular have experienced the driving throughout the north, where you may drive for two or three hours and see maybe a dozen vehicles on a very secluded stretch of highway. I often think of the highway going from the Trans-Canada to Red Lake, Highway 105. For that example, you would very seldom experience, in the middle of January, meeting maybe a dozen cars in an evening. I hope the minister takes that into account.
I think of the drive on the Trans-Canada Highway as well, and I think of the Dryden area where the highway has been upgraded greatly. I think of the volumes there and the people who are coming in from places such as Oxdrift, Dyment and Barclay. These are normally young people who have to travel along that highway to either go to school in Dryden or go to the arena, go for their swimming lessons or whatever. I certainly hope the minister takes that into account.
Reduction in cost of insurance is another question being asked by a good number of my constituents, especially parents who are paying for the insuring of their young drivers. They want to know what that will do. Of course, if we see the accidents and the injury rates going down, I would only assume that insurance rates would follow. I think the minister will have to keep a close eye on that area.
I've been asked a good number of times who out there is supporting this legislation. Again I go back to my personal experience, where I think of people who belong to various groups and what they think about this legislation, and I must say that the groups that were either presenting to the committee or have presented papers on this are increasing all the time and are showing that they are in favour of this legislation.
I think of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the people who are closest to the accidents when they occur; they support the legislation. Other police organizations see the need for this. Mothers Against Drive Driving, MADD, as they're known, are supporting this. Driving school associations of Ontario are in support of this legislation. These are all people who are very close to what is happening on our highways and across the province and groups that I respect for what they do in terms of educating people.
I just want to go through a number of letters. I must say that in the past two or three years this has been an issue that I have received a good amount of correspondence on, and as well, correspondence from mainly young people who are going to be affected by this legislation.
I have a letter from Dryden, and it's from Jill Bishop and Kathleen Schultz, who write: "We would like to express concerns over the proposed graduated licence. We do understand that it is dangerous to allow inexperienced drivers on the roads of downtown Toronto but," and they go, "c'mon, northwestern Ontario is not like that and here we do not have the busing or subway features larger cities do. Could there be exceptions for smaller communities such as ours?"
They reinforce the fact that I indicated earlier, that these young people are saying they need their drivers' licences to get to those places I indicated.
They go on to say: "A teacher has told us that driver's ed will not be available this coming fall due to government cutbacks, so under the proposed graduated licence we would have to wait a full year before obtaining our level 1."
I go back to my former life as an educator. I think one of the most successful programs in our education system and one that I must say possibly saved lives was that of drivers' education. I will certainly be calling upon this government to take another look at cutbacks in that area. The Minister of Transportation will have to approach his colleagues, such as the Minister of Education and Training, and take another good look at that program.
I think of a story, actually, when I had a parent come to me one time, a parent of a fairly bright youngster who was going through high school, probably a youngster who would have done well without our education system, but the parent made a point of coming to me and saying that the best thing that child got during his years in high school was the drivers' education program. He felt that had done a great amount for his son.
Just carrying on with Jill and Kathleen's letter, it says: "Waiting two years is not going to solve any problems. In fact, it may create problems because people are likelier to be angry at the system and break more of the rules. To really ensure that drivers get the experience they need, the Ministry of Transportation should enforce harder driving tests."
Coming from two younger people in Dryden, I think it's kind of interesting where they have actually called on the minister to take a look at the driving tests out there and possibly enforce even tougher restrictions when it comes to obtaining a driver's licence.
1830
I have another letter, from Karli Kurz, who is also a resident of Dryden. She feels "that the lack of information provided about the new graduated licence program has caused a great deal of uncertainty" in her school. We know we have the high schools out there, and the majority of the people who are going to be affected are in those particular institutions. I feel the minister should maybe take note and do a bit of a campaign to let people know.
I've got numerous letters here where we've just answered the very simple questions: "I turn 16 in January. Will this affect me?" "I turn 16 in May. Will this affect me?" "Does it mean I have to have mom or dad in the front seat of the car with me whenever I drive beyond the age of 17?" There are a good number of questions, and again I would suggest to the minister that he possibly promote what this is actually going to do.
Karli goes on to say, "I feel it isn't necessary for a community of Dryden's size to have to enforce a program such as this," and she refers to the lack of public transportation and the fact that there are very few cars in her area. She knows about Highway 401. I'm not sure whether it was her letter, but somebody indicated to me that they had been in Toronto and had seen the high volumes of traffic on the various 400 highways in Toronto, and they indicated that there was no way they would even think of driving on those types of highways without a good amount of experience or somebody with them.
But I go back to the fact that we're talking about Highway 105 going to Red Lake, that we're talking about the Trans-Canada through our small towns and the need for these drivers' licences.
I have a letter here from Jennifer Vogel of Dryden. She's writing on behalf of many students attending Dryden High School who would be affected by the change. She goes on to say that she does not think this one size will fit all and that northern communities should be looked at as separate and that the conditions of these communities should be looked at. She also talks about the fact that public transportation is just not there.
Here's a point that I found interesting, and it would be partially taken care of by the amendment put forth by my colleague earlier this evening. It says, "This limits our freedom to socialize with our own age group by depending on the accompaniment of older drivers." Of course what this person, Crystal Michaud, is referring to is the fact that there will have to have somebody there with four years' experience rather than two years, as was suggested in the amendment. Then she goes on to say: "I believe the government should have more accessible driver safety education programs. Many students were unable to participate because of the cost. Now that these programs are run by private individuals, these are even more expensive."
I agree with Crystal, who indicates that we need the driver education system back in our education system, especially in the north where quite often these programs are not accessible. I think of many communities in my riding where there is no driver's education program whether or not you want to pay for it, and of course it's not at this time being offered by the high school. That's a plea from the students saying we have to take a look at the education system, that this is going to make a difference in terms of the accessibility to their very much needed driver's licence.
To take a look at some questions and answers put out by the ministry itself, they say: "The government has cancelled funding for driver education courses in high schools. Doesn't that move contradict your goals of ensuring new drivers get more experience before driving on the roads?" I have to agree with that. I think it does contradict that, and I think the minister is certainly going to have to take a close look at what is being offered in our schools.
Mandy Koronniak from Dryden writes to tell me that she too is a grade 10 student, and she doesn't understand the reasoning behind this law and how it will make a difference. "I know that most driving accidents occur to people between the ages of 16 and 18." She's off a little on that stat, but we've sent her information to let her know that yes, the statistics are high for drivers between the ages of 16 and 24. We've certainly sent her information.
What I plan on doing too is getting clips of what's happened here in the House regarding this issue from the minister's most eloquent speech, for which I wish to send him an Academy Award for eloquence -- substance I'm not sure, but eloquence, he'll survive. I must say we're going to have to watch this legislation very closely. We'll have to watch to ensure that it does the number one thing the minister and other members have said it will do, and that of course is saving the lives of our younger people.
Will it reduce collisions? Will it reduce what's happening on our highways today and, again I mention, reduce the auto insurance rates? Parents, more than students, ask me that question.
I indicated earlier that I would be in support of this legislation in principle, being that the minister will take a look at the regulations; I look at it improving the traffic environment throughout the province. But I must go back to the amendment as put forth by my colleague from Ottawa, where he feels that the accompanying driver should be qualified with only two years' experience rather than the four years laid out in this legislation. From northern Ontario, I have to agree that would be of special assistance to the young people in my riding who will be going for their driver's licence.
I look forward to this legislation coming forth and I look forward to what it will do in terms of the numbers. My only hope is that the minister, a northern minister, one of our northern colleagues, will keep a close eye on this new bill and this introduction of legislation and ensure that it sets out an example and does the right thing for the young drivers of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Are there members who have questions and/or comments for the member for Kenora? Seeing none, are there further speakers in this debate?
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I will not take a great deal of time but, coming from a very large rural riding, I think some of the concerns have to be put on the record. I was pleased to see the minister here a moment ago. I know he's not far, and he's told me that he will be listening.
First of all, in the riding I come from the largest town is slightly more than 3,000. We do not have public transit and we barely have taxi service, and it creates a great dilemma for those people in rural Ontario. I'm going to be suggesting that for farm-licensed vehicles, those that have the farm designation where a purchaser qualifies as a farmer and has an F licence, a farm licence, and there are a number of those out in rural Ontario, that indeed they be exempted from most of the graduated licence requirements.
The first would be that indeed the driver be in the process of obtaining his graduated licence. At that stage of the game he would be entitled to drive the farm-licensed truck, and it could be anything from a half-ton pickup to a general dump truck used for hauling grain from farm B to farm A, to the elevator, to the storage, or from the field to the elevator in town where he may have to sit for a couple of hours, and this may well be at 11 o'clock at night, waiting for his turn to unload the grain at the elevator. At 1 o'clock in the morning, it would be totally illegal for this person to be driving whether there's someone with him or not, and that's not very fair to those farm boys who help on the farm. Heaven knows, these days farmers need their families to supply labour that does not cost minimum-wage-plus. Out in rural Ontario the profits are very, very slim.
Another example would be that dad is combining and all of a sudden there's a breakdown. Junior doesn't know very well how to take apart that broken piece, but he can take the farm pickup, go to town to the dealership, get the replacement part, come back, and provide a very valuable service.
1840
So I say to you that this legislation must consider rural Ontario for farm-licensed trucks, be it to go from one farm to another or to run those errands that are so necessary at the busy time of the season, whether it's seeding time or harvest time.
I would very, very much appreciate if the minister and his bureaucrats look at this possibility. The only exception would be that of course zero tolerance on alcohol would be adhered to. Outside of that, I say that farm youth, providing that they are driving a farm-licensed vehicle, should be exempt.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): For farm purposes.
Mr Villeneuve: Yes, for farm purposes, sure. Heaven knows, the farm pickup goes from the farm to town many, many times a week, several times a day at times, for those very necessary errands, and there may not be an older brother or mom may not be available to accompany junior. I see absolutely no problem in this being incorporated in this legislation.
I must also tell you that I will be supporting graduated licences in spite of the fact that it does discriminate to a good degree against some of our rural youth, particularly those who may well have to use series 400 highways. I can tell you that some of the worst traffic accidents and traffic deaths have not occurred, in my area at least, on series 400 highways. They've occurred on two-lane provincial highways, on county and municipal roads -- some of the most tragic accidents. I've lost good friends and neighbours in accidents that should never have happened, but they did happen, probably because of a number of reasons.
However, I say we must not stop the rural youth of Ontario, those involved in agriculture with their parents, from being able to do those very important things: running errands, delivering grain to the elevator, moving grain from farm A to farm B. And as you know, Speaker, the combining at harvest time happens well after midnight, in many cases; when spring seeding goes on, it happens after dark and very often around the clock when the forecast is calling for rain or inclement weather.
So I say to you that the minister and his bureaucrats must consider this. I only had the opportunity of sitting in committee for one day and this did not come up; it may have come up in other committee meetings. But I believe it deserves very serious consideration so that we can at least continue to provide cheap food for the people of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments?
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I need to talk a little about the fact that I agree, when it comes to children -- and I call them children still, especially when you look at a place like Woodbridge, which is just north of Yorkview -- driving at night, 16 years old, racing cars and killing themselves on roads. The member spoke about farms and about how he would like to amend the legislation so that people are able to use farm vehicles at night.
But I needed to talk about this, first of all to put it on record, and secondly to tell this Legislature that we are having problems with kids, children, 16 years old, drag racing on some of the streets just north of where I live and represent. What they do is get into their vehicle, and it's become a hobby to the point that they actually bet on who's going to win the races. I'm not sure whether that happens up north or not; perhaps the member could elaborate in terms of whether that happens up there.
But where I live, it's happening and it's happening consistently, and the parents are glad to see this piece of legislation. They feel this will put an end to all the deaths and all the accidents that happen just north of my particular area, and that would be the area of Woodbridge. I'm hoping that the member who represents Woodbridge might talk about this as well. I'd like some feedback in terms of how he feels and how his parents feel in that particular community.
Mr Arnott: I'm very pleased to stand and indicate my support for the very sensible suggestions that have been put forward by the member for S-D-G & East Grenville that farm licensed vehicles ought to be exempt from this legislation. He has outlined the reasons why that ought to be the case and he has indicated that farm work does not necessarily respect the hours of the clock.
Many times of the year, whether it be seeding or harvesting time, depending on the weather, farmers will indeed work around the clock, and I think it's essential that we provide this exemption so that we don't put undue hardship upon our farm families. I know many, many farm families where the youngsters, boys and girls actually, are directly involved in much of the farm work throughout the year, and I think it's a way of life that we ought to endorse and respect.
Of course we should have absolutely zero tolerance for alcohol even through this suggestion. Representing Wellington, I find that when I look over the number of tragic car accidents that have taken place involving young people over the past number of years, the vast majority of them involve alcohol late at night on a weekend. We're not talking about farm families in any way having any problems in this respect, but this is what's happening in rural Ontario, and the motivation behind the bill is to save young people's lives, I believe. Indeed, we've got to be very conscious about zero tolerance of alcohol.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has listened to what has been said and he will take forward his support for that particular amendment. I just hope that the Minister of Transportation, who has now returned, will look favourably upon this very sensible suggestion.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I think the member for S-D-G & East Grenville made a very valid point. The conundrum the government is in, and I think all parties are, which I think the member for Yorkview didn't quite understand, is the difference between driving in the rural community and driving in an urban centre.
Woodbridge is an urban centre. I think the difference between driving in Woodbridge and maybe the member's riding is for different purposes altogether. The member for Yorkview suggests that if you go out at night as a teenager, racing around in a car is one thing altogether, and I don't think you'd find anyone who'd be in favour of that kind of attitude towards approving drivers' licences for kids of any age.
Mr Mammoliti: You didn't listen.
Mr Stockwell: Having said that, there's a need in some ridings, particularly the rural ridings that my friend speaks about, that allows people at different age levels to get their licence not just to race around the farm or not just to race around their smaller communities but to provide a valuable service to the owners, to their parents.
Mr Mammoliti: See what happens when you yell and scream and you don't listen to what somebody is saying? You don't get the picture.
Mr Stockwell: This is the conundrum the government's stuck in, because you have members such as the member for Yorkview blathering on about an issue that is not what the member for S-D-G & East Grenville spoke to. I say to all members in here that when you're passing graduated licences, you must be very certain that you represent all the views across the province of Ontario.
Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Is this not questions and comments?
The Acting Speaker: Yes. That is not a point of order. The member may continue.
Mr Mammoliti: Well, I asked him a question.
Mr Stockwell: Thanks, Madam Speaker. Some of my time was taken up for some member to ask if this is not questions or comments.
All I would like to say is that maybe if the member for Yorkview understood the dilemma that the rural members are in, then he would understand the kinds of salient points of view that my member and my friend brings forward that address the real issues --
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, I'm trying to finish. I got a silly point of order from the member for Yorkview asking if it was questions or comments.
The Acting Speaker: Your time has expired.
Mr Stockwell: We all know it's questions or comments.
The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. Thank you. Any further members with questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville.
Mr Villeneuve: To the member for Yorkview: I know he represents a very urban riding and I will not dare stand in my place and tell you that rural youth do not race. They're young people. However, what I'm talking about is a farm vehicle, and not many farm vehicles -- this is a farm truck, and these young people have had experience at driving the farm truck in the fields and in the farm lane.
1850
They're pretty well coordinated, and I would say they're probably as good a driver in a tractor, in a combine or in a farm pickup. It's not for racing purposes, and if indeed we thought it was for racing purposes, I would not be on my feet asking that farm-licensed trucks, whether they're grain haulers or whether they're farm pickups, be exempt according to at least the requirements that I have asked.
To the member for Wellington: He represents a riding probably almost as rural as mine, and I think he understands, coming from a small town, and we very much feel that farm-licensed vehicles never were intended to go 140 kilometres an hour; they were intended to go to town and be basically chore vehicles, and that's what we're talking about.
Yes, there are some fancy farm trucks with farm-vehicle plates on them, but the majority of them are workhorses. We're not talking tractors here; we're talking about farm pickups and trucks that go the elevator to dump grain. Anything that qualifies for a farm plate has to be owned by a farmer and can be used for farm purposes only. You don't see them with campers on them, and if you do, it's illegal. So we're talking about strictly farm-licensed pickup trucks and those that haul grain to the elevator. I want to emphasize that.
To the member for Etobicoke West: Even if his riding is very urban, I think he understands rural problems.
The Acting Speaker: Are there other members who wish to participate in this debate?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Would members come to order.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: Come on, kick him out, Madam Speaker. He cuts me off, he jumps up in my question. You don't give me extra time.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West and the member for Durham East, please come to order. We would like to use this time. The member for St Catharines now has the floor.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. In the House it is said very often that members of the opposition oppose the government and its legislation no matter what, simply because they're the opposition and that's their responsibility.
That, of course, is not the case, though it happens often, and this is a piece of legislation which I believe has a very strong consensus among not only the three parties in the official positions of the parties but among the overwhelming majority of members of the Legislature, who believe that it is timely legislation and that it is progressive legislation. Even though there may be certain parts of it with which we are a bit uncomfortable, by and large we believe that this legislation -- I certainly personally believe -- is, in 1993, essential.
I'm sure that the minister and others in this House and those who have had input into this have watched one accident too many happen among young people in our province. Every time we see young people racing to the railway track in a car at high speeds and breaking various laws of the province -- and not really thinking about it, because young people often don't have that kind of caution that experienced people have -- we find it to be a tragedy. There are many people who are watching this evening or who are following this debate in one way or another who have had someone they know, whether it's someone in the immediate family or a relative or perhaps a friend or neighbour, who had been either killed or badly injured in a car accident.
When I have gone, as I do from time to time, to speak in high school classes, many of the students, particularly the younger students, do not always see the relevance of a political representative to their lives. I can assure members of the House that the young people in grades 9, 10 and 11 are particularly interested in their provincial politicians because we have the power, the jurisdiction and the responsibility to deal with legislation that governs their right to drive cars and the privilege that they would have bestowed upon them and the conditions under which they would be able to drive.
When I have discussed matters of driving with young people, I have asked them the question, "Why do you believe that the government today and many interest groups are advocating a system of graduated licensing, a system which would be tougher on new drivers than it is on experienced drivers?" -- and even though we say "new drivers" means people of all ages, very often the new driver is a young person, 16, 17 or 18.
When I ask the question, most of the students know the reason. The reason is that the statistics indicate clearly -- and they're not simply anecdotal statistics, they are statistics that are very bare, very to the point -- that the accident rate among new drivers and young new drivers is much higher than it is among experienced drivers.
This doesn't mean that people who are 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 years old are automatically better drivers or automatically more responsible people. But the chances are, the statistics show, that the more experienced driver and the older driver tend to be more cautious and more aware when driving and less likely to take the kind of chances that young people or new drivers might.
All of us, I believe, feel that we are better drivers today than we were when we started out, because of those experiences, because of looking at accidents on highways, because of observing other drivers and sometimes because of observing the consequences of our own bad driving habits when we are starting out.
So it seems to me that the government has found in this province a consensus, particularly among adults, certainly among parents and those concerned about matters of driving for young people -- there's a strong consensus out there that some kind of legislation, some kind of graduated licensing system is required.
In fact, if you look back in the history of the province, not all that long ago, you will see that we've had different rules for brand-new drivers and different rules for those who have been driving for some period of time. So this is an evolution rather than a revolution taking place in terms of legislation.
I have talked to people who go to accident scenes, the police officers and members of fire departments, who have a very difficult time. You, Madam Speaker, being from Niagara Falls and having access to the local media, may have seen a column, for instance, by John Nicol, who has written as the Bystander in the St Catharines Standard. He wrote a very recent column about a youngster in the prime of life, with everything going for him, who was killed in a car accident.
I don't know whether, if that individual had been exposed to a graduated licensing system at the beginning, it would have made a difference, but in many cases there is a belief that it would make a difference with so many young people in our province, or new drivers, if they'd had more stringent regulations, more stringent laws, more stringent limitations placed on them in their early days of driving, that they would develop driving habits which were different from those who did not have those same restrictions.
It's not out of a sense of meanness, it's not out of a sense of wanting to put down young people, it's not out of a sense of arrogance that members of this Legislature, who are generally older than the new drivers, for the most part obviously, that we see out there, are wanting to lord it over these people or wanting to exact some punishment. Rather it's because of a genuine concern for the life and safety of those young people and new drivers that we are in fact debating this legislation and discussing it.
Some members of the Legislature sat on a committee that went across the province. I think when they reported back, the consensus they reported among those who made representations to that committee was a consensus in favour of a graduated licensing system.
Unlike photo-radar, with which I happen to disagree, I find this a much more acceptable piece of legislation. When I hear government members say, "You people are just opposing it because we're the government and we're bringing it in," I happen to oppose that bill for another set of reasons; I happen to agree with this bill for a number of reasons.
1900
I hope the minister and the government will take into consideration some of the suggestions that have been made, perhaps by their members in a quieter and more confidential way and by members of the opposition in a more public way through amendments in this House. I would hope they would give serious consideration to those amendments.
I represent an area which is almost exclusively urban. My riding is all urban except for one small strip on the east side of the Welland Canal. Therefore, the young people in my community by and large have access to public transportation; they don't have far to go to their schools or to the recreational centres or to libraries or to services or to work, not as far as people would have if they resided in a rural community.
I have driven through some of the rural communities, including East Grenville and Dundas and the counties in eastern Ontario; Glengarry, I've driven through there; I've been through Nepean. I've not been through Lake Nipigon yet, but I'm looking forward to being there. I can certainly see that the circumstances are somewhat different for drivers in that part of the province. For instance, kids who play basketball in St Catharines can hop on a bus and go almost anywhere in the city. They can easily get, in a short period of time, from one place to another in the city; they don't have to drive on provincial highways.
But my friend from Renfrew North, Mr Conway, in previous discussions of this matter has suggested that in his part of the province the rules are different: There is not public transportation available, the distances the students must travel are somewhat farther than they are for those of us in urban centres, and the way the schools operate in terms of their hours of operation may be somewhat different from the urban areas.
So I would hope the government would give serious consideration to the amendments. Many of them I think are very practical amendments put forward by the member for Nepean and the Conservative critic in this field. And I said to give serious consideration, because very often the government dismisses them virtually out of hand because they're from the opposition. If the government would feel more comfortable adopting them as its own amendments, that would be equally reasonable and acceptable to those of us in the opposition, because our role isn't to score points in this particular debate but rather to see the best possible piece of legislation being brought forward.
We're living in a different society today. When I used to teach school, in a classroom of, say, 35, 36, 37 or 38 -- those classrooms are virtually unheard of these days, but in those days, perhaps there might be two or three or four of the students who came from single-parent families. Today, very often the case is that at least half come from single-parent families, and that's more onerous on the young people and on the one parent than in circumstances where there are two parents at home, both of whom may have access to a vehicle and be able to drive people. When it's one parent and that person is working, it is particularly onerous for that youngster to be able to get from one area to another, to play hockey or some other sport, or to go to violin lessons, or whatever that person happens to do.
That's why I think it's important to take that into consideration when we're passing this legislation. We have to also look, whenever we pass laws, to whether we are simply going to make more criminals out of people -- I say "criminals;" that's probably too strong a word -- whether we're making more lawbreakers out of people by making the laws such that they almost invite a breaking of that law.
But by and large, the legislation that is before us today is supportable. The member for Nepean talked about the process; I don't think he's formed a final opinion on whether the consultation previous to the bill was better than having a consultation once the bill is before us. I guess in the best of all worlds it would be good to have both; in other words, a fairly general consultation before the bill comes forward on issues related to highway safety and licensing, and then when the bill in its final form comes forward that there be an opportunity -- limited, I understand, but an opportunity -- for public input from people who may have some different ideas that might improve the legislation, or even for those who might be opposed outright to have a say in this legislation.
The insurance companies indicate clearly that the reason they rate young people higher in terms of premiums than they do older people, or new drivers as opposed to more experienced drivers, is that first of all they have something to go on with experienced drivers. They're not taking a chance on those people as much if they've driven for 15 years and been accident-free and not incurred too many fines or violations to the Highway Traffic Act. That's one thing that's easily explained.
But when young people have asked me as a legislator when I visited the schools, "Why are my insurance rates so high?" we really go back to the fact that insurance companies over the years have come up with or established those rates based on the record of driving. Even though a new, young driver may be an excellent driver, perhaps a much better driver than I on the highways and on the city streets, that person's general category -- in other words, a young person just getting a licence perhaps in the mid-teens -- the general rating of those people is going to be much higher in terms of premiums because of the experience the insurance companies have had with those young people.
It is also said, and this doesn't always happen, that the older people get the less they are thrilled by some of the things that motor vehicles can do and that there's not as much of a need to impress others once one has been driving for a number of years. There are still people of course who are bad drivers when they're very old and feel they must show off, but by and large that tends to happen more among young people.
I would like to have seen suggestions from young people. I would like to have seen this bill -- maybe the minister did this and I wasn't aware of it -- sent out to various secondary schools in our province, or the ideas, so that it could be discussed in the classroom. It was interesting that although some of the young people, with a vested interest, opposed this, most of them thought it was a great idea if they were grandfathered or grandmothered. In other words, if they were able to get their licence and then you started it after that, they thought that was a pretty good idea as long as they weren't personally affected by it. It's much like saying that we all agree with cuts in government expenditures until you ask where you would like those cuts to be, and then there tends to be something of a debate over that.
I hope that as a result of this legislation a couple of things happen. The first hope is that we will see a diminishing in the number of motor vehicle accidents in this province. That's the immediate impact I'm looking for: that we're not going to see as many young people in accidents, because accidents can still happen, but that the risk of accidents that are of a fatal nature to young people will be reduced significantly; second, that the rate of accidents where there is bodily damage incurred diminishes considerably; third, that the damage to vehicles is much less than it was in the past.
All of that should have the impact of bringing down insurance rates, because if the insurance companies don't have to pay out as much they won't have a justification for taking in as much in terms of the premiums.
In the longer term, I think the advantage of this legislation is to build good habits in drivers. In other words, if one is significantly restricted in the early days, early weeks and early months of driving, then one tends to develop much better habits than if there are virtually no restrictions, when one simply gets a licence and then drives whichever way one wishes to. I think there may be some lifelong consequences, and I think they're positive consequences, through the passage of this legislation, and I look forward to that.
We will likely have, as a result, a generation of better drivers than we have had in the past. That remains to be seen, because there are more young people who have access to automobiles in this generation than the last generation or that previous to it.
1910
I still have some qualms about the people who live in rural ridings. If we had a freer ability to speak in this House -- there are a lot of government members here. I wonder if they would be able to share some of their experiences -- they probably have through the caucus procedure, but I wish they would share them with the House.
I see that the member for Niagara South is here. She has a different kind of riding than I have; she has some urban centres but also some rural territory. I don't know how well it would work; I don't have to deal on an immediate basis in my constituency with people who have to travel in the rural areas as much as she would. She probably has some more immediate insights into the consequences of this legislation, which, as I say, is generally extremely positive but may need some amending to take that into consideration, particularly, as Mr Villeneuve indicated to the House, in the operating of farm vehicles.
The Minister of Agriculture and Food is here this evening and likely has had some input into this bill. He may want to have some further input. I can't say that I have an immediate knowledge of the operation of a farm; I have not lived on a farm. I've been on the odd farm, but I can't have that personal experience of it. I wonder whether there are some provisions that might be made to accommodate farm vehicles or whether the problem is just as great. I think others will know that better than I, but I hope the government has looked very carefully at that.
I remember speaking to -- and this is where it becomes very difficult. This is where, when there's a debate over these issues, one tends to come down on the side of the consensus that was reached in this legislation. I recall talking to a friend of mine who had the unenviable job as a fireman of having to remove from a vehicle a young person he used to coach at one time in baseball. It was an accident that happened in the north end of my community and a person was very badly injured, eventually fatally, and this person had the job of using the jaws of life to pry open the car and pull the young person out.
Well, you don't go home and sleep easily after that. I know that members of the fire department who have that very difficult task and members of the police department who often arrive on the scene first would likely be among the most supportive of this kind of legislation, just as the insurance companies for economic reasons would be. Those other people, for very human reasons, would be, as of course would be parents and friends and relatives of those who have experienced fatalities and serious bodily injuries as a result of driving habits and young people and the way young people, some young people, have acted.
It is most unfortunate. I think all members of this House find it unfortunate that a penalty will be paid by all young people because of a much higher risk among that age category of serious accidents happening.
I am pleased to offer a few comments here this evening, to offer comments in support of this legislation in a general sense, and to urge the government to give very serious consideration to the suggestions which have been made by their own members on a more confidential basis in the government caucus and cabinet and by members of the opposition and perhaps a few others who have made representations to this committee.
I think this bill has potential to be very positive for this province. I want to assure the Minister of Transportation of our support for its concept and for its implementation in a timely fashion.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions and comments?
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I've listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I too had a similar experience with some young people in my riding. I was invited to go to a rural high school, getting on to two years ago now, to explain to them the process of how we make laws and how they come to pass in this Legislature. I used as an example, to explain to them the process, the graduated licence process. I'll tell you, they ate me up like anything. They got very angry about it. They said in no uncertain terms, "We'll never vote for you." The strange part of it is that by the time 1995 comes around, those people will be of voting age and I tremor at the thought of this.
Anyway, I stand in my place tonight and support this legislation 100%, because I think that as legislators here, we're sent here by our peers to represent them and we have a definite role to play here in saving lives of the young community, and there's no doubt about it that this legislation will do that.
I too, like some of my other colleagues, have some concerns as it affects rural people. I have a large rural area in my riding. I have a granddaughter who works in Bowmanville and she has to drive herself, now that she's got her licence, to and fro. Before that, it was a real burden to her mother and father, and always someone there to drive her. I understand that burden of getting young people in the country to and from their work.
I also have some empathy with highways where people have to traverse the 401. They're not allowed to go on that, I understand, to get to their jobs. I have a lot of empathy with that too, but I still like to think that the most important thing we're talking about here is the saving of young lives. Those terrible accidents involving young people across the province lately have really upset a lot of people and this will go a long way towards preventing any recurrence of that.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I think the member for St Catharines, as we say in our prayers, has spoken wisely and well, and I say in particular wisely because I think his experience in the House here has shown, because he's putting forward a very reasoned argument and putting both sides of the question forward and coming down in this case in favour of this legislation, which he does not always do, because when he weights the pros and cons, more often than not, unfortunately with this government, he has to come out on the no side, but on this one he supports it. One of the reasons is because he stays in touch with his own community, and he makes reference to his visits to high schools.
I would like to mention something that the minister, I think, would be interested in and that I was extremely proud of. The public health nurses in Ottawa-Carleton invited me about two weeks ago to speak to them about the graduated licences. Frankly, I thought it was great that the public health nurses looked at this measure as a public health issue, and I think they're right. They're right because this measure, certainly about the younger people, is one that affects the mortality rate very significantly. If the public health nurses, through their high schools, can do something to convey what the government is trying to do here, to convey the attitudes that will help people to be better drivers, then I think they really will do a great service to our communities.
I must say I was very pleased and impressed by the public health nurses, that they took that initiative to invite me, not as a Liberal member but as someone who took part in the hearings on graduated licences. I spoke to them, I would like to assure the minister, on a non-partisan basis and I think they were pleased to hear what we're trying to do here and why we're trying to do it. I certainly encourage other public health nurses across the province to do the same thing.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for St Catharines, you have two minutes.
Mr Bradley: Very often the public asks members of the Legislature and those of us in the political process to work together for the good of the province, or the federal jurisdiction or the local jurisdiction, and very often we find ourselves in a position of confrontation. I think this legislation is a fine example of the development of a consensus of working together to support legislation that we believe to be good, and to try to improve on that legislation.
Another way they could improve, and this was mentioned previously by the member for Nepean, is that they would have to ensure that there's good staff available to do the testing. One of the complaints that we get at our constituency offices now, on an ongoing basis, is the length of time, particularly in urban areas, where young people and new drivers have to wait, perhaps up to six months, before they're able to get an opportunity to try out for a licence.
Since this legislation suggests that there shall be two tests that would take place, it means that the Minister of Transportation will have to ensure that the transportation offices, particularly the driver testing offices, are staffed in such a manner as to be able to serve those people in the province. If they did so, they would find much of the resistance to this evaporating among the parents who are generally themselves very supportive.
Perhaps part of it is an influx of young people and new drivers into the driving centre so that they could get their licence before this legislation came into effect, but I hope the minister in the implementation of this bill would look carefully at the staffing levels at those various testing centres and ensure that the young people have that chance to be able to get their licence, to have the test at the very least, and be able to use their vehicle for both recreational and perhaps work purposes.
1920
The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words with regard to Bill 122, but before I get into my remarks I want to comment briefly on the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, who made some comments which the member for Downsview didn't really think were appropriate because he's talking about rural Ontario.
I just want to refer to the member for Downsview a little saying that goes like this: "Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your city will spring up again as if by magic, but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets." That's a pretty good saying, when you really think of it, with regard to what some urban people think of rural Ontario. You should never speak about farmers when you've got your mouth full, because they're the ones who really put the food there.
I want to say a few words with regard to Bill 122, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which would create a graduated licensing system for novice drivers in Ontario. Under the provincial government's proposed graduated licensing system, all new drivers, regardless of age and life experience, will enter a two-level process lasting a minimum of 20 months for level 1 new drivers. They will be allowed to drive only class G vehicles: cars, vans, small trucks. They will be allowed to carry only as many passengers as there are seatbelts in the vehicle.
They may drive only when accompanied by a fully licensed driver with at least four years' experience who has a blood alcohol level of less than 0.5%. I should stop right there because I firmly believe that there should be zero tolerance; it should be 0%.
The novice driver will be required to maintain a zero blood alcohol level. He will not be permitted to drive on 400 series highways and some multi-lane urban expressways, and he will be restricted from driving between the hours of midnight and 5 am and will be required to display a vehicle sign identifying himself as a new driver, which I kind of thought was optional.
Level 1 will last for 12 months, but drivers will be able to reduce this time period to eight months if they successfully complete an approved driver education course, which I firmly believe everyone should.
To enter level 2, new drivers will be required to pass a basic driving test with a government examiner. Level 2 is where more privileges are granted, but the blood alcohol and passenger limitations remain at least a minimum of 12 months. At the end of level 2, drivers will have to pass an advanced test focusing on their ability to recognize and take appropriate actions in hazardous situations.
A graduated licensing system with familiar conditions and time limits will also be recommended for all first-time motorcycle drivers in the province.
I will be supporting Bill 122 in principle because I have always believed that driving is not a right; it is a privilege that must be earned by demonstrating common sense, driving skills and knowledge of the rules of the road.
I understand the Ministry of Transportation issues more than 350,000 new drivers' licences each year, and no other province sets tougher standards for testing and licensing than Ontario. It is extremely sad that there is overwhelming statistical evidence that inexperienced drivers pose a very serious safety threat, a threat not only to themselves but to other people on the roads. Traffic collisions are the leading killer of people between the ages of 16 and 24 in Ontario, but statistics show that all new drivers, regardless of their age, have a much higher collision rate than experienced drivers.
Driving examiners, driver trainers and safety experts have indicated to me that the likelihood of becoming involved in a collision is greatly reduced if the new driver gains experience gradually in conditions where the risks are low. Some studies suggest that it takes between two and five years of driving to develop all the skills and judgement needed to avoid collisions.
The people of Ontario are concerned and upset every time they pick up a newspaper and read about traffic and tragic deaths on our roadways. Too many of these deaths involve novice drivers. There were 213,669 traffic collisions in Ontario during 1991, resulting in more than 90,000 injuries and more than 1,100 deaths. Based on the 1991 statistics, road crashes injure someone in Ontario every five minutes, and every eight hours someone is killed.
It has been estimated that collisions cost Ontario taxpayers approximately $4 billion a year in lost wages, including health care, insurance claims and property damage. Speeding and loss of control have been found to be two major factors in collisions that result in deaths.
Almost half of the traffic-related deaths among 16- to 24-year-olds occur when they are driving the vehicle, and a significant portion of the other deaths in this age group occur when the victims are passengers in vehicles driven by persons of the same age group. More deaths involving new drivers occur on highways than on city streets, and a great many -- far too many -- involve alcohol.
I understand that the intention of earning driving privileges under graduated licensing is to ensure that new drivers acquire driving experience, especially in low-risk conditions that reduce the chance of a collision, thereby reducing the chance of serious or fatal injuries.
To complement the proposed graduated licensing system, the Ministry of Transportation plans to take corrective action to deal with new drivers who display poor behaviour while on the road by using the existing intervention system of warning letters, driver counselling sessions and licensing suspensions sooner for new drivers than for drivers with full privileges.
I was eager to determine how the young people who will be directly affected by Bill 122 feel about this important piece of legislation, so last September I wrote to student council presidents at Patrick Fogarty Secondary School in Orillia, Elmvale District High School in Elmvale, Orillia Collegiate and Vocational Institute in Orillia, Penetang Secondary School in Pentanguishene, St Theresa's High School in Midland, Midland Secondary School in Midland, Twin Lakes Secondary School in Orillia, and Park Street Collegiate Institute in Orillia.
I forwarded each of these council presidents an information package regarding graduated licensing, asking them to bring this material to the attention of their fellow students and requesting that they provide me with their comments. To date, I have not received a response from any of the student council presidents. I assume that they and their fellow students support the idea of a graduated licensing system.
This is certainly not the case with respect to an Oro township resident who attends secondary school in Barrie. Jordana Simek wrote to me the following letter in early October:
"My name is Jordana Simek. I am a grade 10 student attending Eastview Secondary School. I reside in Oro township on concession 6, lot 11" -- the great township I was born in. "The government's proposal to legislate graduated licences is unfair to the majority of 16- to 17-year-olds who are responsible. I do not intend to become intoxicated and drive dangerously. How many deaths have been caused by 16- to 17-year-old females and how many by males of the same age range? The legislation punishes the majority and merely delays the same youths in acting irresponsibly. Living in the country, a mode of transportation is necessary. Don't make us walk because they broke the law. I would greatly appreciate you presenting my and many other future voters' point of view at Queen's Park."
The minister will know that not all people and young people are in favour of this legislation. I wanted to make sure that that was on the record, because it is not unanimous.
Keith Elliott, who is the centre supervisor at the Ministry of Transportation driver examination centre in Orillia, says he agrees with the principle of Bill 122. Mr Elliott suggests it will attack the very real problem of peer pressure that has resulted in the tragic injury and deaths of so many young people in Ontario. Now, he admits that there will be some bugs in the new graduated licensing system, but nothing that can't be overcome in time.
1930
Robert Gow of Young Drivers of Canada in Orillia and a member of the Road Safety Educators' Association supports a graduated licensing system. Mr Gow suggests that novice drivers should be required to keep a driving logbook to prove that they've driven at least 2,000 kilometres accident-free before they are eligible to take an exit test. He suggests the incentive for proper driver training should result in novice drivers getting on the road sooner.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): It's cars we're talking about.
Mr McLean: The minister says it's cars we're talking about. Well, Minister, that's what we are talking about, because I'm talking to people who are involved in the driving schools.
Len Thomas of Len's Driving School in Orillia says the proposed graduated licensing system is good in principle but requires some fine-tuning. He suggests that the accompanying licensed driver not be allowed to consume any alcohol rather than the 0.05 blood alcohol level allowed in Bill 122. Mr Thomas goes on to say: "It doesn't make a lot of sense to have a licensed passenger half-drunk, monitoring a driver the same age as the passengers in the back seat. Kids are still kids."
I probably have had more driver education schools in contact with me than the minister has. Mr Thomas recommends making driver training mandatory. He suggests retaining the 25 hours of classroom instruction and increasing the in-car training from the current 10 hours to 20 hours, which would be 10 hours' driving under winter conditions and 10 hours under summer conditions.
Bonnie Soestmeyer of Bonnie's Driving School in Orillia says not all kids are bad drivers and not all novice drivers are kids. Ms Soestmeyer says it is most unfortunate that Bill 122 paints all novice drivers, young and old, with the same brush.
It is time to put an end to the tragic traffic collisions that are the leading killer of people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this province. We all agree that improving safety on our roads will save lives. But it will also save on insurance, health care costs and lost time at work and school.
These are costs to each Ontario resident and they all add up to more than $4 billion each year. Clearly, this is an issue that is above partisan politics. Making our roads safer is a responsibility we all share.
As I said earlier, driving is not a right; it is a privilege that must be earned by demonstrating common sense, driving skills and knowledge of the rules of the road.
There are a couple of concerns that I have with regard to this bill. We have a law in this province that says age 19 is the drinking age. Why is it that we are putting stuff in this legislation, and there are many pages of it, that have to do with regard to the issue of suspension of licence for 12 hours?
It says, "Where, upon demand of a police officer made under subsection (2), a novice driver fails or refuses to provide a sample of breath or provides a sample of breath which, on analysis by a provincially approved screening device, registers 'presence of alcohol,' the police officer may request the novice driver to surrender his or her licence." I don't think that they should be allowed to have any alcohol if they are a novice driver.
It goes on and says, "Upon a request being made under subsection (3) or (4), the novice driver to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver's licence to the police officer and, whether or not the novice driver is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her licence is suspended and invalid for any purpose for a period of 12 hours from the time the request is made."
Why, Minister, are there all these sections in here with regard to alcohol for the novice driver? There are all kinds of drivers who can get their licence and start taking the course at 16 years of age. So I say to you, there need to be some corrections with regard to issues that you have, suspension of licences, within that legislation.
A couple of other questions that I had, to the Minister. The problem I have is with regard to rural Ontario where an individual loses her spouse. She's probably 50 or 55 or 60; it doesn't matter what the age limit is. She's not a novice driver, such as the accident rate shows for the 16- to 24-year-olds. I think there should be somewhere in there that they could bring that on quicker, that they could do their driver's ed, do their testing, and not have to wait the year or the 20 months, as is in the legislation, because there's been a tragic thing happen. I hope that you would look at that issue.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Some of them have had a driver's licence for 20 years and haven't driven for 20 years.
Mr McLean: That's right, but they're not the ones who are in the high accident bracket either, those types of people.
The minister had indicated there are lots of people who don't get their licence until they're 30 or 40, but the argument to that fact is that they should be able to --
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): But he says they have their licences and don't use them.
Mr McLean: Anyhow, the other question I have is, is there a provision in here for new Canadians who didn't have a licence before -- are they included in this legislation? The other part of that question is, if they've had a licence and they've driven on the autobahn and are used to speeding in that part of the world, should they be brought in and given a test?
There are some questions that are unanswered in this legislation. When we look at the whole essence of this bill, we agree with it. I think it's long overdue, but there are some minor issues that I think the minister should look at.
Therefore, it is my right and my privilege to support Bill 122 to amend the Highway Traffic Act so that we will have a better province to drive in. I thank you for the opportunity to put these remarks.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I'd like to take this opportunity, while supporting the bill, to raise some questions around a broader context. We should be looking at traffic. We're interested in reducing societal costs, we're interested in reducing accidents, and I have yet to hear advocacy of alternatives, which I would call car reduction and traffic calming. Valid as the reasons for this bill are, the problem is the car. The problem is the volume of traffic, and we must be designing a system, a context, in which people can get around.
The previous speaker mentioned whether driving is a right or a privilege. It probably is a privilege, but I believe that transportation has to be a right. I noted his comments about the difficulties in rural Ontario. I would submit that the problem is the lack of public transportation, so we have this car dependency built in. I've had some very interesting discussions with people in the alternative transportation movement and some of them take the rather interesting, radical approach of comparing car dependency with dependency on cigarettes and other noxious substances.
I think this bill will in fact make some people less car-dependent. I myself have three daughters of driving age; two of them are graduated. They don't have cars. They are bicycle-dependent, if anything, and public transport-dependent. There are more and more young people who want to be in that group and they can live with this legislation by virtue of not even wishing to drive. I think we must not forget that and I think we have a responsibility as members to develop non-car alternatives.
1940
Mr Miclash: I'd just like to make a couple of comments on the comments made by the member for Simcoe East. He was indicating that somebody has come to him with the idea of the use of a driver's log book. After being a teacher of 16-year-olds and students who are aged 16 and onwards, I think not. I can't really see the actual imposing of that restriction on a driver and then, if that were made part of the law, just enforcing that portion of the law.
The Minister of Transportation indicated that, yes, it does work well in aviation, but I must say that in aviation you're looking at many backups where you have flight plans, medicals every year or two years, aircraft logs corresponding with the pilot's log. But in terms of requesting a young person from the ages of 16 to 24 to actually keep a log in their possession and keep it updated, again I think not.
The member touches on rural Ontario and I think he brings up some very valid points in terms of the lack of public transportation there.
My fellow colleague indicated his recommendation or amendment to this, where the driver beside the young driver, who is actually in control of the vehicle, should only have to have two years' experience. I think that would definitely help alleviate that problem.
I go back to my initial point that one size does not fit all, and I do hope the Minister of Transportation, a minister from the north, will recognize that as this becomes law and as it goes into effect.
The last thing I would like to comment on is the member referring to driver education, and I can't emphasize too strongly the need for that program in our education system. Again, I do hope the Minister of Transportation will coordinate his efforts to ensure that this is brought forth to all young drivers across this province.
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I too would like, first of all, to express appreciation to the member for Simcoe East for the way in which he's presented the views of certainly my constituents as well tonight on this bill. It's a time for leadership in the province of Ontario, and Mr McLean has tried, through his own example and through his work in this Legislature, to have a progressive view of how people handle vehicles of any kind.
I know it doesn't apply totally, but it's too bad this bill couldn't carry an amendment for people who are driving boats on the waterways. Certainly that's an area in which he has had a tremendous amount to say, and when he is Minister of Transportation for the province of Ontario, I can assure you that you'll be seeing some major breakthroughs and improvements with regard to safety of those who are driving any kind of water vehicle. Again, I want to express, certainly on behalf of my constituents, a thank you for the remarks from Mr McLean.
I think there has to be tremendously good sensitivity on the part of the government and all members of the Legislature when there's a consensus brewing --
Interjections.
Mr Cousens: -- and I'm worried that Mr Mills is about to destroy the consensus. It's one thing to be carping away there -- you're so used to doing that in government -- but what we're trying to say is, find a way in which we can achieve some consensus on need for amending this bill that understands some of the rural needs of the province of Ontario. If, through the Legislature, we're able to find some ways of understanding that the rural population has a need that is somewhat different from urban municipalities, then that will have again shown that this House is able to moderate its views and work for a consensus where everyone can benefit.
I just want to thank the member for Simcoe East for his excellent remarks.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I wish to comment on the member for Simcoe East's comments. He made reference to the education aspect, driver education. I'm wondering, in his opinion, who should be paying for that driver education? As we know, for a lot of working families, it's one of the last things on their priority list to be dealt with as far as spending.
When he talks about the statistics -- and I want to get back to the statistics that he used in a minute. But I know he made reference to rural Ontario. As one who comes from rural Ontario -- you talked about the young people not paying attention or not writing, or they feel they're in consensus with it -- I'm sure that a lot of young people really don't understand the legislation until they reach the ripe age of 15 1/2, getting close to 16. They'll start to understand the impacts that the legislation might have.
But when he made reference to his statistics about the deaths and accidents that occur, I take it then the member opposite from Simcoe East will be supporting photo-radar, which will help reduce the traffic speeds that are out there.
I also wanted to ask the member for Simcoe East, as we always make reference to the four-wheel vehicles, about his viewpoint dealing with motorcycles. I heard the issue about boats being brought up. You know, there is always an interest at the age of 16, not necessarily to have a car but to look at a motorcycle because it seems to be a part of the style that is in our communities.
So I'm wondering about the restrictions that he himself, who is supposed to be progressive, as I listened to the member before me speak about a progressive member's viewpoints -- what stipulations would be there dealing with motorcycles? Because you're dealing with some of the 750 cc or 1,000 cc rockets that they're developing today, and a lot more young people are pulling up the front wheels of their motorcycles.
But to that member, I take it that with the statistics you brought forward today, you'll be supporting photo-radar. Also, I wonder where you're getting the information. Is it just a $10 saving for insurance when we take this driver training, or are there going to be bigger savings for the young drivers or the new drivers on auto insurance, where you said there would be a reduction?
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe East, you have two minutes to reply.
Mr McLean: I welcome the comments that have been put forward, and I would like to comment to the last member, Mr Hope from Chatham-Kent, with regard to motorcycles. If he will read tomorrow's Hansard, he will see where I spoke about them when I was making my remarks.
The other aspect he raises is with regard to photo-radar. If he wants to look at the legislation that deals with photo-radar and the rights of people that have been taken away, I think he will understand why many members in this Legislature will be voting against photo-radar.
On your comments with regard to high school students, I'm going to tell you that Ms Simek, who wrote me the letter with regard to graduated driver's licensing, is probably speaking for a very large number of students in Ontario. As I indicated, I did not get a lot of results from the questionnaire, the letter that I sent to the school student councils, but I'm going to tell you, there are a lot of them out there who are concerned about it.
I want to thank the member for Scarborough East for the rural statistics that he talked about with regard to the number of passengers in the vehicles. I often think that for our rural people, the people like Simek, whom I mentioned in my remarks, if that individual, a young student who lives on the 6th concession of Oro, had the opportunity to spend some time to get her graduated licence but could drive alone, without having other students in her car, I think in rural Ontario that would be something for due consideration.
The member for Kenora talked about the driver education, and I think that's so important. When we look at boating education, why is the ministry not looking at that whole aspect? They're looking at snowmobile education, which they're sponsoring. What's the matter with sponsoring boating education?
I thank Mr Cousens, the member for Markham, for his comments, because he's always a member who knows what's going on in this Legislature and speaks highly of those who put forth good remarks.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's very interesting that we have an opportunity to stand today and debate what is called An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, because it leads people to believe that this is sort of a routine matter, an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, an act that has been in force for several years. Oftentimes when we deal as legislators with the Highway Traffic Act, they are changes of minor importance to a whole series of people.
That's not the case with this bill. This series of amendments, some of them for the right reasons, I might say, is important for the nature of business in this province. Historically, we have been a nation where all of the people in our province have had to put their shoulders to the wheel, so to speak, to make sure that we functioned economically. Families got together to make sure that family farms and family businesses ran efficiently and effectively enough to stave off the bankers and anybody else who would try and put us out of business.
In that regard, we have had for a long time an understanding that somebody who was 16 years of age, if he could pass a driver's test, would be capable of being able to drive in this province. We have, as a result of some unfortunate incidents -- many unfortunate instances -- come to the conclusion that there has to be something more done to safeguard our young people against accidental death and injury on our highways.
Whether this series of amendments will be the right approach for me is not yet proven. I will admit right up front that I am a parent of a 16-year-old daughter who has not yet obtained her driver's licence but who does have what has usually been known as the 365-day licence. She is now taking training through driver education courses and she is doing what has usually been the case for all of the 16-year-olds in the province.
1950
As it turns out, I didn't happen to go through that same regimen. I was a farm boy. I drove tractors. I drove vehicles of all shapes and descriptions prior to becoming 16. I actually didn't even apply to get a licence for a vehicle on the road until I was 17 because I hitchhiked. I had no real need to drive the car, at least in my own view, and I did hitchhike. I hitchhiked home from school, and from the university. I hitchhiked home from school after football practices. I hitchhiked between the University of Western Ontario and the University of Guelph where friends of mine were attending and where my girlfriend, now my wife, was attending school. I did all of those things because it was a way of getting around.
But, to be quite honest, I had the option of doing that first because I was male and the sense was that it wasn't all that dangerous to hitchhike. I don't think it was even considered in those days to be particularly dangerous to hitchhike if you were female, but that of course has all changed. Everything has changed with respect to violence to young people, and although we observed today in the House a sense that we can no longer allow violence against women in this province, I would have to say, as a matter of understatement, that we pay too little attention to the fact that there is violence throughout our society, which means that more formal requirements for transportation and communication must be provided to our young people.
It's at that stage that I embark upon just a very brief analysis of graduated licences. It is not an option for people in the rural part of Ontario not to be able to drive. It is an unfortunate necessity of our country that we have broad distances which must be travelled on a daily basis by not only grown-ups and people who are newly licensed but also by minor children, so-called because until you reach the age of 18 you are known as a minor.
For me, it is not enough that we set out for all of the minors in Ontario a regimen which prevents them from taking control and charge of an automobile on our highways because we say that we are protecting them from themselves. My goodness me, we have that very same problem in existence inside families that are dysfunctional, inside our schools, inside all kinds of institutions which have been newly discovered to have breached the privacy and breached the human rights of some of our even more junior minors, and we don't seem to be taking the same action there.
So let's look at graduated licensing for what it is. It is, without any exception whatsoever, a paternalistic attempt to extend our care and control over a group of people whom we consider to be vulnerable members of our society. Why are they vulnerable? It's vulnerability that basically comes from the fact that they haven't got the experience that the rest of us have. That's really the end of the discussion.
What we are trying to do is provide them with guidance and encouragement to learn more about the automobiles that they will be driving over an extended period of time, and for that I wish to thank the Minister of Transportation for bringing this in. It's not a new idea. Bill Wrye, when he was the Minister of Transportation, was thinking about it. I was the Minister of Financial Institutions and I was encouraged to consider graduated licences as a help in trying to moderate the prices of insurance because we saw accidents occurring far too regularly among new drivers -- mostly, I might add, young drivers, but I think it's now more generally acceptable to say new drivers, which would encourage all to think of people of all ages who are newly introduced to vehicles on our highways.
From my point of view, though, while we extend this paternalism, it is interesting to note that we are preventing some of those young people and new drivers from doing exactly as we would like them to do in other areas.
We want them to get experience with -- I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I can't hear because of the table. I'm sorry, but there are some discussions; it's much too close, I'm sorry.
There are some problems associated with this because young people can't take jobs that require them to be travelling around my riding. I won't speak about other ridings. I don't know the other ridings as well as my own although I can extrapolate to a certain extent because I know rural Ontario somewhat.
I talked with several classrooms of people from the member for Huron's area, in South Huron District High School this morning, and they are likewise, with me, concerned about the prospect of them having to drive from their homes out in the rural part of the area --
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): After you left I cleaned it all up.
Mr Elston: Sorry?
Mr Klopp: After you left I got it all cleaned up.
Mr Elston: I'll bet you cleaned it all up, Paul.
There are concerns about how they're going to get home from those places. People are going to have to drive them an extended period of time because we are going to force them into what are described euphemistically as level 1 and level 2 before they can write their exams or try their practical tests that give them a full licence.
It is difficult enough for people to drive around the supper hour. To be quite honest, I've been looking forward, as my wife has been looking forward, to the prospect of having a new driver in the family to help manage all the busy activities of our family. I will admit that up front, because it has been the tradition in our country that everybody when they are capable can lend a hand to helping the economic activities and family and cultural activities of our country to sustain themselves.
I am, unfortunately, here an awful lot of the time. My wife is at home with our five children and to think that Jeannine would probably be able to help drive somebody to figure skating, to drive them to hockey, to cubs or scouts, to Brownies, and to all of the other activities, it seems to me, is a reasonable expectation.
What does it mean? It means now that we will have to wait somewhat longer. It means, on the other hand, if we don't want to actually drive the children ourselves, that we will have to have somebody who is at minimum 20 years old to come to our assistance to help chaperon our daughter as she drives somebody all the way down the road.
There is a very practical problem that confronts us as a family. It's a very practical problem that confronts us as an economy. Because there are all kinds of people who are 16 years old and, dare I say it, from rural Ontario, I will bet that the member for Huron and the member for Hastings-Peterborough could probably enumerate at least one or two people whom they know who are under the age of 16 who are driving trucks and other vehicles to and from farms and to deliver all kinds of commodities.
It's a very practical reality, and one that has allowed our farm economies to function quite well, thank you.
In some ways those people who have driven before they are the age of 16 or 17 are very capable drivers indeed because their experience was garnered in a less busy area, and they in fact became familiar with what it was like to drive a huge piece of equipment at particular rates of speed. They got the experience. Now we'll make sure that those people are longer in phasing in their ability to drive, and maybe the paternalism will work. But I don't for a moment believe that we should hold out the prospect, as I think perhaps is being done slightly too much by the minister and by the IBC and others who are advocates of this, that this will be a cure-all, that somehow or other all this experience will amount to fewer accidents, fewer injuries or fewer visits to the funeral parlour for our young people.
In the end there are some other factors which play at this. There are the momentary lapses of attention which happen to any of us. And I, as a person who drives a considerable number of kilometres around this province in a year, can attest to the fact that while you drive a lot and you may have a great deal of experience, a moment's inattentiveness is as a damning for those people with experience as it is for the young driver.
The problem with weather is as damning to the future of the young driver as it is to the experienced driver.
All of those things will play a role in probably militating against graduated licences being the cure-all for this provincial program.
2000
I don't want to see young people dying. I don't want to see young people injured. I don't want to see mothers and fathers doing what has been described to me as the most unnatural thing in the world, and that is burying their offspring. It's a terrible prospect. It's a terrible prospect to meet someone who has been maimed in an accident; somebody with a promising future being left in a wheelchair. All of that is terrific if you really look at what was before them, and it is so sad to see what is left of them after the problem. It is so terrible.
I don't believe for a moment that we, with our new paternalism, are going to provide all of the salvation that we expect to be delivering to our young people. In fact, I don't think this is going to alleviate a lot of the difficulties around drinking and driving. I think the activities in the high schools, for instance, are going to be doing far more to prevent accidents as a result of drunkenness and driving than all of the activities around graduated licences.
In that regard, I'm very proud of the fact that the member for Nepean, our critic, is going to be moving an amendment in committee of the whole which will say that the person who accompanies a young driver will not be able to have had one drink whatsoever, that there will be zero tolerance for alcohol in not only the driver but also the chaperon. I'm happy about that. I can't, for a moment, condone any alcohol in the trainee's bloodstream. I cannot tolerate, as a result, any alcohol in the bloodstream of the person who is chaperoning. I think that ought to be an amendment in committee of the whole that will be accepted and endorsed by the Minister of Transportation.
I'm not sure that in fact is what's going to take place. I have heard that perhaps none of the amendments which will be proffered by my friend from Nepean will be accepted.
Interjection.
Mr Elston: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. I think somebody wanted to congratulate the member for Durham East for assuming the Chair. I will, and you look very comfortable there, but --
Hon Mr Pouliot: He's very eloquent and capable indeed. You do the office proud, sir.
Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for defending my rights. You have been an outspoken democrat in this House and I want to congratulate you for assuming the Chair, even if it's just briefly so.
Not only do I support the amendments that will be proposed by the member for Nepean with respect to blood alcohol, but I also support the idea that only one person should be in the front seat of the automobile with the new trainee. I think the Minister of Transportation, in accepting the advice of the committee that discussed graduated licences before this bill was introduced, has taken a sound step forward. The cramming of an automobile with too many passengers that might distract the young driver, in my view, is a dangerous set of circumstances that ought to have been dealt with and, in fact, the minister has seen fit to do so and I congratulate him on that.
But you know what is very interesting in all of this? The fact that anything goes in this province if you don't have enforcement. That, at the end of the day, will be the true judge of how proper this whole program is. You see, if the people who are new trainees believe that there is little or no chance of being caught, there will be people who take chances, there will be people who take risks, and the people of this province will rightly condemn this Legislative Assembly for standing up and making great speeches about how good this program is when accidents occur that are occurring under circumstances that violate this graduated licence scheme.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that this program, like every other provincial program, is only going to be as good as the ability of this province to enforce it. How do you enforce it? You enforce it by providing enough resources, through the Ministry of the Solicitor General and other ways, for surveillance of our roads. I think the member for Simcoe East, who spoke earlier, had indicated that speed kills, and he read out some statistics which were, by their own expression, important statistics, talking about accidents and deaths and injuries and all of that stuff. Speed kills but speed is a real hazard on our roads today because there is very little ability to enforce the speed limits.
Well, that takes us to photo-radar, and I saw the member for Lake Nipigon, the Minister of Transportation, doing his little camera-flashing imitation. It's true, he's going to put on the 400 series of highways a camera which will capture, as people go by, the speeders -- as long as they're not going over 165 kilometres an hour, I'm told.
For me that is but a half-step, because I looked at the Toronto Star -- and I know that the New Democrats, from time to time, call it a tabloid -- but it enumerated last week, in a very interesting chart, the number of accidents that had occurred not on 400 series highways but at main intersections in the Metropolitan Toronto area. Where were those accidents occurring? They were occurring at all the very busy crossroads of this particular great city of Toronto. They were on Sheppard, they were on Steeles, they were on Kennedy, they were on Markham Road, they were at all the major intersections.
We know that, generally speaking, photo-radar and other things which would try to hold down speed will not be put in those intersections, even though speed at those intersections is probably part of the cause, where people try to run quickly through the yellow or even take the red light to try to beat the traffic and they end up causing problems.
You know something? The photo-radar isn't even going to be deployed on the two-lane highways. Well, I will tell you from experience, that the two-lane highways and the undivided four-lane highways, which are not 400 series highways, are also areas in which speed is a problem. I drive those roads often. I confess here publicly that sometimes I'm known to go over the speed limit a little because I often leave late from one meeting to get to another. I suspect there are very few of the people in this House who haven't, from time to time, tried to make up a wee bit of time on the highway between meeting sites.
I will tell you that the only way that speed will be reduced on those two- and four-lane undivided highways, other than 400 series highways, is to deploy some people known as police officers who will enforce the speed limit or you're going to have to spend $80,000 a pop for a huge number of those photo-radar apparatuses.
That is as big a problem for our young people to deal with -- ie, the speed on the two-lane and four-lane undivided highways -- as it is being on some of the extended sections of 400 highways. For instance, when you get outside of Metropolitan Toronto and some of the busy areas around Kitchener-Waterloo on the 400 highways, for instance 401, if you're driving west of London for a considerable amount of time, it isn't so congested that people couldn't find a way of getting some training at higher speeds.
I agree, however, with my friend the member for Lake Nipigon that the 400 highway exclusion is a good idea. I just merely point out to him that there are more dangerous sections of roads in this city of Toronto than the 400 series highways. You know something? We cannot provide enough exemptions from this full licensure that would protect our young people from every danger that is out there.
I merely want to put that case publicly so that the parents out there, who expect us to move with dispatch to do whatever we can to save young people from terrible accidents on the highways, will understand that full guarantees of the safety of any person are not something that we can deliver in this Legislative Assembly. As remarkably capable as any of us are as legislators, we can't provide a full guarantee.
I want that point to be made absolutely clear to anybody who thinks that graduated licences will reduce to zero virtually all of the accidents in this province with respect to novice drivers. It isn't going to happen. I think it will help, but as I met with those people from South Huron District High School under the leadership of Joe Hogan today over at the Macdonald Block, I was struck by the sense of how unfair these young people felt it would be because there were some folks there who knew of 16-year-olds who had been able to get their licence. And those 16-year-old people will be able to drive under the full authority of the law because they, as a matter of timing, were able to get their licence. However, the others who by accident of birth or timing of birth will have to wait or, even more so, those people who can't get an appointment to get their driver's licence test because the Ministry of Transportation has cut back hours and time of availability of their testers, they are going to be left until almost the age of 18 before they can be fully driving in the province of Ontario.
2010
I want to point out some other problem that is important for me as a person from rural Ontario. While I've mentioned about the problems of small-town Ontario and rural Ontario commerce as it relates to the need for full family involvement in all of the activities, I'd like to put this case for the Minister of Transportation and the member for Lake Nipigon.
I was reading just recently, through my membership in the Canadian Automobile Association, a list of all of those people who are licensed to drive in North America and they went through the age requirements for people to drive in their home states and provinces and territories. It was interesting to note that there are at least two or three -- I can't remember which, because when I went back to find the pamphlet, I couldn't find it. My filing system obviously is wanting. But there were at least two or three of the states of the United States where you can begin to drive at just over 14 years of age.
For those of us who live in Ontario, it'll be interesting to note and explain to our young people at 17 and 18 years of age that they are not able to drive and in fact have no ability to drive on the roads because they are under a graduated licence system, while somebody from a couple of the states in the union will be able to come through Ontario at the age of 15, 16 years of age and drive. That's really an important problem for me to deal with.
So maybe the Minister of Transportation could enter into some kind of a reciprocal agreement whereby there is every ability in this province to treat all people, all novice drivers, the same way. In fact, those 14-year-olds from the United States couldn't even be driving at all on our roads if they had been born and raised in the province of Ontario. They couldn't even have a 365-day licence.
So what are you going to do about those people because those 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds from out of the country could very well be driving through the city of Toronto? While we welcome our neighbours to the south here as tourists and as full participants in a very wonderful country, I can't help but say to myself, isn't that a problem which the Minister of Transportation should try to eliminate when he's dealing with the issue of fairness with respect to our young people?
Let me ask you another question, Mr Speaker. You're a member from what used to be called Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. It's now been shortened to S-D-G & East Grenville. We had our discussions about that and the proud traditions of the area, but you will know, like I know, that a number of 18-year-olds -- 17- year-olds on some occasions -- actually graduate from our secondary schools and go off to colleges and universities, which generally speaking are not found in rural and small-town Ontario.
Unfortunately, in our area people have to go to the University of Waterloo, a very fine institution; Sir Wilfrid Laurier University, another fine institution; McMaster University in Hamilton; the University of Toronto; the University of Guelph; the University of Western Ontario; the University of Windsor. But you know something? In order to get back and forth -- it's interesting -- they'll have to have some kind of transportation. Persons deemed to be old enough to be away from home, to take on a new and formative part of their years, will be considered to be too young to drive in this province on their own.
While we send them off to deal with all of the other problems, all of the violence that is associated with some of our society today, they cannot get into an automobile. I merely put that forward as one of the interesting contradictions when we're dealing with this piece of legislation and to remind people that this is not everything that it is cracked up to be because the parents are going to be obligated, somehow or other, to find safe transport for some of those people.
I am not, for a moment, going to contend that I will be voting against this legislation. In fact, there are too many people who would say that the benefits will outweigh the difficulties. For those of us who have a practical difficulty about having a young person in our family who was looking forward to and is not only reasonable but a responsible person looking to become independent, it will be somewhat more difficult.
I don't know how to explain to a person that you are less competent to drive in Ontario at the age of 17 than those people who are 15 and 16 are competent to drive in parts of the United States or indeed even in other provinces of our country. I think that is what is so difficult. I think that there are more dangers inherent in driving in the city of Toronto off the 401, off the 403, off the Gardiner, than what the ministry is letting on. I don't condemn them for that; I think that the real desire is to try and forge some kind of a good public policy that will appear to be dealing with what is a serious problem. I've already enumerated the difficulties which are out there in the world for young people driving automobiles.
But for me to let on that this is going to be the cure is not going to be acceptable. To let on that somehow or other the young people are going to have to find somebody else to drive them to the convenience store where they work for extra money after school or on the weekends, to say to those young people, "You can drive to the place, but as soon as 12 o'clock hits, you can't drive home. It doesn't matter whether you're accompanied or not," is a bit of a difficult explanation to make.
At the end of the day all we are charged to do, I guess, in this place is to try and deliver the best we can to protect our citizens, to provide a regime which is fair, and I've already indicated that it is maybe fair inside the province, but it isn't so fair when compared to other people who will be using our roads as tourists, as visitors or indeed as new residents, if they've already qualified to drive someplace else.
It is difficult for those economic units that require early access to transportation for young men and women to drive commodities to the elevators, if you're farming, to help pick up deliveries for the general store or the hardware store for the parent who is busy trying to make sure that they can carry on their commerce and who look forward to having their family join in the economic activity.
It is for me essential, if this program is going to work, that two things at least occur -- probably more than that, if I were able to take a little bit longer, but two essential things will have to occur.
First, the Ministry of Transportation will have to ensure that it has not only competent and capable staff available but that it also has staff who are easy to deal with in meeting the needs of testing and examination of these young drivers and novice drivers in our province. So far, I am not convinced that the Ministry of Transportation is either capable of putting or willing to put the number of dollars that are required to give people access to the driving tests they need.
Second, before I run out of time, there has to be better enforcement on our highways, and I am absolutely sure that the Solicitor General, because of the Finance minister's strictures, is not able to look after that end of the event.
2020
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Because I will not have time to speak in the debate, I'm going to use this as my opportunity to support this legislation unequivocally.
Notwithstanding that we all have concerns about any kind of system that's put into place by the government, any government, there can be no doubt that a graduated licensing system will save young people's lives in this province. That is the reason my caucus, under the leadership of the member for York Mills, has brought this issue to the fore through the use of attracting hearings on this before a committee of this Legislature. Our caucus felt very early in this term that this was the time for Ontario to bring forward a graduated licensing system.
Now, we can quibble about the various parts of the graduated licensing system. I don't want to quibble about them because I'm willing to trust those people who have talked about this, some people from my own riding: Sue MacNeil, who is very much involved with the driving instructors, and the Canadian driving instructors association, who've been very supportive of this kind of legislation.
The fact of the matter is that while 16- and 17-year-olds represent only 5% of the drivers in our province, 10% of the fatalities are occurring among this age group. We cannot help but reduce that number by having some form of graduated system.
I am willing to put this graduated system in place. Let's look at it historically, maybe three or four or five or six years from now, as they did in the state of California. Six years after they had the legislation there, they looked back and found it had indeed reduced the fatalities, the accidents among the young drivers, by 5% or 6%.
I am willing to accept a graduated licensing system that does reduce fatalities and accidents among our young people by 5% or 6%. True, it's not the answer to all, but it sure is a darn good start, and I will support this legislation wholeheartedly.
Mr Frankford: I enjoyed hearing the presentation of the member for Bruce. He certainly instructed us about the needs in rural Ontario for alternatives, for public transportation.
He referred to accident spots and I think inadvertently said they were in Toronto. They're actually all in Scarborough.
Coincidentally, I was speaking this evening with Ann Storrison, a retired school teacher who lives in the Warden-Ellesmere area of Scarborough, which is actually in the Speaker's riding, where they are very concerned about the advent of a Price Club in addition to an Aikenhead's store at what is already a very dangerous corner. Certainly the people there would like anything which will be reducing the traffic.
This licensing legislation will help to some extent to reduce the traffic, but clearly what we need most is some real planning around transportation, some real initiatives around car reduction.
The urban planning involved in putting in megastores like that really is boggling the mind, and Mrs Storrison and all the residents in that area are extremely concerned about an integrated approach to transportation. The situation of course is made even worse by the concentration of commercial stores and facilities so that even the smallest errand will bring back and reinforce that car dependence.
Although this legislation will help, and I appreciate what the member said about the necessity of younger family members as chauffeurs and to run errands, which I have experienced myself --
The Acting Speaker: (Mr Noble Villeneuve) Thank you. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I want to compliment my colleague and House leader for his comments on this particular bill.
I find one thing interesting as everyone talks about the impact on rural Ontario of the graduated licence. I appreciate those concerns about the distances in the farm community and the problems that are there, but let me tell you that while my three sons are now young men and don't rely on mom and dad for transportation in any way whatsoever, there was a time for three or four years when the three of them would be playing AA hockey in the MTHL all over the city, and if one of them didn't drive, there was going to be a major problem in making all the commitments. I found that having them involved in sports like that was extremely important and very good for them and certainly kept them out of the malls and everything else, so it's not just rural Ontario that has a particular problem with this.
What I think is key is education. In fact, my own kids, my boys went through the young drivers' program, and I think it's an excellent program. What I would rather see: Toughen up the education process. Make it perhaps a little more difficult, make the testing a little more severe and make sure the new drivers, young people or elderly people, anybody who's new, go through a proper testing program so that they're aware of all the pitfalls of driving. Clearly, driving in the GTA can be a nightmare. You get out on that Highway 401 and it can be very, very frightening.
As usual, this government has identified a particular problem and thinks it can resolve it with a one-piece-fits-all legislation for everybody, and I'm afraid it isn't going to work.
The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.
Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I didn't want to miss the opportunity to comment on the member for Bruce's comments in support of this legislation while at the same time he was making a number of comments about its effect on rural Ontario. I did want to respond, because the minister, in his wisdom, has been consulting and listening to a number of people around this issue for some considerable length of time.
When the minister first brought the issue forward, I want the member for Bruce, and you, Mr Speaker, as well, to know that the original proposal was for a ban from dusk to dawn. That would have had a major impact on rural Ontario because a lot of people, especially at this time of year, when it gets dark at 4:30, would have a very difficult time. It was through the consultations with members of this caucus and with members of organizations in rural Ontario that the minister made the decision to move to midnight.
I appreciate the concern that there are a few people who are going to have some difficulty with that. I think, Mr Speaker, you raised some good points as well. However, this is a compromise, moving back from dusk to midnight in terms of a curfew, so I think the minister has listened to many of the concerns and tried to implement some of those to help rural Ontario cope with this legislation.
I want to compliment the minister for that, and I want to thank the member for Bruce and yourself, Mr Speaker, for raising the concerns of rural Ontario, because very often legislation affects rural Ontario differently than it does urban areas. All the rural members in this House obviously have to speak up from time to time for rural Ontario, and we really appreciate the support on both sides of the House.
The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable member for Bruce has two minutes in response.
Mr Elston: The member for Scarborough East, I believe, Dr Frankford, has given another item that has to be looked after; that is, planning around our traffic circles. Although we were talking about Scarborough roads, there were more roads listed in that article than just Scarborough, but those were the ones that came to mind quickly. The planning around major intersections is very difficult for even seasoned drivers to navigate, let alone young people, but the young people under this graduated licence system will be thrown into the middle of all that. I appreciate that he has given another thing that will have to happen in this province if we're going to have success, and that is better planning of our layout for those types of highways.
Better highways are going to be required. I appreciate that all of us will be dealing with issues of fewer resources, but at the end of the day, resources are going to make the difference in whether or not we are really going to reduce accidents.
I remember, for instance, dealing with 401 and the problem of getting in the barriers around 401. The current Minister of Transportation has finally installed some of those in the Woodstock-London area. We were working on that, the Tories had worked on parts of it, and bit by bit that very dangerous section of 401 now has been almost completely dealt with, I think, in making it safer not only for young people but all people who are going to drive on those roads.
I wasn't condemning the minister for bringing in this particular legislation so much as I was noting that there are still some problems associated with it from my point of view. Obviously, there are other problems as well, and I think we ought to face the reality of the circumstances that there will be continued difficulties faced on our highways, but at least I believe at the end of the day that we will be doing something that will improve the experience of our drivers. I guess my advice to the Minister of Transportation is, drive on.
2030
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on second reading of Bill 122? The member for Grey-Owen Sound.
Mr Mahoney: Now for a balanced view.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): A balanced view, yes; that's what you'll get now. It's an opportunity for me to speak on this bill. I guess a lot of us must be in favour of this bill, because this government hasn't brought in closure yet and is allowing us to speak on it. They must like what we're saying over here.
The bill is not too bad a bill, but unfortunately it doesn't go far enough. I'm really disappointed that the committee didn't take in the concerns of rural Ontario and northern Ontario. I sat on the committee for a couple of weeks, and a lot of people brought forth the concerns about what could happen in rural Ontario and northern Ontario, where it's a lot different from living in a large urban centre. The minister and the committee seem to have ignored that, so I'm a little disappointed.
We can talk a bit about rural Ontario and northern Ontario, where there are different problems than there are here in the city. In the city, if someone has to get to work, they do have the transportation system that's a lot different from rural Ontario or northern Ontario. You have the bus lines, you have the subways and lots of taxis, so there are ways to get to work or to go places that are a lot easier than when you're in rural Ontario, especially in the north.
I see the member from Etobicoke is going to leave, maybe because I'm talking about a rural issue he may not like. But to me, this bill is set for the urbans instead of the rurals. It does affect everyone, but as we've said, there are different concerns in rural Ontario. The member who spoke before, Noble Villeneuve, about the concerns where drivers have to take grain and parts from machinery to town to get fixed and things like that in the rural communities -- they won't have this chance now until a later date, and it makes a difference.
They talk about some of the problems we have in rural Ontario. One of the problems is that there's a lot of distance that people have to travel. This is one of the things that concerns me about this bill. I feel the committee didn't give it enough time, so I do hope the minister's listening across the way and that this bill will get more consideration before it's passed in third reading.
I've been led to believe that they're just going to go to committee of the whole and try to pass this bill with a few amendments. I don't think that's good enough. I think this bill should go back out to committee and allow people to have more input into it. There seems to be a problem for the rural and northern areas for which they couldn't find a solution, so maybe there are people out there who would have some ideas that could correct this. If the minister's going to ram it through the House, which seems to be the norm these days, then that's not right. I think the minister should be looking at that and having some more consultation.
This bill has some safety things in it and there's no doubt that this will make our highways safer. It's not like the photo-radar that this minister rammed through last week and didn't even allow us a full debate on, which was just a money grab. This one does have some safety aspects, and I know that once this bill is implemented, some of our newer drivers will have a chance to drive much better before they get their licence. I think that is a good thing and I can support it.
Overall, I will have to support this bill. As I said before, though, the concerns of rural Ontario have not been addressed, although in clause 57.1(1)(n) it says there may be some other exemptions. Hopefully, when the regulations come down, the government will listen to some of the exemptions we may have to put forward and will implement them into the bill under the regulations. If they will do that, then that will make this bill much more acceptable for the people in rural Ontario.
As I've mentioned before in the House, I have two daughters. One is 17 and one is 14. My 17-year-old got her licence when she was 16 and she drives very well. She would not have been able to go to work; she has a part-time job after school, and it allows her to take the car and come home. She would not have been able to do this under this bill, and my 14-year-old will not be able to. But if it's a safety factor, maybe we'll have to live with that.
One of the other things is that when it was in committee, I don't feel there was enough time given or enough promotion put forward to have students come in and speak on this bill. I know there were some but not very many. I think the minister and the committee made a grave mistake there when they didn't ask some of the students from some of the schools to come and to just give their views about this. These students are going to be 16 and 17, they should have had a chance to put some more input into this, and I feel that's why this bill shouldn't be put into committee of the whole tomorrow or the next day and rammed through. That's why I think this bill maybe should go out to committee for another week so that we could get some answers and questions from some of the students.
Another aspect of this bill: I have talked to some of the police officers in my area and they will have a hard time enforcing some of these rules. It was mentioned by the member for Simcoe that if somebody is drinking at that age, then there shouldn't just be the suspension of their licence; they shouldn't be drinking at that age anyway. Some of the bill has a lot of rhetoric in it and drivel that shouldn't even be there. Again I don't know why the minister added some of that to it, but I guess he had to fill up paper and whatever and it made it look a little better to add this drivel to it. But they seem to do this and carry on as they do.
As I say, one of the good things about it, they are letting us debate this bill and that is something new that's happened in the last two weeks, because in the two weeks previous to this they just put closure after closure on all the bills because this side of the House didn't agree with it. Again, photo-radar was another one: "Hey, we've heard enough. We're just going to close it on you."
They didn't let us speak on all the bills we wanted to. On this bill they know that they have the support of the opposition, so at least they're letting us debate it and we appreciate that -- one of the few things they've let us do. Mind you, they've made us sit till midnight to be able to do this because they couldn't get all of their bills on in time and they rammed some more bills through.
Another member who's not here tonight is the member for Renfrew North. When we were in the committee -- I sat on the committee with him -- he had the same concerns about northern Ontario and rural Ontario where it's a little different for students to get home from school. Lots of them like to stay and play basketball and football. Now they're going to have to wait that extra time before they'll be able to get the licence to bring their sisters and brothers home.
The member for Bruce mentioned that when he went to school, and it was the same when I went to school, you could hitchhike. Now it's not quite that easy to do that and it's not as safe. Again I'm upset that they didn't look at those problems that we have in rural Ontario. They were brought to their attention many times in the committee, but unfortunately the committee, for some reason or not, just chose to ignore that. We will have to hope that in the regulations they will allow us some leeway and maybe some exceptions can be made in the north and in rural Ontario.
In wrapping up, I just want to say that I'm glad I can support this bill. I do have some problems with it, and hopefully when the regulations come forward, they will listen to the people on this side of the House and look at some of the regulations that we may give them and implement them into the bill.
Mr Elston: I congratulate the member for Grey-Owen Sound. One of the things that is interesting and sort of helps me to supplement my own remarks, something I forgot to mention, is that one of the most dangerous things that occurs on any of the highways is weaving drivers. Those people have also got to be dealt with to make our roads safe for young people or all of us. Those people who kind of come in and go out of lanes of traffic like they're on some kind of a yo-yo string --
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Photo-radar, that will stop them.
Mr Elston: No, no, the radar doesn't stop people who weave in and out, Madam Minister of Housing. It really has nothing to do with that. These people just cannot wait. They have to pass on the uphill grades. They have to weave in. They have to make people put on their brakes. They do all of the things that are bad driving and they very seldom, if ever, have accidents themselves, but they leave in their wake a whole series of bent fenders and bruised elbows and wrists and yelling other drivers. I myself have often said a few unhappy words when I've been cut off by those people who just are not courteous drivers.
Although the member from Grey did not mention this, I think driver training is a very big and good step forward. The member for Mississauga West mentioned it in his remarks on my speech about driver training. I mentioned my daughter is taking it. I think everybody ought to. In fact, driver training is the only way that this bill allows you to shorten the time period in which you can get your level 2 qualification.
I think for all of us, at the end of the day, traffic enforcement is going to be a bigger part of solving the problem of accidents, because not only are young people and novice drivers in accidents, but so are a lot of our very veteran drivers. Routinely, we must have enough people on the roads in all parts of this province to enforce the legislation, not just when it's convenient, not just when the Finance minister finds the dollars, but at times when it is critical, like every day of the week.
2040
Mr Arnott: I'm very pleased to rise and give credit to the member for Grey-Owen Sound for the commendable job he did this evening on the issue of graduated drivers' licences. As our party's rural transportation critic, he's done a very effective job putting forward the views of rural Ontario on this very important bill. I think we've heard from the Progressive Conservative Party during the course of this debate some very effective, positive and constructive suggestions put forward to the minister, and I hope he will give consideration to them.
The member for Grey-Owen Sound mentioned something that had been brought up earlier by the member for Simcoe East as well, and it's something that I completely concur with. When you look at many of the novice drivers, many of them are going to be aged 16 to 19, and of course, according to the laws of the province of Ontario, they're not allowed to drink. They're not allowed to consume alcohol, yet it appears that potentially for many novice drivers aged 16 to 19 years, provision in the bill suggests that the novice driver will have his or her licence immediately suspended for 12 hours if an analysis of his or her breath shows the presence of alcohol in his or her blood.
Mr Elston: It should be zero.
Mr Arnott: I agree with the member for Bruce wholeheartedly. It should be zero. It ought to be zero. Certainly, the provincial rules and regulations governing the use of alcohol say that you have to be 19 to do so.
I hope the minister will indeed be listening to what we've got to say on this bill and will give consideration to finding the time to make sure that the amendments that may come forward during the committee of the whole process will reflect some of these concerns.
Mr Sterling: I too would like to add my congratulations to the member for Grey-Owen Sound. One thing you can say about Bill Murdoch is that he always brings to this Legislature the view of his constituents when a bill which is going to affect many of them is brought to the fore.
I'll tell you, one thing that we in the Conservative caucus respect from Bill is that he's a straight shooter. He lets you know exactly what he's thinking. He lets you know exactly what his constituents are thinking, and I think that's what he's done tonight. I thank Bill for his honesty, his integrity and for bringing forward the views of his constituents on this bill.
The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would like to add my congratulations as well to the member for Grey-Owen Sound. Actually, listening to the member brought back memories.
Mr Elston: AMO conventions.
Mr Mahoney: How about Good Roads?
Mr David Johnson: Good Roads, AMO conventions, but actually from my youth. It may be the opinion that I've always been an urban person, but that's not true.
Mr Elston: Urbane.
Mr Mahoney: Urbane.
Mr David Johnson: Urbane, urban, whatever.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Your friends will help you.
Mr David Johnson: I'm getting lots of help. In my youth, actually, I grew up in a rural setting and I can identify with the concerns that the member for Grey-Owen Sound is bringing forward. I must admit that the member has brought it forward in a very fair and even-handed manner. Coming from a rural setting, there are different sorts of concerns. There's the remoteness that has to be dealt with. For example, I can recall in my youth getting my licence at the age of 16.
Mr Mahoney: You've got a good memory.
Mr David Johnson: Yes, an excellent memory. It's been raised in terms of driving to university, for example. I needed a car to drive to university. I can recall driving as employment during my teens.
Interjection: A horse.
Mr David Johnson: I can recall driving not only a horse but a truck as well. These are factors of living in a rural community that I think we really need to deal with. It's a bit of a necessity for the young people to have this ability.
The member has brought this forward in a very fair and evenhanded manner. He's recognized the safety aspects, but he said, "Look, there are special considerations that we need to deal with through the regulations," and I hope the government listens very carefully to the member for Grey-Owen Sound.
The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound has two minutes in response.
Mr Murdoch: First, I'd like to thank the member for Bruce for his kind words and tell him also that my daughter took a driver's training course at school. It's an excellent thing and I agree with it. Hopefully, my next daughter who's coming along in high school now will do the same thing. She'll have to wait a little longer before she gets her licence, but driver ed training is one of the best things they can take.
Also, I'd like to thank the members from Wellington, Carleton and Don Mills for their kind words and words of encouragement.
Mr Elston: We'll send them to Mike. We'll give a copy of Hansard to Mike.
Mr Murdoch: Thank you. I just want to thank them for their words of encouragement and hope that the minister is listening to what we have to say over here. I think he's heard it quite clearly from most of the members from the Liberals or the Conservatives about the rural issues and the northern issues, that there needs to be something looked at in this bill to accommodate the people who do come from different places other than Toronto or one of the big urban cities.
Hopefully, when the chance comes up, there's going to be some regulations put into this bill and I hope he listens to either the amendments that come from this side or some of his own people, that he can put these regulations into force that will help the people out. As we said before, there are some different instances which come in the country and in northern Ontario and they must look at these things so that the bill does become fair and not just a large urban bill. The main thing about this bill is the safety aspect and we all agree on that.
But we'd also have to be fair, and sometimes when bills are done in this House they're not fair to everyone and we have concerns about those. I do hope the minister is listening and I'm sure he is, because he's listened to us in the past. I just think he had a little trouble listening to the people who came to the committees, for some reason or other, and didn't implement them now.
Mr Minister, I hope you do listen and when we give you some changes, you'll look at them.
The Acting Speaker: Further participation in the debate? Seeing none, would the honourable Minister of Transportation have some words of wrapup?
Hon Mr Pouliot: A lot has been said at second reading of Bill 122. I noted, for I'm meticulous about time allocation, to ensure fairness -- the system is flawless. I've made myself the guardian of the clock for our caucus over the years and I know, therefore, that one hour and one minute was the remaining time allocated to me as I sponsor this bill.
But suffice it to say, Mr Speaker, that you will recall the legislation was presented in draft form last May. A process had it directed to the resources committee, made up of members of all three parties in the House. What we see here today is the result of the unanimous deliberation and consent, their findings, their recommendations -- unanimous, universal acquiescence at committee, saying, "What we see here is what the people want."
Long and hard, people have searched for balance, for equilibrium. How do we, as a Legislative Assembly as we honour the exception, if you wish, or the uncommon event of having unanimity, achieve that? The rights of individuals were raised, one after one; almost every member spoke about particular situations in their families, a true story from their riding, their special part of Ontario. People spoke from northern Ontario, the southwest, the southeast, the urban centres -- that's what makes it challenging -- asking that those individuals be incorporated, be represented, that those true stories be reflected in the bill, that people reading it would be able to recognize their circumstances themselves.
2050
The challenge of the assembly is to honour the rights of individuals and yet to legislate for the collective. It's called the art of the possible balance. The committee in its wisdom did recognize this. There was a lot of consultation. The report was unanimous one more time. Yes, there were changes. There was nothing etched in stone. Presenters came and told their stories and said, "I want to see it, for I believe in it." The police, women against drunk drivers, the insurance bureau, young people, people who are retired, people who spoke for those who no longer have a voice -- they came from all over.
The committee went to meet them. They took time off work at their own expense and came to talk to the committee. They came from the southwest, talking about winter conditions, about une famille monoparentale. Ils ont dit au comité : «Regardez mes circonstances parce que je ne suis pas comme les autres et vous, vous avez la capacité juridique que je sois reconnue. Je suis femme. Je suis seule avec mon fils. Vous savez, chez nous, c'est différent.» They came from the near north and took us through the experience step by step of driving to the hockey rink. Then we moved to the farming community in southwestern Ontario and yet more examples. We travelled the province. In the final analysis, this is the product.
Last May there was a draft that was the beginning. The committee travelled extensively, listened to everyone. That was the middle. There's a timetable associated with this. This assembly has the determination to make it reality. It also has the flexibility and the latitude, at a later date in the fullness of time, to acquiesce and to give credence should anything go wrong, to put the final nuts and bolts into place. It's called the evolutive process.
Ontarians have waited long enough. It was worth the wait. We're well on our way to making the roads of Ontario the safest in North America. This is a bit of a flagship in a program which is deliberate and systematic, where everything is studied with a focus, sometimes with passion but never with vengeance. This is a win-win situation.
In conclusion -- I know there are other pressing matters that beg the House's attention -- I want to thank all members of the Legislature, the members of the general public, the members at MTO, the family of people, 90% of Ontarians who see this as a step forward. I thank you for your attention, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: This concludes debate on second reading of Bill 122.
M. Pouliot has moved second reading of Bill 122. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Pouliot's motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Mr Elston: Committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker: Committee of the whole.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU
Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act / Projet de loi 31, Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): It is now the government's turn. Does anyone on the government side want to participate in debate? Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): When this government in its budget speech earlier this year tabled its budget for 1993-94, there wasn't anyone who wasn't surprised. They were surprised by a number of things. First of all, there was the size of the deficit that was being forecast. At one time in the history of Ontario, if we had ever talked of a deficit in excess of $2 billion or $3 billion, it would have been heresy of the first order. Now we're seeing a government that was trying to keep the deficit under $10 billion. Yet if the government hadn't done other things, such as the social contract and the expenditure control plan, then the deficit could well have exceeded $16 billion and $17 billion; that was according to leaked figures from the Ministry of Finance.
When we got the budget, one of the ways in which the government was able to keep costs under control so that the budget would be under $10 billion -- by the way, it's not going to be under $10 billion now; there isn't any doubt in those who are watching, because revenues are down, that this government will again see a budget far in excess of $10 billion. But one of the key strategies this government had was, first of all, to cut back on government spending through the expenditure control plan, which I supported. As hard as it was, some of those decisions just had to be made. Then the social contract, which would come along with another $2 billion or so. We brought in 29 amendments to the social contract Bill 48. None of these amendments were accepted by the Ministry of Finance or Mr Rae's government and we ended up voting against the social contract, knowing it would bring tremendous problems to our province.
But the third issue, which we're really talking about tonight, is the government increasing additional revenue through taxation. If there's anything that offends the people of Ontario it's that we are already paying so much in taxes. The taxation level we are at now has reached unprecedented proportions for this province, the percentage of the money we make that goes to government. Indeed, that's what the purpose of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, is all about.
It's a budget bill that implements the massive tax grab imposed by the government in its 1993 budget. While the bill also makes a number of technical changes to the tax act, it goes right to the very root of our existence, into the very depths of our pocketbook by increasing the provincial share of income taxes.
I have to commend our leader, Mr Harris, the member for Nipissing, and our caucus for the way in which we have tried to speak out on tax changes for a considerable period of time and have fought to freeze taxes -- freeze taxes, because when you do that, it's going to have many positive benefits to the environment of business, to the economy as a whole.
But what we're seeing in this bill is that the Ontario provincial income tax rate is being increased from 55% of the base federal tax to 58%. These are just numbers until you start seeing the effect it has. The bill went from 55% to 58%, effective July 1, but the government wanted to have this effective for the whole year of 1993 so in fact it was retroactive to the beginning of January. Therefore, for the first six months of the tax being implemented, from July 1 through to the end of this year, it had gone to 61% of the federal tax.
2100
To me, there are so many things about this tax that offend, but what it really does more than any other single factor -- and I have all the statistics which show the net impact it has. I can show you the data that show how provincial income tax rates have risen year after year after year and how maybe Ontario isn't the worst-off of all the provinces in Canada. But we used to brag about being one of the best-off. It was a prosperous place to live and do business, to raise your family. You'd have some money left over for other things.
Now what is happening is that this government is imposing a very, very heavy tax. The total cost of the taxes to the taxpayers that this government brought in, covering the wide range of services and the cost of insurance and other matters, is over $2 billion, indeed one of the highest increases in taxation levels that our province had ever seen. The only person who ever exceeded them was Mr Bob Nixon, when he was Treasurer under David Peterson. Till then, he had had the largest single tax hike in one announced budget of the Liberal government. That has now been exceeded by Mr Rae's government.
The high-income tax surcharge increase is essentially a wealth tax by any other name, and it's directed at highly skilled, highly mobile professional people and managers of the province, who need to compete effectively not only in the province but around the world. It's a punitive tax. It's one of the worst things you could be doing right now, removing money that people would otherwise have to invest either in business or in other things. Instead, it's going into the government coffers.
I will vote against this bill and I will continue to vote against any tax bill that is brought in by any government in the province of Ontario. We cannot continue to raise money through taxation. There are so many things that government must do before it continues to go for the easy route, to collect it out of our pocketbooks, out of our salaries.
Let us instead look to ways where the government can begin to save money. There has been little, if any, initiative taken by the NDP or the Liberals before them to cut back on government spending. It's as if we can continue to hire people, expand programs and put money into programs that cease to have benefit or value. We as a population feel the stress more now than ever before. It doesn't take long to realize that Ontario is suffering as a province. The people of this province are looking for leadership in a fiscal and financial way, where the government by example will find ways of reducing the amount of money it needs.
It's a tough time out there, even for the province. Revenues aren't increasing at the rate that government spending is. Therefore, the government has to contract, control, reduce spending, find every possible means to put the lid on the spending within this province. I don't know how to say it any other way.
It really means there isn't a program that shouldn't be subjected to a total and complete financial analysis and that there shouldn't be anyone who's working in the province without being certain that they're able to offer some value for their services rendered. We all have a need to look responsibly at every cent being spent by the province of Ontario. You have to realize that with the huge resources this province has, there's got to be billions of dollars that can be saved by the way we run the business of government that can then relieve the taxpayers from having to pay these hefty increases.
First of all, we're living beyond our means. Any time when you're spending so much in excess of what you're bringing in, with a $10-billion deficit in the province -- and it could be $11 billion. With the fact that we're living so far beyond our means, we're hoping that future generations will be paying the taxes for our high living of today.
Instead, I challenge the government to analyse and assess the waste going on within this government, to understand that there are many things it can be doing to reduce costs and bring things in line. We've done a short assessment and have identified hundreds of millions of dollars this government could save.
First, there's the $200 million designed for programs to drive the private sector out of child care services. Can you believe it? Of that $200 million, how many new child care places were created? Instead, the government has an agenda, a philosophy that New Democrats have. They believe so strongly that they can do things better than the private sector, so they're trying to drive the private sector out of people services and in that process have said, "One of those areas that we will do our best to remove the private sector from is the whole day care services business."
The Interim Waste Authority: You only have to live in York, Durham or Peel regions to know how terrible a botched-up job this government has done of trying to find landfill sites in the greater Toronto area. No government in North America has put together a task force, as this government has, to find landfill sites that are going to go on prime agricultural farm land.
They went through the stupidest of all programs looking at areas in the Rouge Valley or ones that drain into the headwaters of the Don, others that were on the Oak Ridges moraine. The three finalist sites are all on prime agricultural farm land, and the one in Maple in the city of Vaughan is on the headwaters of the Humber River.
How much does all this cost? The costs are in excess of $50 million -- $50 million wasted because our party has agreed that, upon winning the next election, we will revoke Bill 143. So there is $50 million of government money, plus the money that's been spent by private individuals, regional governments and municipalities to fight the process of the government of Ontario, so another $50 million to $60 million. How many more millions of dollars will be spent this year on the Interim Waste Authority?
We have no hope that the government will come up with a resolution to finding and establishing a landfill site before this government has to call another provincial election. At the time of that provincial election, we will do everything before then to make sure a shovel doesn't break the ground, and at that time we will be able to do something to come up with a long-term strategy which would look at rail-haul. We would hope there is a possibility of finding a happy host and that we could use rail. It could generate jobs.
But at least we will not have made a political decision that established the way in which we were going to solve our garbage problems. This government made political decisions; it didn't make technical decisions. But the cost of their political dumbness has again cost us a tremendous amount of money in what it's taken for the Interim Waste Authority to do its folly.
Then you see the NDP paying out a $95-million grant to de Havilland as part of a $350-million provincial aid package which didn't create a single new job. I'm delighted to see de Havilland doing well with its recent sale to Brazil in South America. I'm anxious to see that, but they were already established, they were already running. Was there any other way in which we could use $95 million in provincial funds that could have found other jobs? I'm not satisfied, but the government looked in all directions.
2110
The Fair Tax Commission has cost the taxpayers about $3 million since it was created as a convenient way for the government to explain its failure to act on some of its more harebrained campaign commitments in tax reform. In all fairness to the taxpayer, the commission should be abolished, as the Treasurer has gone his own merry way on tax policy anyway. In the meantime, for this beautiful little Fair Tax Commission, $3 million has been spent on its wanderings and on its dreamings.
You'll see so many examples where this government has gone along and spent money. According to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the government spent $5 million to fund 64 destreaming pilot projects and another $2.8 million on in-service training to implement the policy. We have warned the government on many occasions not to rush into this ill-advised program. It only adds confusion and expense to the educational system, whether or not destreaming is the perfect solution. To force its implementation, as we are within this year and next, and to not understand its total impact on the educational system, to remove some of the tests and the standards in the system, is meddling with a system that already needs to be looked at.
The government spent nearly $1 million on its 800 line. How many people have phoned in on that? Dial 1-800, then NDP-CHAT. That's what it was called, their chat line. This propaganda scheme, very thinly disguised as a consultation service, was ultimately to cost the taxpayers about $25 per call, another $1 million.
What's a million dollars? It's the accumulation of a million dollars here and a million dollars there, and before you know it, you have the need to increase taxes.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): What are we debating?
Mr Cousens: I'm talking about Bill 31. If the government had the sense to control its spending instead of digging into our pockets, trying to raise more money through taxation -- that's the problem, and I think it's high time some of this was put on the record.
The New Democrats don't want to hear this; they'd rather just stay in the trough. You're not going to be in the trough much longer because you'll be out of government. Come 18 months from now, you'll all be out there looking for a job. I'll tell you, the people of Ontario are fed up with the way you have been spending money. It's our money, it's the taxpayers' money. There is an end to it; we won't pay any more.
Why is it that the NDP government had to spend $4 million on bilingual highway signs in the Golden Horseshoe region?
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Not that low, Don.
Interjections.
Mr Cousens: These people are awake this time of night, Mr Speaker, and that's just fine. I hope they'll find an opportunity at the appropriate time to speak.
I have to tell you that the people in my community cannot accept the way this government has spent so much money, some $4 million, on highway signs in an area that is not all that bilingual. Where are the priorities? That's really what it's all about: establish some simple, straightforward priorities. The first priority as a government is trying to bring the costs of government down. Don't introduce crazy new programs that are going to spend more money and not really give us results for it.
All you have to do is accumulate the number of those circumstances and you have a situation where we are out of control fiscally and financially. We are moving towards a way of government that we cannot afford. The credit rating in the province is already seeing the first sign of lack of confidence since the Minister of Finance's budget, because people now recognize that although the government has had high-sounding words and phrases, although the government has said, "Oh, we're doing so many good things just to keep the budget under control at $10 billion," the budget will exceed $10 billion. You know that and we know that. That's another reason why the credit rating for the province of Ontario has been notched down and why the government of Ontario faces future reckonings with the credit rating firms, because there isn't the confidence, either in Ontario or outside Ontario, that this government is capable of running our business properly.
The Employment Equity Commission is at work, and it's another $4 million for employment equity.
The government spent $20 million to conduct an update assessment survey in Metro Toronto, even though the Bob Rae administration had at the time made a decision on its position on market value assessment in Metro. So $20 million on MVA, and what do we get for it? A reversed decision.
In 1991, the NDP spent $22 million on interest charges alone on the Ataratiri project in Toronto. Our caucus -- Mr Harris, Margaret Marland, our Housing critic, and others -- has opposed the project as an expensive boondoggle from day one. When the cost estimates on the project escalated from $444 million to over $2 billion, the NDP finally pulled the plug. However, the government has now to come up with $325 million to cover the windup costs.
The Workers' Compensation Board: I cannot begin, ever, to accept that this government would allow the WCB to build a fantastic new operation in downtown Toronto. They're spending $180 million to construct a whole new tower for the WCB, and they will not even subject it to an investigation and an analysis by the standing committee on public accounts, where the NDP used its majority to thwart the opposition from having any kind of debate or discussion on it. What a coverup. This government is good at emasculating truth and honesty, because it has none. This government has brought in the WCB tower. They didn't even have the authority for all the decisions that were made.
Interjection.
Mr Cousens: Are you going to shut him up, Mr Speaker, or is he going to take over the floor? I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of interference, but if he's going to cackle away --
The Acting Speaker: Order. Shouting across the floor to members from either side is not productive at all. I realize it's getting late in the evening. Let's keep this on a high, productive plane. The member for Markham, please.
Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So the $180 million for the WCB tower is money that didn't have to be spent, and the government has gone ahead and allowed it to be spent. Many of us will never see that pile of money in one place at any one time in our whole lifetime, yet at one time, with a flick of the pen, Odoardo Di Santo, the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, a former NDP member of the Legislature who is now chairman of the board, a political appointee by Mr Rae, has gone ahead and made a commitment for the WCB, which already has over a $10-billion unfunded liability, and it's spending another $180 million. By the time it's finished, it could well be $200 million. Who knows?
The government doesn't need to spend that money at this time. They shouldn't spend the money, they should have reversed the decision, but instead they've gone ahead and allowed it to happen, and we and the people of Ontario have to pay for it through our taxes. That's part of the reason we're paying the taxes right now.
Mr Sutherland: Don, how many crown corporations did the Tories set up?
Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, either you control him through the Chair or maybe we should put the honourable Sergeant at Arms on him. I'm making a number of points that have to be made. We in the province of Ontario disagree with this government's method not only of raising money through increased taxation but spending money it's already collected from us and money it hasn't collected.
These are examples of the atrocities of government spending. I call them atrocities because they're killing us. We can't take it any more. The people of this province are saying: "Please stop. Is there anything we can do to stop the NDP?" I have many people saying, "Why can't you fight them?" What can you do to fight them?
The government has removed our ability to speak in the Legislature by bringing in closure at just about every opportunity. They've restricted our opportunity to speak on bills. We're allowed up to half an hour after the first speaker, who gets an hour and a half, and that's it. They're able to ram through the crazy legislation they've got and there is so little we can do about it.
Because 37% of the population on September 6, 1990, voted for Bob Rae instead of the David Peterson government at the time, now you're the government. You have the opportunity to do things, but when you're doing them wrong, when you're violating common sense, when you are hurting the people as much as you are and causing the economy to be burdened -- it's grinding to a halt. If you had some way of stimulating the economy, some way of bringing people back and saying, "Hey, we believe in the free enterprise system; we believe in a strong Ontario." Instead, what you see is a government, through example after example -- gross injustice in spending money.
Interjections.
Mr Cousens: The examples I have pointed out that have to do with workers' compensation or spending on different funds illustrate the total disregard that Bob Rae and his hacks have for honesty and integrity in running a fiscally responsible government. The fact that they can out-yell me is only because there are more of them here. It's because they have 70 seats and we have 21 in the Ontario PC caucus. But it won't stop us. The truth will stand.
2120
If you were to take a poll today of the people of Ontario who voted NDP back in 1990, many of them have tried to forget it and don't even admit it. It's hard to find people who voted for the NDP; they want to forget that day. The fact that they did, they're having to live with the consequences. You get the kind of government you deserve.
But we don't deserve the heavy taxation that is coming through to us now with this Bill 31. This is one of the worst bills that has ever been brought before this House, because have you ever before seen $1 billion raised through such a quick method? What you're doing now by this kind of legislation, you are really giving a message to the people of Ontario. You're saying, "Hey, we're more important in government than you are in business, or you are if you're out making some money."
There isn't going to be money left over to invest back into other things, into buying stocks or buying retirement programs or investing in anything, investing in property or new homes, because the amount of money that's coming into the province of Ontario prohibits people from being able to go out there and do something with what's left over. They don't have anything left over. People have less money in their pockets today, they're working harder today than they've ever worked and they're giving more to these guys than they've ever given, and the money is being wasted --
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On what?
Mr Cousens: It is being wasted on stupid programs, the $1 billion of programs.
If I had had a chance to --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Mr Cousens: -- through my pages, the examples that I have of utter government waste, such as the workers' compensation tower, such as the Carl Masters fund, such as the Ontario health card fraud, such as the Ontario Arts Council. The examples go on and on and on. Here is a government that has no sense of being in control. They don't understand what fairness and equity are. They talk fairness and equity, but they don't know what it is, because when it comes to true fairness, what you want to do is, at the end of the day, have it so that people who have worked hard, who have toiled, who have done their best to make society better, they're taxed to such an extent, retroactively --
Mr Sutherland: That's your idea of fairness, Pearson airport.
Mr Cousens: -- you sleaze, you rotten bunch.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Mr Cousens: Don't ever think you're ever going to tell me. You have no respect for the House. You keep chattering away. I find you totally disrespectful of the House. Throw him out.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You're going to be thrown out.
The Acting Speaker: Order. All members are honourable members.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): And some of them are former ministers of the cloth.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The kind of debate that's going on right now is not conducive to anything productive. Members will have the opportunity of questioning or responding whenever the time comes. The member for Markham has the floor. I would suggest strongly that he address the Chair.
Mr Cousens: I really am offended. I think it's rotten. When I come into the House as an elected member from the town of Markham to be their representative and I get these people, the parliamentary assistant for Finance, interrupting and cutting away during my speech, I don't have a chance to get my thoughts or put them forward.
I think you show tremendous disregard for the people from my community. They want me to come into this House and speak, yet you with your mouth shout out, shout me down, interrupt me along the way. I find that totally reprehensible. I think if anyone owes an apology, you do; every one of you. But for you to interrupt me during my speech, and the Speaker at the other end for some reason hasn't shut you up, I'm saying I get sick of this stuff. You people, as NDP, think you know it all. I don't pretend that I know it all, but I know that I --
Interjections.
Mr Cousens: I don't, but at least I listen to you twits when you're talking. At least you can listen to this twit as I talk. It works both ways and you haven't done that. You come along and you have great fun. I'm telling you it's serious business. My riding and my people are mad and they want me to represent them, and you're not letting me. You are not. By your rude interruptions, you don't give me a chance to get my thoughts forth, and I find that totally repugnant. It's repugnant to the parliamentary process. You think it's funny; it isn't funny. My people in Markham are hurting and they want me to come down here and fight for them and you won't even let me fight. I think it's rotten.
Just go back and look at yourselves in the mirror, because when I look at you now, I don't like you. I don't like you because you're not letting me do my job as an MPP. I was elected to come down here. I'm fighting against Bill 31. I'll fight with everything I've got. But to say that you can come along and yell me down, shout me down and that's the way you're going to win, it is not the way you're going to win because I'm going to get out there and I'm going to fight you guys with everything I've got. The people of our province will not tolerate the second-rate approach that you have to government. I'm saying you're misappropriating government funds. You can't lie to me. You can't put me down. I'll be yelling and screaming for a lot longer than you can because I'm right and you're wrong. The government is not going to stand on its merits on this stuff. We know where you're coming from. You have no sense of respect for people when you treat someone the way you have me tonight.
I think, Mr Speaker, it's a disgrace to this House that the Chair has not been able to control these members and give me a chance to speak, and I would ask that I have another 15 minutes to be able to finish my speech.
The Acting Speaker: To the member for Markham, is this a request for unanimous consent?
Mr Cousens: Yes, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No. The member's time is up and he does not have unanimous consent. Questions and/or comments.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, I do apologize for somewhat interrupting the member for Markham. Let me say, though, all of us know that the member for Markham has a good track record interrupting other members and causing public disturbances. I seem to remember seeing the member on television the day a certain announcement was made by a certain authority and he was causing a great disturbance that day. So his self-righteousness is a little hard to take.
We have heard Tories for the last three years talk about 42 years of wonderful management when they were in government, and then the member for Markham has the gall to get up and talk about the Workers' Compensation Board.
The Workers' Compensation Board is the organization that was set up, that they had 42 years to administer, to deal with the problems. What did they do? They let the unfunded liability grow and grow and grow. They didn't deal with the situation, they didn't manage the situation, yet they want to continue to put forward this revisionist history about how wonderful this province was managed for 42 years.
That's the problem. It wasn't managed for 42 years, it was just: "We'll just let it all go on its own and I'm sure everything will work out." That's why this government has to take action, has to start managing health care, has to start managing our education system, has to be making very strategic investments in telecommunications, in a lead investment fund, in worker ownership, all the things that should have been done under their 42 years of management but they didn't do. That's why we're in this financial mess, due to their lack of management and through the combination of their former friends up in Ottawa. You want to talk about hurting small business: How about the interest rate policy of the federal government for the last nine years under the federal Tories? That's done more to hurt business than anything in this country.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would like to congratulate the member for Markham who, under extreme duress I think, has brought a message that we should be listening to.
It's really a shame that the government members are living in the past. The member is trying to point out real problems that we are facing today, and there really can be no debate that we're facing an extreme problem with the Workers' Compensation Board. We're looking at something in the vicinity of a $12-billion unfunded liability. There is no doubt that we are looking at problems pertaining to waste within the health system. That's been brought to our attention by the auditor, that we're looking at fraud and waste in the welfare system.
The member for Markham is bringing forward valid problems, and what kind of response is he getting from the government? The government is saying: "Don't worry about the problems today. Think back what happened 10 years ago when the Conservatives were in power, and what did they do? Or think back to some other level of government, the federal government, and what did it do? But don't focus on the problems today; don't debate the problems today." That's what the member for Oxford is saying. That's what the members from the government are heckling and shouting across at him.
That isn't going to sell to the people of the province of Ontario. The people of Ontario are not too interested in what happened years ago and the problems that may or may not have happened back then. They're not too interested in what the federal government did a few years ago. They're interested in what are we going to do about the problems that we're facing today, and those are the problems that the member for Markham is attempting to bring forward and to explain to this House and to the people of Ontario -- and I commend him for it -- under extreme hardship conditions.
2130
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I know from time to time people can get animated, and I know my colleague Mr Cousens, the member for Markham, and I were elected together in 1981 and I served on committee. I think in most cases when he has extra notes to refer to he doesn't usually get so animated, because his message usually is quite clear. I think in this particular case everybody gets fed up from time to time with, as the member for Don Mills has just said, people pointing and pointing back or pointing sideways at other people who should be responsible for all of the ills.
The fact of the matter is, no matter how you cut it, no matter how things went 10 years ago, as the member for Don Mills said, or five years ago, as others have said, the problems are here today. The difficulty is that we can see ways in which the problems are becoming more difficult for the average citizen to deal with. There is a time now for people to stop pointing the fingers and get down to work and listen to some of the criticism.
While you may want to hoot and holler about all this stuff, it isn't helping a single person, whether they're in Markham, Don Mills or Bruce. The people need some relief. The people don't need to be told that they're going to be paying more taxes. They don't need to be told that there is another boondoggle that people are undertaking. That was the only real issue that the member for Markham, in my view, was trying to put across: that the workers' compensation is a big issue; it is seen out there as a symbol of something gone awry. Whether I'm responsible, whether the member for Markham is responsible, or whether the member for Oxford is responsible, nobody out there cares. What they want to do is find somebody who's going to be responsible enough to put it right. That's our job around here.
Let's quit trying to kid everybody and saying it belongs to the federal Liberals or the federal Tories or the Progressive Conservatives from 10 years ago here in the province or the Liberals from five years ago or the New Democrats. It's our problem. Let's solve it.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time is up. We can accommodate one final participant.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd like to stand in defence of the member for Markham. I know first hand the kind of work and constituency work and people whom the member meets with. If there's a member who does take all this stuff more seriously maybe, but at least personally, it's the member for Markham. So when he does get irate at the members opposite, he does so because he understands what the people in this province are going through, as I think we all do to some degree, but more so for the member for Markham.
I was in his riding not long ago. It was absolutely astounding that he literally knows everyone. They tell him their problems and he takes the problems down to Queen's Park and he wants to present them to this government. I know first hand about the difficulty of presenting the concerns of one's constituents in a tax bill like Bill 31, or any of the issues we're dealing with, and having the members opposite talk about the GST or the free trade agreement or John Crow or the Conservative governments for 42 or 43 years in this province. It seems to me that there appear to be deals and problems and issues that we want to deal with today, and I think that's what the member for Markham is saying. I don't want to hear about John Crow or the GST or NAFTA. I don't want to hear about Bill Davis or Leslie Frost or George Drew. I want to hear about the issues today and your $1.1-billion tax grab followed by a $2-billion tax grab and how that is crippling the constituents and small business people in his riding in Markham. Who better to bring this issue forward than the member himself, who wants to deal with this issue and not be heckled down by a bunch of naysayers and finger-pointers calling themselves government?
If you don't want the responsibility of governing, I say to them, then call an election. If you can't control the issues, call an election. If you can't make a difference, call an election, because I know the member for Markham and I can.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham has two minutes in response.
Mr Cousens: I appreciate the comments from members. Certainly the members for Etobicoke West, Bruce and Don Mills have something of an understanding of what it is to be an opposition member at Queen's Park and know how difficult it is to get a point across when the people opposite have no appreciation at all of the points we're trying to make.
I think the member for Etobicoke West just makes an excellent point. We're not representing federal politics in this House, so understand that we're dealing with provincial government policies. The government of the day is not so sacred that it cannot be held up to some criticism and discussion. When we come along and delineate a series of points that show the government is spending far beyond its means and living in a deficit, which is only a deferred tax on future generations, we as responsible opposition members have a job to lay that on the table.
I accept the member for Oxford's apology. I appreciate the fact that he did apologize for his behaviour tonight. I have to say that it isn't fun if we break down into a shouting match. I have to believe that this place can be the proper forum for debate on all issues as they affect the people of the province of Ontario, and it's wrong that at any time someone should think we're not allowed that privilege. As long as we live within the rules of the Legislature, then we can do it.
We have major problems in the province of Ontario. The Workers' Compensation Board is one classic example of it, and the government has not faced up to it. It's an example that shows that. There's $180 million. There are hundreds of others, millions of dollars where, if the government were to get its control around this spending, there would not be any need for Bill 31 and an additional tax hike.
Mr Sutherland: I won't take too long in summarizing. I just want to thank all those members who participated in the debate. I understand that not everyone is obviously happy with doing tax increases. Nobody enjoys paying more taxes. But the reality of the situation is that we're in a difficult financial situation and the government had to do several things to get a handle on the deficit so we could continue to invest in many services. Of course you remember what those things were. We had $4 billion in savings under the expenditure control plan, $2 billion under the social contract. On the other side, part of that is increases in income tax. That is allowing us to make significant investment in jobs, in training, in expanding non-profit housing etc. The dollars are being well spent, for the most part.
I just want to correct one of the things the member for Markham just said, because he left the impression that these tax increases are going to pay for the new Workers' Compensation Board building. That is just simply not the case, as the member for Markham knows.
With those brief comments, let me say that I believe the government will continue to be careful with spending and ensuring that the tax dollars are being spent wisely and in areas where they are needed to be spent in to get people back to work, to get people off social assistance and also to create a healthy economy so the revenues will come in without tax increases.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I have in my hand correspondence to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly:
"Pursuant to standing order 28(g), I request that the vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, moved by the Honourable Floyd Laughren, be deferred until immediately preceding orders of the day on Tuesday, December 7, 1993."
This order therefore shall occur.
Mr Elston: Who signed it?
The Acting Speaker: Signed by the Honourable Fred Wilson, MPP, chief government whip.
2140
RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES IMMEUBLES D'HABITATION
Ms Gigantes moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we start the debate, there have been some discussions between myself and the opposition parties. I understand that after our leadoff the Liberal critic will do his leadoff response for an hour and a half. The Tory critic is not available, so their leadoff response will be stood down and we will go to a Tory for a half-hour rotation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to rise and move second reading of Bill 120, the residents' rights bill. The purpose of the bill is straightforward: It is to extend the protection of our tenancy laws to people who do not have that protection now. It is a bill about the rights of people who live in care homes and people who live in apartments in houses.
The plight of people who are living in unregulated care homes across Ontario has been a matter of great concern for a long time. I would like to take this chance to thank Dr Ernie Lightman for his very thorough investigation and his strong report about conditions of people living in care homes in Ontario.
There are about 47,000 people who live in care homes. They are mainly frail elderly people, former psychiatric patients, people with developmental difficulties and people who have physical disabilities. Because care homes provide a range of care and health services in addition to accommodation, they were not covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act or the Rental Housing Protection Act.
In his report, Dr Lightman highlighted many forms of abuse: residents who were evicted at a moment's notice with their belongings stuffed into garbage bags, unsafe living conditions --
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Because they don't pay their rent.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, not just because they don't pay their rent; at the whim of operators, in many cases -- inadequate care, lack of privacy, sexual abuse and problems relating to health and personal safety.
The amendments that are proposed in this bill will extend to residents of care homes in Ontario the full protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act and say, in effect, "No more harassment, no more abuse and no more garbage bag evictions."
The Rent Control Act will apply to the portion of the monthly charge which covers accommodation. Bill 120 will require care home operators to register their charges for care services, the rents they charge and the number of occupants in each unit with the rent registry. This, in turn, will increase the power of municipal and provincial inspectors to ensure that care homes meet provincial safety and maintenance standards, and it will also ensure that there will be an improvement in the overall living conditions for residents.
The amount paid for meals and care will not be covered by rent control. This charge will vary widely from home to home, from resident to resident and, from time to time, even with the same resident.
In addition, the Rent Control Act will now require that operators provide tenants with a detailed information package outlining what care services are being provided, at what price, when increases will occur and also describing the qualifications of staff. There will be a requirement of 90 days' notice prior to any increase in care service costs, which will be enforced through the Rent Control Act.
We will also monitor care service costs on an annual basis so that if they are seen to be rising dramatically, the act will be set up so that it can be changed to provide that there will be a control on charges for care services, through regulation under the act. In effect, while care costs per se will not be regulated, the Rent Control Act will provide significant consumer protection and empowerment in the area of care.
Our proposed amendments to the Rental Housing Protection Act will prevent the demolition or conversion of a care home without the approval of a municipality.
These changes reflect the key recommendations of Dr Ernie Lightman's report. They are also changes which tenant advocates and organizations representing senior citizens, people with disabilities and mental health consumers have vigorously advocated and supported for quite some time. They represent protection for care home residents, protection which recognizes individuals as equal and participating members in society. The approach that's being used is consistent with the steps that we're taking in the long-term care redirection towards community-based care and deinstitutionalization.
The second part of the bill provides proposed amendments to the Planning Act and the Municipal Act which address another set of problems, problems faced by tenants living in apartments in private houses, and in some cases by owners of such apartments. These apartments in houses are now illegal in most parts of Ontario, due to municipal zoning bylaws. As a result, people living in them can't complain to their municipality about unsafe or unhealthy housing conditions without risking eviction, and owners are not encouraged to bring apartments up to standard when they won't be recognized as legal units.
The amendments proposed to address this situation are designed to do four things.
First, the changes will enable home owners living in detached, semidetached or row houses to create one apartment unit in their house. The unit must, of course, meet reasonable health and safety standards.
Second, the legislation will improve municipal investigation and enforcement powers. It will make it easier for municipalities to get a search warrant to investigate possible violations of property standards bylaws for all accommodations, including apartments in houses.
Third, the legislation will give interested municipalities the flexibility to enter into agreements with home owners who want to install garden suites or what we commonly call granny flats on their property. These are the small, portable, self-contained units which home owners can install, usually in their back or side yard.
Fourth, the legislation will make it clear that for zoning purposes unrelated people who share a living accommodation in a single residential unit will be treated the same as other households.
These amendments are not a made-in-Toronto solution to a Toronto problem. Of the estimated 100,000 illegal apartments in houses in Ontario today, at least 50,000 are outside Metro Toronto. For example, we know that there are about 1,500 units in Thunder Bay which are illegal, about 1,500 units in London which are illegal and about 10,000 in Hamilton which are illegal. Everybody who's ever canvassed a door for the heart fund has seen apartments which they know to be below health and safety standards. This legislation will have very significant benefits for a lot of people: tenants, the economy, home owners in the province, municipalities and taxpayers.
2150
If I could speak first to the economic benefits, we have to rebuild Ontario's economy through job creation, and at the same time we need to increase the supply of affordable housing in the province. This legislation will support both these goals. As home owners bring existing units up to standard or create new units, this construction and renovation work will generate much-needed jobs for small contractors, for carpenters and other trades people, and for people working in the building and home supply sector.
Equally important, we'll be increasing Ontario's supply of affordable housing, at little cost to the taxpayer, by making it legal for home owners to have a rental apartment in the house. The proposed amendments will support home ownership. Rental income can help ease the financial burden of home ownership for seniors and for others living on fixed incomes or living alone. For many people, this can make the difference between being able to stay in their own home, in their own neighbourhoods, or having to move or depend on social services.
The rental income from an apartment in the house can often be the little extra income that many people need to cover mortgage payments, to move from renting to home ownership. Garden suites are a solution for many seniors who, as they grow older, find it difficult for various reasons to cope with a large home. It can also help others, such as people with disabilities, live independently with a little support close by.
We're not proposing to legalize garden suites everywhere. Instead, what we are proposing will give municipalities the tools they feel they need to approve garden suites on a case-by-case basis. Municipalities will be able to enter into agreements with home owners to regulate the installation, maintenance and duration of use of these units.
There are clear benefits from this legislation for tenants living in apartments and houses. When apartments and houses exist legally, tenants can complain to their municipality about unsatisfactory housing conditions without risking eviction. They can exercise their full rights as tenants, and municipal officials will be in a better position to make sure that apartments in houses are safe for the people who live in them.
There are benefits for municipalities. The amendments will strengthen municipalities' powers to enforce their property standards bylaws. In applying for a search warrant to investigate property standards violations, municipal officials will not longer have to indicate physical evidence to be ceased.
This initiative reflects a lot of public input. The ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing received over 1,300 briefs and staff from the two ministries met with more than 60 groups. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I also met with councillors from Windsor, London, Stratford, Hamilton, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Etobicoke, Whitby, Kingston and the GTA mayors, and of course I talked to council members in the area of Ottawa-Carleton.
We met with executives from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. We also met with technical associations like the Ontario Building Officials Association and with housing advocacy groups. We listened to what people told us during the consultations and we made some significant changes to the draft legislation which had originally been put forward as Bill 90 last June, a year ago.
For one thing, the amendments we're proposing would exclude houses served by private septic systems. Municipalities would not be required to allow home owners to put an additional unit in the house in such cases. The amendments here, in Bill 120, do not cover building and fire code standards. New building code standards for houses with apartments were approved after consultation with building officials. On the other side, work is still under way in consultation with the fire marshal's office to revise the fire code. So we've eliminated those sections from the bill.
I want to emphasize that the changes we're proposing are not an unconditional amnesty for existing illegal apartment units in houses.
Interjections.
Hon Ms Gigantes: If you'd listen more carefully, you'd understand. To be legal, such an apartment will have to comply with the fire code and with municipal bylaws that set out property standards.
This legislation will resolve an issue that has been with us for a long time. It will take us a step closer towards balancing the rights of tenants, landlords and local communities. It will mean more jobs and it will mean more affordable, healthier, safer rental housing for Ontarians to live in. In fact, the people of Ontario recognize --
Mr Stockwell: More jobs? Get a grip. Come on. You clip your toenails, you create jobs. God, she clips her nails, she creates a job. Someone has got to cart it to a dump.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Etobicoke West.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm just coming to the part he wants to hear. The member for Etobicoke West will want to hear that an Environics poll last year found that 70% of Ontarians favour allowing apartments in houses.
In closing, I'd like to underline the valuable contribution of Dr Ernie Lightman to this legislation. He has fought long and hard for the changes to improve conditions for people living in care homes. I'd like to thank him for the excellence of his work and for his dedication to the task.
I'd also like to thank community organizations such as the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the Coalition for the Protection of Roomers and Boarders and the Inclusive Neighbourhoods Campaign for their contribution and for their compassion.
This is a bill about residents' rights. It's not only about an idea whose time has come. It's about an idea whose time is long overdue.
The Speaker: I thank the Minister of Housing for starting the debate --
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Is the member doing nothing for me?
The Speaker: The member for Durham East, please come to order. I invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would like to speak actually at some length on this bill, but I should take the opportunity to address some of the remarks the minister has made.
First of all, it's quite obvious that the minister has not consulted widely with municipalities, because she would find that the majority of municipalities that I would talk to would be very much opposed to this legislation as it is constituted. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, must have great concerns about it, because it invites an awful lot of problems.
As one who sat on a municipal council for a number of years, the level which is reputed to be the closest to the people in the neighbourhoods, I can assure the minister --
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): You were close to the people. There wasn't a pothole that you didn't personally examine.
Mr Bradley: The member for Renfrew North interjects, and it takes me somewhere else.
The member used to work for -- this fits in actually with the response -- the CBC at one time. I was wondering if she would intervene with the CBC to ask them why they didn't give the results of the by-election on Thursday night. I'm not trying to be flippant with the government. I listened to the CBC on Thursday night and I listened on Friday morning and I could not find the results of the by-election. I knew it would likely be a moral victory for the NDP somehow, but I did not get the results out of the CBC. You know how I listen to the CBC. But the people who work there certainly could not be accused of being Liberals or Conservatives, certainly the people whom I listen to.
Mr Stockwell: I got them on CFRB.
Mr Bradley: CFRB got them. Anyway, the Speaker is very tolerant this evening.
I simply want to say that if you go to the individual municipalities, I don't know the situation in Metropolitan Toronto, but I can tell you that in a municipality such as mine this legislation is not going to be well received. I think you'll be receiving representations from St Catharines city council and others who will be expressing their concerns about the provisions of this legislation.
2200
Mr Stockwell: I take this opportunity to speak quickly, and I will speak at length to this. I find this a complete intrusion, an intrusion into a duly elected level of government, which is the local level of government. The people in the local level of government would tell you that this is a poorly conceived -- the basement apartment particularly -- ill-planned piece of legislation. Right now, in municipalities across this province, I defy you to find 5% of basement apartments that would conform to existing bylaws.
Why they don't conform is because their ceilings are too low; there is only one entrance and exit -- it's the same one -- they don't have enough window space etc. I'll tell you right now, this bill will be chastised the first time we have a basement apartment fire and people will perish in there, because it will be a legal basement apartment, because this government decided to intrude into local responsibilities.
They've handled the problem well for the last 100 years. They haven't gone hugely into debt. They've got some pretty happy people there. They seem to be holding their tax sights to a 0% increase. In the city of Toronto they have trouble getting emergency vehicles down roads today. If you put basement apartments in a lot of those roads, where are the cars going to park? You won't get fire trucks or ambulances down there. They have enough difficulty as it is today trying to manage the difficulties they're faced with, with the present-day number of people who live in the residential neighbourhoods. They were never designed for basement apartments, for multidwelling units. AMO doesn't like it, local councils don't like it, local officials don't like it and neighbourhoods won't like it. As usual, that means that if all of them don't like it, these people will love it.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Well, I like it. Quite frankly, I can't understand the argument of the member for Etobicoke. On the one hand, he talks about parking and grass-cutting and the stuff that pertains to the cities and the municipalities. On the other hand, he says that the province here is --
Interjections.
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, I can't hear.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Mammoliti: On the other hand, he's saying that the province is butting its nose in where it doesn't belong, into a municipality. What about changing the bylaws for parked cars? Why don't the municipalities do that? In my particular community, that's a problem. We've been after the municipality for ages to change the bylaws around that and it hasn't done it.
Mr Stockwell: What are they doing to do, park two cars in one spot?
The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.
Mr Mammoliti: I like the bill for a number of reasons. I like the bill in particular, and I commend the minister, for dealing with an issue that has been dear to our hearts in our family, and that's seniors' care. Seniors' care, for my particular family, is very important.
Interjections.
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, I can't hear. The member for Etobicoke West keeps babbling on. I can't even hear myself, for crying out loud. I hope you tack on another 30 seconds.
The Speaker: Address the comments to the Chair; that'd be very helpful. The member for Etobicoke West had his two minutes. The member for Yorkview has the floor.
Mr Mammoliti: Again, we have a grandmother in my particular family, my grandmother, in a home. This, to us, means a lot. It means a lot because my particular grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, has in my opinion been treated unfairly in the past. I think that if you talk about others and other families, they would say the same thing. When there are increases in those particular homes, it is in a lot of cases, very, very unfortunate because seniors can't afford it.
The Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr Mammoliti: It has expired, Mr Speaker, because of the member for Etobicoke West.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The minister has indicated that there has been discussion with municipalities and with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in particular. I have in my hand a press release from the association. I grant you that this press release is about a year old, but I talked with representatives from the association today. Their feelings today are the same as when they were expressed in this press release.
What they said was, "Most municipalities have now received the province's consultation paper." This is with regard to apartments and houses. "Many have expressed great concern that the consultation paper has been released during the summer months and that there is only a two-month period for submission of responses, yet the draft legislation has many far-reaching implications. Municipalities are concerned that no public consultation on the paper has been organized. The province also appears to be avoiding public discussion on this issue and does not intend to consult widely on the issues."
This is the feeling of the municipalities of Ontario. They have many concerns about this, including the province running roughshod over the planning process in Ontario and that there has not been a consultation with the municipalities. I think you should respond to that in your comments.
The other question I find of interest, and this has been raised over and over again, is that this legislation will create jobs. What's going to happen is that many poor home owners are going to be faced with the fact that their basement apartment will not comply. Perhaps the ceiling height will not be adequate. They're going to be faced with the proposition of a very expensive repair -- I assume that's how jobs are created -- or with elimination of the basement apartment. Guess which one they're going to choose.
The Speaker: The Minister of Housing has up to two minutes for her reply.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The member for St Catharines should note --
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): But they're illegal now.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): They are going to be illegal after you do it too.
Mr Mammoliti: Well, what do you want --
The Speaker: Order. The member for Grey-Owen Sound and the member for Yorkview.
Hon Ms Gigantes: -- that while I said we consulted municipalities, I never said that I expected municipalities to rush forward --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat.
Mr Mammoliti: At least they'll be controlled. Are they controlled now?
The Speaker: I ask the member for Yorkview to come to order.
Mr Mammoliti: No, they're not.
The Speaker: I caution the member for Yorkview that if he continues to be a cause of disorder, he will be named.
Would you reset the clock, two minutes.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That's very kind of you, Mr Speaker.
I wanted first of all to draw to the attention of the member for St Catharines the fact that I never suggested in anything I said that I expected municipal organizations, whether it be municipalities singularly or municipalities en masse through AMO, to leap with delight about this bill as it affects apartments in houses.
The reason for that I think is quite simple: The people who like having single-family zones and who live in them and want to keep them that way tend to vote at a higher rate than other people in municipalities. That's a matter of fact. Therefore, when municipal councillors come to deal with this question, they find it very difficult to get accord in such neighbourhoods. Therefore, I think it really is a responsibility of the provincial government to say that what we're looking for here is some sense at the provincial level that we will take the responsibility and we will say that each home owner has the right.
I was amazed to hear the member for Etobicoke West talk about intrusion into the local level of government. Let me ask him, what does it mean when a municipal government intrudes into the very home of the citizen and says, "No, you may not place an apartment there"?
You're suggesting that in fact we're going to have difficulties making sure that apartments meet standards. There are 100,000 illegal apartments now which don't meet standards, precisely because they've been created in a black market. We are regularizing a black market and saying to landlords of apartments which don't meet standards, "Come forward, meet the standards; the zoning is not going to be your problem," and we're saying to new, would-be landlords, "Apply for a building permit and get a good, safe and healthy apartment in your house."
The Speaker: The minister's time has expired. I invite further debate.
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I would like to ask members to recognize our ability to split the time that has been allocated for this on the leadoff. I would like to reserve some time for my colleague the member for Mississauga West by prior agreement of all three parties.
The Speaker: The member for Lawrence poses a new question to the House. The earlier agreement was that the opposition would have one hour and a half for one speaker. Is it agreed that the hour and a half may be split between two members of the official opposition? Agreed. So ordered. The member for Lawrence has the floor.
2210
Mr Cordiano: Let me start off saying that the first difficulty in dealing with this item before the House, Bill 120, is the very fact that this bill encompasses two very separate initiatives --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Lawrence take his seat. Would you stop the clock, please. If the member for Etobicoke West and the member for Yorkview would like to have a discussion, perhaps they could carry it on outside the chamber. The member for Lawrence is recognized to have the floor. Please allow him the opportunity to make his remarks.
Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying before I was interrupted, there are two separate initiatives that are being dealt with in this omnibus piece of legislation, two very separate and different initiatives which I have a great deal of difficulty accepting have to be dealt with in the same piece of legislation. It stretches the imagination quite some way to think that these pieces of legislation have to be dealt with together.
I understand the government's motives. They want to make sure that their legislation passes and therefore they're lumping things together, throwing it into the same basket and saying: "They're entirely the same. The themes are the same. This is a residents' rights bill."
I can tell you, Mr Speaker, these are not related matters in every aspect. There are some very crucial questions about these two bills which I think ought to be dealt with separately. Although I support some of the initiatives that have been undertaken by Dr Lightman in his recommendations and some of the initiatives that have been encompassed in Bill 120, I find it difficult to accept the latter part of the bill that deals with basement apartments.
It stretches the imagination, as I said, to be able to deal with both. I'm sure this was entirely the intent of the government, to ensure that it was rather difficult for members to agree with one part of the bill, disagree with another part of the bill, and have to make a very difficult decision about voting on the entire bill, whether yea or nay. I'll tell you, Mr Speaker, this is not a style of governance which should be acceptable in the future. I hope we're not going to continue to see this type of initiative by the government, because I think it's rather undemocratic and rather unfair.
Let me get on with the matter at hand and try to separate these two initiatives, as they should be and as they ought to have been entitled; two separate pieces of legislation.
Before I do that, I want to ask the minister, because I heard in her remarks that part of this bill will result in job creation, if there was real intent to create jobs, then why have you not extended the Ontario home ownership savings plan? Therein lies a real opportunity to create more jobs and to create private sector jobs. If the minister were interested in creating real jobs she would have extended OHOSP, which was working quite well; hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario have taken advantage of that program, and the minister should have extended that program. As she sits there today, she should be working out details on how to extend the program if she really wanted to create jobs in the private sector. For the life of me, I cannot understand. It's such a simple conclusion to come to, to extend the very successful OHOSP program, which would have been easy for this government.
This government has done very little in terms of private sector initiation, in terms of creating incentives for the private sector, one of which was OHOSP, giving people who are starting out an opportunity to own their own homes. It's a very simple program. It's been done before -- it wasn't original -- but it proved to be a real success, as it was in the past.
I understand that government funds are limited. I understand that fiscal pressures are the reality for everyone. But when we're spending close to $1.2 billion by 1995-96 in subsidy levels for non-profit housing -- that will be out of control by the time 1995-96 comes.
I hope the minister took account of the report I tabled today on non-profit housing, a report of the standing committee on public accounts, which I think went some way to addressing the difficulties, the waste and inefficiencies that have been wrought by this government. I think the ministry was responsive to the committee's initiatives and I know the ministry will move forward on some of the recommendations. I would hope the minister encourages the ministry to move forward on some of the recommendations.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): It was an all-party committee.
Mr Cordiano: That's right, it was an all-party committee. Members of her governing party also supported the bill and provided some very valuable input into the recommendations. I would say to the minister, support the bureaucrats, because I think they have a willingness to see to it that there is less waste and less inefficiency with the non-profit program. It is an important program, a program we support, which we very much want to see succeed in the future, but we want the program to meet the real need out there.
And we don't want the non-profit program to replace the private sector. Remember the private sector, Minister, the private sector that creates jobs? Remember? That's the sector of the economy that is failing, that this government has wreaked havoc on. If the minister got serious about waste and inefficiency, then I could stand up in the House and say, "Good job, Minister; good job, government," but I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to do that for the foreseeable future. Certainly not until after the next election would I be able to stand up and say, "That was a long memory in the past, but we'll deal with these problems and have all these messes to clean up."
With regard to the non-profit program, as I put it to the minister one day when I asked her this question in the House, do not jeopardize, Minister, because that is your obligation, that is your responsibility, that is the burden you carry. I think we've reached the point where the good people in the province who supported the initiatives under the non-profit housing program, very sensitive, reasonable people who supported the non-profit housing program that was designed to meet the need for those people who could not find housing otherwise -- I say to the minister that you have jeopardized the goodwill of those people. Get that train back on the track, and this is a way to do it.
I would say to the minister again, do not exclude the private sector from what is going on in housing today. The fact that you're legalizing basement apartments may or may not result in very many jobs being created. I guess there will be some, but I have to also remind the minister that when this government introduced the Rent Control Act and made it retroactive, it destroyed literally thousands of jobs in the renovation business that were, as a result of measures undertaken by our government, leading to the restoration and refurbishment of many buildings across the province. In my own riding there was a great deal of work being carried on by those in the renovation business, many hundreds of workers in my riding who were then unemployed by the Rent Control Act, leading to a morass of red tape and bureaucracy.
This government's policies on housing have led to a real destruction of the housing sector for private industry. They've moved out of it and they're having a difficult time. People are still having a hard time getting into the housing sector, even though it's become more affordable.
Let me get on with response to the Lightman report, because this piece of legislation deals with five existing pieces of legislation: the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rental Control Act, the Rental Housing Protection Act, the Planning Act and the Municipal Act. I'm going to address aspects of the bill as they relate to those acts. It's important because there is one essential component in the bill which fails to deal with what I think will be a very difficult problem and a concern, making this bill not as straightforward as the minister would like to make it out to be.
2220
Quite frankly, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, amendments to it will now apply to residential premises occupied for the purposes of receiving care. This is important because the exemption did exist in the Landlord and Tenant Act to exempt residential premises that were there for the purpose of applying therapy and rehabilitation, and that was limited. Of course, under the new amendments, that will no longer be the case and care will not be a reason to be excluded from the Landlord and Tenant Act.
I say that because charges for care services and meals will not be included in the definition of "rent" under the LTA. Yes, that's understood, but there will be a requirement for landlords to register those care charges with the rent registry. This, to me, smacks of the heavy-handed approach that's being taken by the government.
If this government is truly not interested in dealing with the care portion of the bill and not really monitoring that portion, leaving it out of consideration --
Hon Ms Gigantes: We're going to be monitoring.
Mr Cordiano: I say to the minister -- she says that they're going to be interested in monitoring charges for care -- explain to me, how is it that you're going to be able to monitor charges for care by the rent registry? People who are trained to deal with rent legislation are now going to be empowered to deal with charges for care services, which they have no knowledge of, quite frankly, and they're going to be required to pass judgement on those services. Yes, there's a registration of that, but what's to come next, after you have this log of care charges and you can then historically look back at what's taking place?
If this government deems it necessary in the future that somehow these charges are exceeding what it thinks is acceptable --
Hon Ms Gigantes: You've got it.
Mr Cordiano: -- then it's going to come in -- and the minister is accepting wholeheartedly what I'm saying. Then she's going to come in on her horse and say: "This is not acceptable. I'm going to champion the cause for care charges." I say to you, Minister, that's unacceptable. That is totally unacceptable.
Interjection.
Mr Cordiano: Yes, it is, because there is no way you're going to convince me that the people who are monitoring the rent registry have the ability to know that charges are acceptable or reasonable. I'd like to know how, in the Ministry of Housing, you're going to be able to make that argument, and that convincing argument, that care charges will in fact --
Hon Ms Gigantes: We'll work at it.
Mr Cordiano: I say, I think it's totally inappropriate. You don't have the expertise in the Ministry of Housing to deal with care and service charges. It concerns me a great deal because, again, it's the heavy-handed approach of this government that sees its way to legislation that makes the real world much, much more complicated than it should have to be, than it ought to be.
The other concern that we have, and I think this was a very legitimate concern which Lightman himself suggested not be included in the provisions that have been brought forward by the minister, has to do with eviction. There may be legitimate instances in which a resident of a retirement home must be moved from the home, circumstances under which the individual poses a risk to other residents. It would appear that such a relocation may not be easily done under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and I think it's quite clear that it's rather difficult given what's in the Landlord and Tenant Act.
I say that under Mr Lightman's report, he also recognized the need for temporary relocations and recommended that there be a fast-track mechanism for the speedy discharge of individuals posing serious harm to other residents.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: At the moment, there are six NDP members in this House and we do not have a quorum.
The Speaker: Would the clerk count to determine if a quorum is present in the chamber.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: The member for Lawrence may resume his address to the House.
Mr Cordiano: As I was saying, with regard to this section, Bill 120 doesn't speak to this matter. It leaves inadequate mechanisms. There are no adequate mechanisms for removing individuals who pose a risk to others. I think that's an important fact in the exclusions under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
The other item is with respect to respite care. There have been concerns raised about the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act to rest and retirement homes that have contracts with local hospitals to care for people for short periods. It's not clear how the Landlord and Tenant Act will apply to respite care situations, for example, cancer patients from out of town receiving chemotherapy who happen to come in and need that type of short-term respite care.
As well, one of the other big concerns around Bill 120 is with respect to emergency situations. I have to ask the government how it intends to deal with the 24-hour notice provision currently in the Landlord and Tenant Act. The blanket application of the Landlord and Tenant Act to rest homes is really quite dangerous since it may prevent staff from providing care to residents in an emergency situation. There's nothing in the bill to indicate that the government has recognized this very serious problem, the impact this will have on care of residents or how to deal with it. I believe the special requirements of rest and retirement homes must really be taken seriously in the application of the Landlord and Tenant act.
I say to the minister, this is an area that I think you need to address, and I hope we can address this matter in committee. I hope she will not turn her attention away from this, because emergency care situations, as has been put forward by the Ontario Long Term Residential Care Association, are of major concern to them. The minister has said that she has consulted broadly. Well, this is certainly an area that she's overlooked. I hope she takes this quite seriously when we're in committee, because it is certainly a serious matter.
I know the member for Yorkview would not want his grandmother not to receive emergency care when an emergency situation arises. I certainly would not want to have my grandmother in a hospital and not have those who provide that kind of care being able to enter the premises without going through the hoops and loops which are required in the Landlord and Tenant Act, the notice provisions. I think that needs to be addressed. It's quite a serious matter, I say to the minister.
I mentioned the fact that under the Rent Control Act, the regulation of price increases will now apply to the accommodation portion of the charges, receiving notices of rent increases, and increases will be subject to an annual guideline. That's understood under the Rent Control Act. Quite frankly, I don't have too much of a disagreement with that, although I would say again that the care provisions are going to be problematic. I would just say to the minister again that if there is no intention to regulate, as the minister has indicated, that if at some future date the charges for care become onerous in her opinion, and I would like a further elaboration on this, would that be a minister's prerogative? Would that be left to regulations in the bill? Is that something that is to be spelled out later? Would the minister be able to act on it by regulation? That concerns me because I think that is something that needs full airing, and in committee I will be looking for amendments to that section of the bill and, in fact, probably proposing amendments to that section of the bill.
2230
It is also conceivable that under Bill 120 a care home resident could continue to pay for accommodation charges while refusing to pay for care charges. As has been pointed out, in such an instance the landlord, the care provider or the operator of the care home would not have the opportunity to evict a tenant if they failed to pay for their care charges. I have some concern with that because this could go on in perpetuity.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is a breach of contract.
Mr Cordiano: The minister says "breach of contract." I would like to see further details of that as well in committee because I'm not satisfied that you're not leaving these homes with a difficult situation on their hands in perpetuity, as I said. Certainly, that needs to be tightened, that needs to be looked at very carefully, because otherwise I might think that this government is ideologically motivated once again, as it has been in other areas.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Foul.
Mr Cordiano: It's not foul, Minister. I say there's ample evidence to suggest that what you've done in the past has been foul, very foul, particularly with regard to the whole sector of child care and what you've done to private industry in child care.
There was certainly an effort on the part of this government to undo the private sector with regard to the provision of child care services. In an era where all governments are looking for additional dollars, you are once again looking to undo the private sector in an industry where the private sector has been fulfilling a need that's there and will continue to be there in greater demand in the future, I would say. I shudder to think what future governments will have to deal with if in fact the minister, as I suspect, in a very short period of time will under the care provisions find it necessary to bring those under rent control or to bring them under some other formulation of a bureaucratic initiative.
Once again, it would be very shameful indeed to have Bill 120 result in the demise of the private sector in this area. Quite frankly, although there are some bad operators, as there are in every area, as there are in every field of endeavour, it would be shameful to destroy an entire industry, an industry which we cannot replace. You simply do not have enough resources to replace this industry.
I say to the minister, I'm looking forward to committee hearings because there are going to be a number of areas that I think you're going to have difficulty with, and this is not an issue that will go away rather quickly. There are a number of people concerned about care charges and how you handle that section on emergency situations.
To deal with the latter section of the bill on basement apartments, again we see the heavy hand of this government, which has blinders on to local initiative. Local planning has totally been ignored once again by this government. The minister says, "We're about to take action because local municipalities do not take action." I say to the minister that under the policy we introduced on intensification, when we were the government, there were numerous municipalities that brought in a variety of measures under those provisions, under that policy. In fact, some 90 municipalities had complied with the policies of the previous government under intensification rules.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Not on this bill.
Mr Cordiano: Yes indeed, and quite frankly I don't see how the minister can justify these initiatives with regard to smaller communities. She points to Toronto, and in fact Toronto may be an appropriate place to have this type of initiative, but what's wrong with having local initiatives being undertaken to deal with these matters? What's wrong with local bylaws dealing with these matters? It just doesn't work across the entire province. There are smaller communities out there which don't have this problem, smaller communities which do not need to have accessory apartments legislated by Queen's Park, a made-for-Toronto policy which is going to be broadly based, a broad-brush approach which simply won't work in a lot of small communities. I think this is a major oversight on the part of this government.
As has been pointed out by previous speakers, AMO has been opposed to this, and the broad consultation the minister speaks about wasn't broad at all, because she wasn't listening to AMO. AMO is representative of the broad cross-section of municipalities across the province. The minister admits that, but that's not consultation and that doesn't mean she's listened to those concerns. She's completely ignored them. She has ideological blinders on once again.
I just again get back to the point of why it was necessary to introduce an omnibus piece of legislation for this matter, which quite frankly could've been dealt with in two pieces of legislation separately. They're entirely separate issues with regard to the matter pertaining to the various acts that are affected by this, the Municipal Act and the Planning Act, and I again voice my opposition to the fact that these things were introduced together.
I think Bill 20 is the latest example of, as I said, omnibus legislation that throws together, junks together, pieces of legislation in an effort to speed up the legislative program here at Queen's Park. We always have problems at the end of the session, and this is again demonstrated by this government's inability to introduce legislation in a timely fashion, giving the opposition an opportunity to examine the legislation to its fullest extent possible. To lump it together and throw it through the hopper at the last moment totally disregards the democratic process.
Quite frankly, I thought the minister was motivated because this bill just simply wasn't going to live up to the things she had thought it would live up to. I believe this government felt that by throwing it in with the recommendations around the Lightman report and --
Hon Ms Gigantes: Which you don't support anyway.
Mr Cordiano: Well, we do support it, by and large. I would like to see changes to the sections that I've pointed out are difficult and problematic. If the minister is saying, "Oh, there's no problem," then I'm sorry, you're in for some real delightful surprises in the future with regard to those sections of the bill. You're totally ignoring some very important associations that have to deal with these matters, such as the Ontario long-term care association, which has to deal with this item and has pointed out that there are problems with this legislation.
Quite frankly, I again say to the minister, I shall be looking forward to dealing with these items in committee. On the whole, we are generally supportive of the Lightman report and its findings and its recommendations, and the general thrust of the legislation is supportable on the whole, with these provisos I've pointed out.
2240
We are not supportive of the initiative with regard to basement apartments. We believe there was an alternative. We believe that municipalities should have been given the option to include this in bylaw provisions. Each municipality would have been given the opportunity to do this. I don't believe it's right to say, if members of a certain community do not want to have multiple-use dwellings, that they should be forced to have them by Queen's Park.
It simply doesn't wash, Minister, in a variety of communities where people have moved in thinking they're living in a single-family, residential community, suddenly to have thrust upon them multiple-use dwellings, to be converted overnight. I don't believe that's very fair at all, and to have this piece of legislation shoved down their throats is adamantly unfair. There's a better way to do this, Minister, and that could have been something you could have looked into.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We tried it and it didn't work.
Mr Cordiano: You did not give this an opportunity to really work. You didn't make any real efforts at getting municipalities to work with that policy. It was demonstrated, and I pointed out to the minister that some 90 municipalities had taken initiatives in this area and were in fact working with the government to intensify and to make this possible, to make accessory apartments possible. They were intensifying, and municipalities had alternatives to this. They were looking at other ways to intensify.
But the minister didn't believe this was going fast enough and it didn't meet her ideological agenda. I think this was something that was motivated largely by ideology and largely supported by people who did not feel that municipalities out there, in smaller communities, should have the right to make those decisions.
Hon Ms Gigantes: What about your housing policy?
Mr Cordiano: That was a policy statement.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Wasn't that ideological? What do you think is ideological?
Mr Cordiano: When you put it in the form of legislation and you ram it down the throats of all the people everywhere without any distinctions, that's not the real world; that's ideologically motivated. That's straitjacketing people into a position where they have no option and they have no alternatives. I would say, for those on that side of the House who are motivated by ideological factors, that it's quite easy to come to those conclusions and say: "Everyone should live by the same norm or same standard or same level. There should be no alternatives and people should not have choices."
That's what you've done. You've excluded the possibility for choice. You simply do away with choice, and that's the kind of society you would like to see in the province of Ontario, with very little choice for people.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, we opened up choice. You've got it backwards.
Mr Cordiano: I, for one, don't agree with that. I think that where people choose to live is important and is a personal decision. I think people should have the option to do that, especially when they're willing to pay extra for it; that is something you can't see eye to eye with.
I look forward to this piece of legislation in committee, where we will be making amendments and will offer alternatives for changing this legislation.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I congratulate the member for his remarks. I think they were well thought out. But one thing's very interesting: As he speaks, the minister sits in her place chirping at everything he says. We have given up long ago thinking that it's possible to get through to this minister to change her mind or to have her think in any way that there are positive suggestions that might come from this side of the House. If you want to chirp, chirp, but we're really not interested because we know and everyone knows, Minister, that you made up your mind long ago and you're simply ramming this down the throats of everybody in this Legislature and everybody in this province.
Of particular interest to me was a comment that would not have been picked up in Hansard, but the minister in her chirping back and forth made a remark that she was -- and I wrote it down -- stopping the heavy hand of municipal government. That's what she said -- and she's nodding her head in agreement -- that she's stopping the heavy hand of municipal government.
It's really interesting. I heard the minister say that the municipal politicians would jump with joy -- or some such description -- at this legislation going through, because no longer would they have to face the wrath of the electorate when the intensification --
Hon Ms Gigantes: That wasn't the way I said it.
Mr Mahoney: Then let me put it the way you said it. I think what the minister said was that municipal politicians would appreciate this legislation because the people who live in single-family communities are the people who come out in the largest numbers to vote for those municipal politicians and therefore they would not have to face the wrath of those voters on election day. That's what you said.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You got it.
Mr Mahoney: You are a cynic; you are a terrible cynic. For this minister to suggest that municipal politicians in this province don't care about their communities and are thinking in the cynical terms that this minister thinks, for a minister of the crown to be uttering such contemptible remarks in this Legislature is a disgrace.
Let me tell you that the people who represent their constituents at the municipal level, by and large, in this province are very close to the grass roots. They're the ones who have to attend the public meetings on issues that involve housing, planning, intensification, schools, transportation and all of those things. This minister sits on her pedestal high up in Queen's Park and is going to stop the heavy hand of municipal government.
Your municipal people in Ottawa must be ashamed of you, Minister. They must be so embarrassed that they can't wait until the next provincial election, when they can show you what a heavy hand means and throw you out of office, because that is what is going to happen, in my respectful submission.
In the municipalities, they have a lot of serious problems that revolve around many aspects of this, of municipal services. What's really unfortunate is that not only has this minister clouded this issue into an omnibus bill with another bill that should be totally separate, but she clouds the issue by pitting municipalities against their own residents. If the minister thinks for one minute that those people are going to simply exonerate their municipal officials and say, "Oh, the minister did it," they're going to say that, but those people are going to say, "You better go fight the minister, you better go talk to the Premier, because you're our elected representative." They have major problems.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Oh right, dealing with market value right now. All I hear is the Liberal municipal critic chirping away.
The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent is out of order.
Mr Mahoney: It's obvious to me that people opposite have never served on a municipal council, have never had to experience what it's like to work with a community to make something work, be it a non-profit housing project, be it a co-op project, be it a larger private building, any number of things. The concerns that are expressed by the residents in most cases are very real, their fears are legitimate and it is the job of a municipal councillor and the mayor to meet and talk with those people.
Hon Ms Gigantes: And the provincial member.
Mr Mahoney: The minister says it's the job of a provincial member as well. I would be interested to know how this minister can go to those people and say: "I don't care what you think. I don't care what your local elected representative thinks. We're going to pass this law and you're going to get this whether you like it or not." Is that the kind of consolation this minister and this government believe is fair in a democratic society?
What about the municipalities that said: "We're not blind to this. We're not prepared just to shut our doors. We'll talk to you. What about some licensing regulations? What about the impact on the schools?"
The facts of the matter are that basement apartments are not the end of the world. The very first home my wife and I had 25 years ago was a basement apartment, and there was nothing wrong with it, but let me tell you, it was not forced upon the community. There were not all the problems that many communities are facing with intensification.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Was it legal, Steve?
Mr Mahoney: Look, whether it was legal or not legal is not the point. If you want to legalize it, work with the municipalities to legalize it. Don't sit there high and mighty and tell everybody you've got all the answers.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You could have been evicted.
Mr Stockwell: Nobody gets evicted from a basement apartment. Name the last person.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Mahoney: If you really think there's a problem with the legality of intensification in basement apartments, put it on the table with the municipalities. Talk to AMO.
Mr Stockwell: No one has been evicted from a basement apartment in her life.
The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.
2250
Mr Mahoney: Talk to the people who have to sweat every day in dealing with the local community to try to make sure that they're building and developing harmony within their communities.
You're not doing anybody any favours. You're not doing any favours for the people who live in the basement apartments. There's going to be resentment in the community.
The kids in those basement apartments -- oh, you'll let them speak for themselves, but you won't let the duly elected representatives in the municipalities speak. Aren't you a wonderful little dictator? Aren't you just lovely? You're going to do it your way and to hell with anyone else who might be elected.
The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West, that is a little over the line. I would ask the member to refrain from using that type of language.
Mr Mahoney: I don't know what I went over the line on. I heard the minister say that she was going to allow some mechanism for people in basement apartments to have their say, but she's not prepared to allow people in municipalities, elected and otherwise, to have their say. Now, is that a dictate? Mr Speaker, I ask you. Is the minister dictating to them how she will bring this in? And one who dictates, according to Webster, is a dictator, and I suggest that's exactly what we have here.
The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. The member will know that it is not appropriate to use that type of language when referring to another member of the House. I would ask him to refrain from using such language.
Mr Mahoney: This is a piece of legislation that I look at and say it's give and take. It's mostly take by the government and give by the communities. Let me just give you some examples.
"All detached, semi-detached and row houses in areas zoned as residential will be allowed to have a basement apartment as of right without requiring special municipal approval."
Now, that's take. I don't think there's any question about that. This minister is taking away any right of the local municipality to have any say. They have concerns about it and they've expressed those concerns. The minister is taking away those rights. It's quite clear.
Then it goes on: "Municipalities will not be able to pass bylaws or official plans that make distinctions based on related or unrelated persons."
Let me tell you, Minister, I agree with that one. We agreed with that when we were in government. I always used the example that I grew up in a family of 10 kids, and you wouldn't have wanted to live next door to us. We were all related to one another, and it was pretty noisy and raucous at times, as you can imagine.
Interjections: No.
Mr Mahoney: It was at times. The fact is, we were related to one another, we think, and therefore the differential of related or unrelated obviously is not something that I feel you should be able to discriminate against. I go along with that.
"Any such existing bylaws or official plans are deemed to have no effect." The municipalities weren't happy with that -- we had a lot of meetings with them; we talked with AMO -- but they came to understand that under the charter in this country, you cannot discriminate against people for any reason. You certainly cannot discriminate based on their housing accommodation. You cannot discriminate based on whom they're related to or not related to.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Well, they were difficult, I admit that, but they came to understand it. So they said, Minister, "How can we work this out? We don't want problems of 12, 15, 20 and 30 people, all unrelated, all living in one single-family home." The problem of trying to define a "single family" may be simple in some communities in this province, but it is not simple in many others. You get all of these people living together, all having vehicles, having all kinds of different hours, comings and goings, work schedules, school schedules, impact on the local school, impact on the playground equipment, impact on everything. They were concerned about that, and it's a legitimate concern.
Having said that, you cannot discriminate based on their familial relationship. I totally support that particular position. But the municipalities said: "We understand that. We'll work with you. How about a licensing bylaw? How about recognizing that there are certain areas, there are certain conditions?" In my own community that I live in and represent and have for 16 years, both municipally and provincially in the same community. I have Erindale College, which is a division of the University of Toronto.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, come to order.
Mr Mahoney: There are town houses on the campus where the students live, but there are a lot of other areas where perhaps people would be prepared to talk about intensifying the housing. There are some very large homes there, and there may well be a movement within that community to provide some student housing within that community. There may be a movement within that community to provide some seniors accommodation; as you call them, granny flats. That type of thing may well be doable and available in a community such as the one I refer you to in Erin Mills.
But for you to simply dictate it, for you to simply wrap up in another piece of legislation this particular bill, to actually introduce a bill called Bill 90 and then to sneak it away and bring it back in in another bill, I don't even know if that's parliamentary; I don't even know if that should be allowed. I'm sure it is or they wouldn't be trying it, but it's really outrageous.
Are you afraid to have this debate? Are you afraid of the mayors? You're afraid of Hazel, maybe? I don't know. Are you afraid of Mel? We'll bring Mel and Hazel in and have a nice little confab. I'll referee. I don't understand it. Why won't you talk to them, Minister? Why won't you listen to their concerns? They have concerns about municipal services, the impact on the parks and the recreation. It may not be a problem; we may be able to work it out. I think that type of thing could be worked out.
But the problems we experience -- let me tell you a story of a community that has turned things around. The member for Mississauga South isn't here and she may address this, but I'm aware of it as well because of course I have a very strong connection to the municipal council in Mississauga which, Mr Speaker, I'm sure you're aware of.
I've also received the documentation about Talka Village. Talka Village was, at one time, a community that was full of intensification; there was a major problem for many, many years. There were all kinds of crime problems -- I won't go into details. But the fact is that the residents' association at Talka Village has taken back their community. They have resolved it with the help of councillor Pat Mullin, with the help of the municipal staff, and they've put together a whole positive outlook on this community that was formerly really in very, very serious trouble.
That's just one example this minister might look at to find out what it's like to get communities working together. It can happen. They can get together in Neighbourhood Watch and look out for each others' kids. They can say, "We're not going to put up with the criminal element that's invading our community." They can Take Back the Night if that's what has to happen. They can say to the police, "We want to work with you in a positive community reinforcement program that will say to all of the women in our community, 'You're safe to walk the streets at night,' and say to the kids in our community, 'You're safe to go to the playgrounds in the daytime by yourself without thinking you have to have an armed guard.'"
That's what Talka Village did. I congratulate that residents' association. They did it without some government legislation and without these people coming along and telling them how they should be leading their lives in their community.
They've got a very positive situation going there, and I can take you to other areas in my riding in Mississauga West where communities have worked together, where ratepayers' groups -- what point is there in having a ratepayer group made up of volunteers meeting on their own time, often late at night, circulating flyers on issues, working day and night. I know what it's like. I'm a past president of a ratepayers' group, and I know how you have to work hard to get the community involved. It's usually only when a problem occurs in somebody's backyard that they pay attention to the ratepayers' group and the local councillor, but they keep plugging away and they've been doing it.
My own TEMPO, the Erin Mills organization, is one of the finest ratepayer groups in the city of Mississauga. They work with their councillor, and have for years, in trying to resolve concerns, whether it's around housing intensification, whether it's around the non-profit housing that this minister keeps handing out like it's coming out of Cracker Jack boxes, no matter what it's around.
I would like a moratorium, let me tell you that. I don't like the fact that you went out to my community and gave a speech that misled my leader's position on non-profit housing. Under no circumstances was there any suggestion that there be some unilateral solution to the crisis in non-profit housing. I've straightened it out with those people and told them what she really said. What we've been saying is that there should be a moratorium because you are destroying the non-profit housing projects in this province. You are going to bankrupt the whole thing.
2300
What we have to do is find a balance, a way of delivering these programs to the community, of working with organizations like Peel non-profit to ensure that our non-profit housing programs are successful for a long time to come in the future. But as long as this minister comes along, you get a group together and incorporate yourself in a non-profit capacity as the Left Nostril Inhaler Society and you, sir, could apply for some non-profit housing right there in your own community. That's just a terrific thing. We think it's out of control, just as this minister is out of control.
Anyway, on the point I'm making with regard to the give and take, let me go back to another take. I've said I agree that you cannot discriminate based on relationship. The next one is that the legislation allows regulations to be passed in order to limit the ability of municipalities to set zoning rules or property standards for basement apartments.
I've got to tell you, I first ran municipally in 1976. I didn't win that year. I ran two years later, in 1978, and I won municipally; I went through 1980, 1982, 1985 and then in 1987 ran provincially, so I've been through a few municipal elections. I understand the concerns, I think, at least in my own community. I was the city of Mississauga's representative on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for a couple of years and got to meet with municipal leaders from all over this great province, from the northwest, from the Ottawa community, from all over.
It seemed we had something in common. I mean, these people were going to be different, but it almost seems like it doesn't matter who is in power at Queen's Park. The one thing that municipalities have always had in common is a frustration that the government of the day is jamming things down their throats, forcing them to do things, passing on costs and burdens to the municipalities and not passing on any of the authority or any of the money that is required for them to implement the procedures the province is calling for.
We tried, when we were the government, to bring in intensification by suggesting that 25% of new subdivisions should be affordable housing. We didn't define that, because what's affordable in Ottawa may be different from what's affordable in Mississauga, what's affordable in Thunder Bay may be totally different from what's affordable in Kingston, so we didn't try to put it down in such a rigid form that the municipalities had no flexibility to deal with all of the subdivision plans. But the principle that was in place was to say to the municipalities, "In your planning and development and working with your local community, working with your ratepayers, we want you to try to implement some affordable housing."
There were some areas, the minister would say, and I would agree, where they refused to do that, and that was wrong. I won't name names or get into the areas, but I would just -- oh, well, I will, then. I know there was a suggestion in Vaughan, for example, that we could build the affordable housing in Mississauga and everybody who moved out of Mississauga could go to Vaughan and live in all the big houses.
I agree that's not a good, healthy attitude, that you need a mix of housing in a community. It's a stated policy in our official plan in the city of Mississauga that there be a mix of housing, that the high density be on the transit routes, that it be near the shopping corridors, that schools be put in place within walking distance. We've got it planned right down to the corner stores and the dry cleaners. This has been over many, many years.
In 1969, before my time, there was a release of three major areas in the city of Mississauga for development: Meadowvale, which is now a thriving, popular community; Erin Mills, which I represent, which is known as the planned community throughout North America. Indeed, we have people coming from all over the world to take a look at the planning. The minister should come some day. We've had a couple of ground-breaking ceremonies that the minister was unable, much to my upset and dismay, to make, so I covered for it.
But in any event, let me tell you --
Hon Ms Gigantes: The moratorium goes to you.
Mr Mahoney: It's not a double standard, because I made it quite clear that I was very concerned about what you were doing to the non-profit housing project, but at the same time, as this minister knows, I have a responsibility to represent the people in my community, and I'll continue to do that, Minister, with or without your blessing, let me tell you that.
But in 1969, Meadowvale and Erin Mills were released and Mississauga Valley, which is I guess as close as you can come to downtown Mississauga, right at the Burnhamthorpe-Highway 10 area, on the east side. Much of it I represent, as a matter of fact, and some of it is represented by Mr Sola, the member for Mississauga East.
Back in 1969 I think our city of Mississauga had a population of maybe 125,000, 140,000 people. Today, we are approximating half a million. We're the ninth largest municipality in the country and let me tell you, we have a wonderful community. We've got a good mix of residential-commercial, a lot of industrial. We are known as the Japanese capital of North America for head offices with Sharp Electronics and Nissan and any number of them. We have a twin city in Japan that has evolved out of the fact that so many Japanese companies have located in our city. We're quite proud of that.
We're quite proud of the fact that we have developed a tax base that sees our reliance on residential taxes going down and our reliance on industrial-commercial going up towards the balance that we think makes sense of a 60-40 ratio. We're not there yet, but even with all the growth that we've seen in our community in Mississauga, we have come up over the past 12 to 15 years with that particular ratio.
Why? Let me tell you, it was not because the Conservative government of the day dictated to us in Mississauga how we were going to plan our community. It was not because the Liberal government of the day under David Peterson dictated to us how we were going to plan our community. It was certainly not because somebody came along and said, "The legislation allows regulations to be passed in order to limit the ability of municipalities to set zoning rules."
Imagine a provincial government limiting the municipalities' authority and ability to set zoning rules or property standards. That one statement in this legislation, if there was nothing else -- and believe me, there is a lot else in this bill -- is reason enough not to vote for this legislation, and the minister knows it. You see, this is a trick. If she wraps this thing up with parts of the legislation that she knows some of our critics in the Liberal Party might agree with, if she ties it in to other studies, like Lightman and other things, that perhaps many of the aspects of those studies the Liberal Party might agree with, how can we vote against those things? So what she'll do is she'll slip in Bill 90 because she knows she's going to have a battle second to none to get Bill 90 passed standing on its own merits. She knows that. She knows that the municipalities will be lining up out here.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Well no, we know you can beat us. We know you've got the majority. Don't be too arrogant here, Minister. Every dog has his day, you know, and there's a long road without a bend and all that good stuff. Don't be too arrogant. This minister knows that if she tried to put Bill 90 through on its own, that there would be absolute chaos. The municipalities would be coming here, they would be demanding to see the Premier, they would be demanding that the bill be withdrawn and that proper consultation and discussions take place. They have not taken place. The communities are concerned. Do they need to be? In some cases they probably do; in others, the fears may not be well-founded.
2310
You talk about safety. I use the example of Talka Village and what it's done, but it did it by working together with the local representatives. They didn't do it with some dictate from a higher level of government.
There are technical problems with intensification. There is a thing called infrastructure. We all know about it. Infrastructure in a community is anything from sewers in the ground to water pipes. Once a year -- it never fails -- in my community we have a lake inversion. That is where the water at the bottom and the water at the top do a flip. When they do that, that causes a terrible odour in the water in the community. Once a year, guaranteed, it's like rotten eggs. You can't drink it, and if you boil it for tea or coffee it gets worse. It's a freak of nature. Lake Ontario actually flips right over.
People call my office and they call my wife's office all the time to say: "What is going on? We've got something in the water. There's a problem." We explain what it is. We go through the technical explanation. We get the ministry staff at the purification plant to contact them to explain to the residents what this is. But you can appreciate that when they don't know what it is, when they're not engineers, when they turn on the tap water and they put the kettle on for a cup of tea in the morning and they smell this, they think literally something is rotten. It's scary.
My point of using that analogy is that they don't know all the implications of what this minister's trying to do with intensification. All that the residents in a community know and frankly all that should concern them is the quality of life in their community and what it's all about. This minister is coming along without giving the people who represent them an opportunity to explain to them what this is about.
I made a suggestion to Mayor McCallion and the council some time ago -- we were still the government -- that we look at licensing: licensing of basement apartments, licensing of granny flats, licensing of group homes. One of the most difficult things that I ever went through in my political career was when I was still on council and I had won the nomination to run for the provincial Liberal Party in 1987, but the election had not been called yet, so I was a still a regional and a city councillor. The folks at Peel non-profit came to me and said, "We want to put a group home for former psychiatric patients right in the middle of a very affluent neighbourhood with single-family homes and we want you to support it." My first reaction was, "Thank you, but would you please go away?"
Mr Mills: Not in my backyard.
Mr Mahoney: Well, it was a frightening thing.
Peter Smith, who was the housing commissioner at the time for the region of Peel, said to me: "Steve, you can do this. You should do this. You've got to explain to the people in the community that the people who will be living in that home, which will be built very much like a single-family home -- that there, but for the grace of God, go any one of us." He convinced me to take up the challenge.
I did not go in and say to that community and say, "We're putting this in here whether you like it or not." I didn't go to that community and say: "You owe it to these people to take this. This is your responsibility." I set up a steering committee working with the non-profit housing company at Peel, working with the Canadian Mental Health Association in the region of Peel and working with my office. We had a steering committee and we met with a similar establishment in Brampton and we got to find out what's going on here, who actually it is that we're going to be accommodating in our community.
The short story of a fairly long story is that the community accepted that home. It is there today, it's operating just fine and the steering committee is still in place. In fact, the steering committee -- is there a problem with the time, Mr Speaker?
The Speaker: There's a small problem.
Mr Mahoney: There are 26 minutes left and the members opposite would like me to stop; is that the problem, Mr Speaker?
Mr Mammoliti: Yes. Sit down.
Mr Mahoney: Not a chance, George.
Let me have a look at that. What is that? Oh, look at that: "Traitors." Who are they? "Traitors and Heroes." There we go, folks.
Mr Mammoliti: Who are those heroes? Are you one of the heroes?
Mr Mahoney: Who are the heroes? Dennis Drainville, Karen Haslam, Peter Kormos and Mark Morrow. They're heroes. The rest of them -- I'd rather not deal with that.
Getting back to the issue of community involvement, I convened meetings. They were very difficult meetings, let me tell you, very difficult. At the first meeting there were 400 people in the auditorium at Sheridan Mall and all with a rope in their hands, doing up a knot ready to put around my neck. Let me tell you, it's the toughest thing I've ever been through, people saying that if their daughter got raped, it would be my fault. Very, very emotional. By the end of the process, you know what? We still had public meetings with between 300 and 400 people, but at the end of the project, those people had tears in their eyes.
Mr Mills: As they would here.
Mr Mahoney: The member says, "As they would here." If that's true, let's have the meetings.
Mr Mills: No, no. I said it's working out.
Mr Mahoney: Of course it's working out, but the reason that it's working out is the involvement with the community, with the proponents, which were Peel non-profit and the Canadian Mental Health Association. Nobody forced it on them. I assured the residents that if at the end of the process they were still adamantly opposed, I too would oppose it and we would move. I gave them that comfort level, that confidence level.
Having said that, I worked very hard to convince them that this indeed was not their worst nightmare. This was not a group home of people who had been charged with a crime or who had committed murder. This was not a halfway house such as the ones we hear about that are so difficult -- yet in society, we need places for them -- this was the home of former psychiatric patients.
It's most interesting that two weeks after the home opened, there was a suicide, tragically. My phone rang like crazy: "See, we told you so. This was a bad thing." I happened to anticipate this and I said: "Do you know that in your community, the broader community, in the past year there have been five other suicides and they've all been in single-family homes? A couple of them have been young people who were distraught." Five. It's a big community, but still. They said, "You're kidding; we had no idea." I said: "The only people who are going to get hurt by the people who live in this home are they themselves. It will not be you and it will not be your children." And they understood that.
In answer to the member for Durham East's question, it is working and it's working very well.
I say to you and I say to the minister that if she would only use that example -- don't use my example. I don't care. There are countless examples all around the province of open consultation with duly elected municipal officials dealing with the people whom they represent to ensure that harmony exists in the community. Is that not, in the bottom line, what our job is?
Back to my points on give and take. Municipalities will be able to pass temporary bylaws -- here's a give, Gordie, just for you -- that allow the use of garden suites, granny flats, for up to 10 years. The current limit is three. I'll tell you, this is a gift. Now what we're saying is that if you want to build a little granny suite out in the backyard and you want to have your mom or your dad or your mother-in-law or your father-in-law live out there, the benevolent government is going to allow you to do that. Hallelujah, and thank you very much for recognizing something that was recognized a long time ago.
The reality is, all they're doing is extending the time frame. The other reality, as the minister would know, is that all that would be required to extend that time frame is a minor variance at the committee of adjustment. Who is going to object to someone having their mother or dad or in-laws live with them, for goodness' sake?
Mr Mills: My daughter might.
Mr Mahoney: Your daughter might object to you living with them. I forgot. That's a point. But I think neighbours generally would be prepared to have you as a noble senior citizen living in their community with his family.
We're judged in many ways by how we treat our seniors in society. I use the example of Mississauga being the Japanese business capital of Canada, perhaps North America. I think it is. The Japanese treat their seniors with absolute reverence. There would never be any question about whether or not they need approval for a granny flat or to have their seniors live with their families. In fact, in Japanese homes that I've been in, there are three generations living there, all in peace and harmony. They understand that.
2320
I think we're all judged by how we treat our young people and our seniors. We have to nurture our young people and realize that they indeed are our most important asset, but we have to recognize that our seniors are our most important resource, that if we turn to them -- and the member for Durham East gave a very impassioned speech here on Remembrance Day and brought the whole place close to tears with his legitimate sincerity and his heartfelt feelings and concerns about, I'm sure, friends and colleagues whom he knew who perhaps fell, probably during the Second World War. I don't think you were there for the first; you're not quite that old. But, in all seriousness, he respected the contribution that they made, and we certainly respect that in the Liberal Party and in our community of Mississauga.
But, you know, leave us alone; we'll deal with it. We don't need the pontificating of the benevolent minister. I was going to say something else, but you've cautioned me.
Mr Murphy: Person who dictates.
Mr Mahoney: Person who dictates. Is that one allowed? I thought that Mussolini's daughter -- what was she, granddaughter? -- lost the election. Maybe she moved here to Ontario.
In any event, we don't need that kind of pontificating coming down from on high, and I said before that in my two or three years as Mississauga's representative on AMO, I found that the common bond between all municipal representatives -- I'm sure the former mayor of East York would agree with me -- the common bond of every municipal politician is they're mad at the government. They're mad at the province, every one of them. It was that way when you guys were in power and it was that way when we were in power, but at least there was an attempt to talk to them. At least there was a realization that we couldn't simply shove it down their throats and demand -- what did the minister say? "Stop the heavy hand of municipal government."
Oh, boy, am I ever glad we've got this minister here. She's just going to go out there and whip Hazel McCallion and Mel Lastman and all these low-life municipal types into shape, I'll tell you, boy, as Don Cherry would say. Way to go, Evelyn. She's just going to straighten them out. Oh, she's going to take away their power. Who do they think they are, actually having the audacity and the nerve to think that they should have a right to plan zoning? Can you imagine that a municipal politician would think they have a right to plan zoning? Why would they possibly have that right?
Why doesn't this government go one step further and just abolish the municipalities? We'll just have everybody come down and worship at the feet of the Premier right here at Queen's Park, up University Avenue. "Hallelujah, Premier Bob, Minister of Housing Evelyn. We're delighted to be here. We thank you, oh most omnipotent one."
We could get rid of the municipalities, the regions, the school boards. There might be a lot of support for getting rid of the school boards out there. You never know. We could just vest all responsibility and authority -- we'd have to move this aisle over -- right in that centre aisle, right up there.
Think of it. Think of the power. Think of the authority they would have to be able to manipulate and determine who lives with who. We could have photo-radar in every bedroom in the province. I just get carried away with the thought. It is just so exciting. We'll take pictures of you as you drive down the highway, pictures of you as you sit in your family room, pictures of you as you open the door to let your mother in the back door. Boy, oh, boy, that could be something.
There is hope yet for this government. We may have just embarked on a new course that will say to the people of Ontario that they can trust Bob Rae, that everything they've heard and seen up to now is false, that really he's a nice man, that he has a competent Minister of Housing. The fact that the Minister of Housing is forcing everybody to do it her way should not bother the citizenry, the proletariat, the peons, the peasants --
Mr Stockwell: The plebs.
Mr Mahoney: The plebs -- plebs? It shouldn't bother them.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Don't they know what's good for them?
Mr Mahoney: As the member says, don't they know what's good for them? I'll tell you when they didn't know what was good for them: in 1990, when they elected you guys to government. Boy, I'll tell you. And right now they're all out there. You know why they did it? Because we called an early election. How many people in the province would like an early election today? Hands up.
Mr White: Two people. Hurray.
Mr Mahoney: I don't think there would be an objection.
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): You notice the Tories didn't vote.
Mr Mahoney: No, well, they aren't listening, but I cannot singlehandedly keep the Tory caucus awake. I'm sorry; that is just too much to ask. I'm concentrating right now on what I perceive to be the enemy, because they will come at a later time.
In any event, the omnipotent and most benevolent Minister of Housing is going to get a message, I'll tell you, from every municipality and from AMO. If she insists on bull-heading ahead with this thing, if she insists on steamrollering through with this thing, then that message may have to wait, I admit, 18 months. They can come down and do all the yelling; we know the unions can come and do all the yelling they want. The OFL, for goodness' sake, can come and do all the yelling it wants, but does this government care? I think not. They have somebody designing --
Mr Hope: Watch what you say. How many times did we stand out there when the Liberals were in power?
Mr Mahoney: Were you one of the injured workers chomping at the door? Was that you, Randy? Now you're just an injured MPP. Are you still getting a pension from workers' comp? Maybe you're still on a life pension. You'd better hold on to the pension, because you're going to need it, let me tell you.
Mr Hope: Listen, don't worry about mine.
Mr Murdoch: He's going to run for mayor.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I really would rather talk to you because he gets a little excited. But what's next? I was on the give and take, remember that? Well, we're back to another give.
Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Mostly you're on the take.
Mr Mahoney: We'd better go back to another give. Here's a good one. Municipalities will be able to obtain a search warrant without requiring that evidence be seized. Okay, so the Solicitor General, the Attorney General -- who gives those things out? The AG, I guess. You don't; you just tell the cops to go in. Here you go. You're at home on a Sunday night and you've got some relatives who have come over from England. They're sleeping in the spare room in the basement. Okay? You get a knock at the door and there's a cop. There's a municipal bylaw officer and he says, "Mr Mahoney, I've got a search warrant to search your basement." Excuse me?
Mr Stockwell: But I won't seize any evidence.
Mr Mahoney: Maybe I'd get him to seize my relatives, if they want to seize some evidence. I can see it happening.
Mr Mills: No.
Mr Mahoney: Gordie, you don't think so? Why? Just because your relatives would sleep upstairs.
Somebody complains. Maybe there's another vehicle; I don't know. It says they'll be able to obtain a search warrant. Obtaining a search warrant should not be a minuscule item in this formerly free and formerly democratic community.
Mr Mills: They're tough to get.
Mr Mahoney: But you're going to make it easier. The municipalities have a problem, they don't like what's going on, they just get a search warrant and they walk in the door.
I'm going to tell you, we're heading towards some very serious problems when somebody says: "Well, just a minute, Mac. You may be a municipal bylaw officer and you may have a search warrant, but I'm going to pop you one if you try to come into my home." What is this? Is a man's and woman's home their home? Is it their home? Have you taken that away? You now feel that because you have decided the way to solve the housing intensification problem is to legalize basement apartments without any work with the municipalities, the way to soothe things for the municipalities is to make them all cops, give them the authority to just walk into anybody's home at any time with a search warrant. I tell you that just like almost every other bill that you guys passed through here -- I'm not a lawyer -- there is the potential for a legal challenge, I would suspect.
2330
Mr Mammoliti: This gives them that right.
Mr Mahoney: I said this was a give. You're giving the municipalities the right to enter homes, presumably upon receiving a complaint, by just going and getting a search warrant. I have a lot of problems with that. I had problems with that when we debated the legislation that we put through that prohibited municipalities from discriminating. At least it was based on human rights; at least it was based on the Canadian charter; at least it was based on democratic principles. I said to the municipalities at the time: "You don't have a right to just walk into my house or my neighbour's house any time you want and think you can inspect my property. I have rights. I have property rights, I have privacy rights, and you are not going to take those away." I would say that same thing.
So we've got additional problems. One area where they can go in and have always been able to go in is safety. I think it's important that we recognize that if there's a problem or a potential problem with a fire difficulty or there's reason to believe that a home is not properly wired or something of that nature, the fire chief, under authority of the Solicitor General, has the right to inspect. I think people want that. They feel confident that their fire department will not abuse it. But I don't know, Minister, because you haven't talked to them, you haven't gone and asked them: I don't know if they have that same level of confidence about municipal bylaw enforcement officers able to get search warrants so they can go in and check things out, but they go in and they can't take any evidence. I don't know: Is evidence a picture? What do they do? Do they go in and get everybody in the house to line up in front of the fireplace and take their picture and get their birth certificates out and go back to the judge and say: "Your Honour, I found a couple of folks living in a basement apartment. Boy, oh, boy, we're going to fix this. We're going to put an end to this, I'll tell you"?
Let's go on. In fairness, it says that there still must be reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed -- never let it be said that I don't give both sides of the argument -- in order to obtain a search warrant.
Mr Mills: Pretty short there, Steve.
Mr Mahoney: It is short. I'm not going to spend a long time defending your legislation, I can tell you that. Fortunately, I believe that our municipalities will be reasonable enough that they indeed will look for reasonable and probable grounds before they exercise it. But let's make it clear: This is a passing on of legal rights and authority to the municipal level of government to obtain a search warrant if they feel it's reasonable. Let's make it clear that's what it is and that it could lead to problems.
They will be able to enter into agreements. Here's another one this big, benevolent government is giving. They'll be able to enter into agreements with home owners regarding granny flats. We thank you, Madam Minister, from the bottom of our hearts, and our grandparents and our parents thank you.
Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Is he done?
Mr Mahoney: We just think you're so -- no, I'm not, but it's nice to see you. It will be clarified -- here we go again -- that a municipality has no authority to licence residential units. Do they have the authority to plan them? Apparently not. What did you spend $3 million on other than to give John Sewell a job? What did you spend all that money on for the Sewell commission to go out and investigate the planning process and to make recommendations to improve the planning process? I would have thought that one of the things you would want to do is ensure that in improving the planning process, you protect people's rights. I would have thought that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The right to put an apartment in your house.
Mr Mahoney: A right. The minister's correct. The right to put an apartment in the basement.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, in your house.
Mr Mahoney: In your house, anywhere in your house.
Mr Stockwell: What about ripping your house down and building a 40-storey apartment building? What about that right?
Mr Mahoney: The minister's right. That's exactly what you're doing. You are making it a right to do that. My point is, and I've tried to make it very clear, that you're doing it without consultation, without discussion.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The heavy hand of municipal planning; you're supporting the heavy hand of municipal planning.
Mr Mahoney: Instead of the heavy hand of the municipal government, you're bringing down the heavy hand of the Minister of Housing. I hope that when you snuggle in, ready to go to bed late at night, you're proud of yourself. I hope that when you get those phone calls -- if you answer them -- when you go back to your constituency in Ottawa and the municipal people call, I hope you're able to --
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: I don't care if you are able to explain it to them, to tell you the truth, and I'm sure you know that, but I hope you at least try, because you owe it to them to try to explain it to them.
One of the other problems, and the critic referred to this, is that the NDP seems to be taking a Toronto problem and turning it into an Ontario problem. There may well be, and if there would be some kind of permissive legislation or regulation that would allow the minister to sit down with the city of Toronto and to say there are some areas where intensification would work --
Mr Stockwell: Where?
Mr Mahoney: I don't know where. I'm not a Toronto politician. But if they wanted to do that, I'm sure the Metro politicians would talk to the government and say, "We're prepared to look at some intensification." There are areas, you hear about them, you read about them in Cabbagetown and other communities, where there's been redevelopment, where there's been urban renewal. Perhaps those kinds of issues could be dealt with.
I can tell you that in my municipality, the council would be willing to sit down with the minister and take a look at intensification. They're not blind to it. They're not acting like the mayor of Vaughan did a couple of years ago, saying, "All we want are big, expensive homes." We recognize that you need a balance in the community.
Bur they're attempting to apply a made-in-Toronto solution to intensification, even though the minister is from Ottawa. She seems to have the answer -- and this happens so often. This is not the province of Toronto; this is the province of Ontario. A solution that works in Toronto, whether it's for rent control, intensification or non-profit housing is not necessarily the same solution that works in my community, Windsor, Sudbury or Hamilton.
That's one of the reasons we have municipal governments. In fact, regional government started because so many issues were being decided by Queen's Park. In the bad old days, pre-1974, just to get a stop sign approved in your community, you had to go through the municipal council, then you had to go to the regional -- sorry, there wasn't a regional council -- then you had to come down to the province just to get the stop sign approved.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We are removing regulations; we are not increasing regulations.
Mr Mahoney: No, but what you are doing is vesting in you the authority and the power to dictate to them without any opportunity for change or public meetings. I can hear the public meeting now. The councillor will call the meeting to order, the people will say, "We don't want this," and the councillor will say, "Well, don't blame me, call your MPP." They'll say: "Okay. Mahoney, what are you doing to us?" I'm going to say: "It's the Minister of Housing. We tried to stop it. She wouldn't listen to us."
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: I mean, oh, please, do me a favour. C'mon baby, any time. The difficulty here is that the minister thinks she knows best, she is stuck in her ways, and frankly, she's dead wrong. She's insulting the municipalities when she says, as she did at the beginning, that all they care about, to paraphrase, is the vote. That's what she said.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is not what I said.
Mr Mahoney: Yes, you did. That's what you said. You can interpret it any way. When we send them the Hansard, you watch out how they interpret it. They'll interpret it that way, that all they care about is the vote of the people in the large, single-family homes, and this minister is going to solve that voting problem and just take all the problems away.
You don't understand, because I guess you've never been there. What this minister doesn't understand is that people who get elected at the municipal level only do so with the support of the grass roots in their community. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes a long, long time to build up the trust.
I'm not at all surprised that someone who's only ever been elected as a shop steward wouldn't understand that process. I understand that, when for the vast majority of the members opposite, the only political office they've held before this --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Mahoney: -- is as a steward in a union somewhere. You don't have any idea about the concerns people have about their homes, about their streets, about their parks, about their communities. They're not going to take it from this minister or this government, let me tell you. They're going to send you a clear message.
The real shame of this is that the minister did not have the courage to debate these two bills separately. They should have been done separately because they both deserve the attention of all three parties in this Legislature.
2340
This is a common trick started by the House leader -- I think it was mostly his idea -- in bringing omnibus bills together and wrapping them up in one package in an attempt to force the opposition to vote for a bill because it might have a few things in it that they agree with but has a lot of things in it that they don't agree with.
Let me tell you it should come as no surprise that the member for Mississauga West will be voting against you on this bill. I would vote against you on both the bills but I will clearly vote against you on this bill.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Mississauga West for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr Stockwell: I want to comment particularly on the zoning applications, plans and official plans. Why? I think it is very bad for the government to go ahead and do this with respect to basement apartments. A number of neighbourhoods in a lot of cities of this province, but at least within Metropolitan Toronto, were developed on official zoning and plans for single-family residential. Schools were built, parks were developed, libraries were built, roads were constructed and driveways were constructed way back in the 1920s and 1930s and so on and so forth. When you intensify, you create a distorted degree of intensification on those particular services.
First and foremost would be parking. Let me explain parking to you. If you have a parking problem on a street -- right now we have parking problems on all kinds of streets in all kinds of cities -- emergency vehicles can't get down. By allowing intensification, you haven't resolved the parking issue that is already there. You're putting 30 and 40 more cars on a street that's already congested. Ambulances can't get down, fire trucks can't get down, police can't get down, all kinds of emergency vehicles can't get down there.
Hon Ms Gigantes: In the single-family zone? Fire trucks can't get in the single-family zone?
Mr Stockwell: You see, you don't understand it. That's how simple you are.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Stockwell: Drive down any street in Toronto and look at the streets at night, how narrow they are. Cars are parked on both sides of the street. Trucks can't get down there. Fire trucks can't get down there. These are problems cities deal with every day. If you intensify, put more people and more cars in there, it's going cause double jeopardy.
You sit there and say single-family residential. I can drive you within 30 blocks of this building and show you that exact problem and you don't even understand it.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments. Seeing none, the member for Ottawa Centre.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Very briefly on the question of the services available in different kinds of neighbourhoods in different kinds of municipalities, it's very important that the member for Etobicoke West differentiate between single-family zones in suburban areas, where I think he'll agree that parking is not a major problem, and single-family zones in downtown Toronto where intensification has proceeded very often with illegal apartments, where there are no health and safety standards enforced, and this bill is meant to address that.
But let me point out to the member that the buildings he's talking about that were built in the 1920s and in the 1930s and so on were built for families of a size we don't normally see these days. Those residences which used to have families with four or five children in them now very frequently will be residences where there will be two people, three people, maybe four people. To have an additional apartment in the house is not going to overtax the services, which were built to standards, I'll point out, before we began to realize the importance of conservation of water.
We're going to be moving to guidelines now for development standards which will be much less huge than they used to be because we're not going to waste water in the future.
Mr Mahoney: "Much less huge." Is that smaller?
Hon Ms Gigantes: That means smaller, yes, for those who might not understand.
The standards are going to change because we're not going to waste water the way we have in the past. This means, if you put it all together, a lower number of people per normal household, and also the fact that we're going to be changing the standards for development in terms of services means that the overload on services he talks about is just not going to exist.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.
Interjections.
Mr David Johnson: If I can speak over the debate that's still going on, the member for Mississauga West has indicated that there needs to be some flexibility, that municipalities should have the right to deal with this within their own parameters and that it should not be legislated from above from the province of Ontario. That's what the whole planning process is about in the province of Ontario, that the local municipalities should have the authority to deal.
The member for Etobicoke West has brought up the problem of parking. I don't think he brought up the problem of water. I don't suspect we're going to have a shortage of water. But if we are talking parking, which the member for Etobicoke West raised, I hope the minister recognizes that there are areas, certainly within Metropolitan Toronto, where there are severe parking problems.
In portions of East York, and I'm sure the same is true of the city of York and the city of Toronto, there are residential properties with a frontage of 17 feet. The minister is correct in that the homes on average have fewer people today, probably about 2.3 or 2.5 people per home today as opposed to 20 or 25 years ago when they may have had three or 3.5, maybe even up to four people, that's true. But the question is how many cars they have, because that's what's parked. It's not people who are parked out in front of the homes; it's cars that are parked out in front.
I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that there are areas of East York where permits are sold where the biggest battle residents have every month or every quarter is to get one of those parking permits, because there are just not enough parking spots and there are way too many cars already. If this bill encourages more residents and more parking problems, then people are going to be outraged and there's going to be a problem.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.
Mr Mills: I'm privileged to rise for a couple of minutes and speak to this bill. I've heard all the rhetoric and all the arguments that have gone around, but I like to rely on people's common sense.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Mills: I would imagine, in my humble opinion, that a person would not be applying for an apartment in their house unless it made absolute common sense.
Interjection.
Mr Mills: I don't know if that person over there from Etobicoke who keeps shouting has anyone go in to his constituency office like I do. I have a lot of old people who come to see me. You know why they come to see me? They want someone to chat with. They want someone to chat with; that's what they want. They want someone to talk to.
I know these folks of mine. They've got these huge houses that date back to the 1920s. They brought up a large family, six or seven kids. They had their whole family and now they're left there with these homes and they would love, just dearly love, to allow someone to come in there and share that home with them, and to keep it, and to help them.
You don't have to be related to attach a fondness to somebody. I know a lot of people who are not even related who live in these types of houses and they attach a real fondness to these people.
Interjections.
Mr Mills: They think it's funny.
Mr Stockwell: We think you're funny.
Mr Mills: I don't think it's funny at all. There are a lot of old people who do get attached to people who are not their relatives, because they need that love and that care, which you seem to think is funny. But I can tell you what. The people where I live don't think it's funny. You can bang your desk and swing your cane or whatever. It's disgusting. I'm speaking on a human element here, and I think we've got to rely on people's common sense. They're not going to put in a basement apartment if they live in a little house. Give the people credit. They don't want to give anyone credit.
The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West has up to two minutes for his reply.
2350
Mr Mahoney: I say to the member for Durham East, that really identifies the problem. What it says is that all detached -- bear with me -- semi-detached and row houses in areas zoned as residential will be allowed to have a basement apartment as of right.
Not long ago the first home that my wife and I bought was a semi-detached. You can imagine the density; the streets were fairly narrow, there were a lot of cars, single drives. So you could get two cars in, and if your garage wasn't jammed with stuff, you could get one in there if you needed to. But by and large what you've got all over that community are problems where they've got people living at home, people still living at home with --
Hon Mr Hampton: Too many cars, Steve.
Mr Hope: Three cars?
Mr Mahoney: Yes, because one's owned by a son or a daughter who works and one is owned by each of the spouses who work. I mean, it's very common. I can show it to you.
Mr Hope: This stuff -- money.
Mr Mahoney: It's got nothing to do with that. I'm talking about --
Mr Hope: Yes, it does.
Mr Mahoney: -- the semi-detached homes. You are such a -- never mind.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent.
Mr Mahoney: It's so ridiculous. If you would go to these communities and understand, in the semi-detached homes you will see vehicles parked all over both sides of the streets because they've still got two or three kids living at home and they need vehicles to go to work for goodness' sake. You put them in the row house --
Hon Ms Gigantes: They won't have room for a basement apartment.
Mr Mahoney: But they do. That's exactly what they do, because they have an opportunity to get the extra money, so they'll put in a basement apartment. You have no concept of the problems that you're creating by doing this as of right. All you can do is say, "Well, if they've got three cars they've got lots of money." That is definitely NDP mentality. Anybody over 50 grand a year is considered rich in your province. You guys are a joke and you're going to create one hell of a mess. The municipalities will have to clean it up.
The Speaker: Is there further debate on the bill? I recognize the honourable member for Don Mills.
Mr David Johnson: In the eight minutes that I've got left, I will say at the outset --
Hon Mr Hampton: That's more than enough.
Mr David Johnson: -- that it's not enough, as the honourable members are saying from the other side.
This bill consists of two issues that are jammed together, and I think that's very unfortunate. The one issue dealing with care homes is one that I have a great deal of sympathy for. Certainly, if we look back to 1987 to the unfortunate death of Joseph Kendall, who was beaten to death in a rest home in Orillia, and in the subsequent follow-up through the Kendall inquiry and the Lightman commission, we certainly see that there have been recommendations concerning residents of care homes. Many of them are ex-psychiatric patients or physically or mentally disabled, and they've been dumped into these care homes. I understand this issue and think that we need to implement measures to protect people who need protection.
It's very unfortunate that this aspect has been coupled with the issue of apartments in homes, and it's the latter issue that I'm going to speak to. Our Housing critic, Margaret Marland, will be speaking to the issue of care homes. But I'll be speaking to what I call the duplexing of Ontario, because that's what we're doing through apartments in homes. We're turning every home in Ontario overnight into a duplex. That's exactly what it's doing except for those --
Mr Frankford: Come on, wake up.
Mr David Johnson: I'm hearing from the honourable member across to wake up, but that's precisely what this legislation does. I think it's unfortunate that in the introduction the minister explained her rationale as to why the municipalities in Ontario were not supportive. The minister indicated --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr David Johnson: In the opening comments, the minister indicated that the reason municipalities are not supportive is because some of the tenants, some of the people who live in basement apartments, don't vote to the same extent -- Madam Minister, I think those were essentially the words that you put forward -- and consequently municipalities aren't sympathetic. I'm trying to translate what that means.
I think what that means is that municipalities are not representing all their constituents, because some constituents vote more than other constituents; constituents in certain aspects of life vote more than others. Consequently, municipalities are not representing all of their people.
It would be interesting to ask the average person of the province of Ontario who represents them the best. Does their local municipality represent them the best? Does Etobicoke, does East York, does North York represent them or does this government in the province of Ontario? Does Mel Lastman, Hazel McCallion represent them or does Bob Rae represent them the best? In Scarborough, does Joyce Trimmer represent them the best or does Bob Rae represent them the best?
Do you want to know what the answer will be for that one? I can tell you because I've seen the numbers. Environics has done polls in terms of dissatisfaction of people with their government. I can tell you that the local municipal governments consistently rate --
Hon Mr Hampton: Yes, it was true federally. We have seen that.
Mr David Johnson: Yes, all right, I'll tell you about the federal government. The local municipalities rate at least twice as high in the estimation of the people of this province as does the provincial government. The people have a lot more confidence in their municipal governments to make the decisions that affect their lives than they do Bob Rae or the province of Ontario.
Mr Frankford: That's why --
The Speaker: The member for Scarborough East, come to order please.
Mr David Johnson: To answer the honourable member, the federal government is not held in high esteem either. As a matter of fact, the federal government is a little bit below the provincial government. The problem that we're facing is that this particular issue began in another era. It began at a time when there were --
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask the other members to please listen to our colleague here in the House. Let's cooperate and participate in the debate.
The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Don Mills may resume his speech.
Mr David Johnson: I thank my colleague from York East. It's very kind of him to do that. I'm recognizing that the hour is fast approaching midnight and I suspect that's why people aren't too anxious to listen, but I'm getting lots of help.
I was just saying that when this issue began in the first instance about basement apartments, there was a shortage of rental accommodation in Metropolitan Toronto. As a matter of fact, the vacancy rate was essentially zero, and that was probably true in great portions of the province of Ontario. That's no longer true. The vacancy rate in Metropolitan Toronto now is at least 3%. In many parts of Ontario it's 6% or 7%.
Mr Bradley: That's what the NDP got in the last election.
Mr David Johnson: My colleague says that's what the NDP are going to get in the next election. We'll give them a little bit more than that.
Again, when this issue began, the price of houses was climbing. It was escalating at a great rate. Affordable housing was nowhere to be found in the province of Ontario. Since that time, what's happened to the price of houses? It's gone down. What's happened to interest rates? They've gone down.
We now have the most affordable housing in the province of Ontario that we've had for many, many decades, and yet we have measures before us that are not supported. We have measures before us that are addressing a problem that to a large extent no longer exists in the province of Ontario.
AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, opposed this legislation and it strongly opposed this legislation.
Mr Bradley: How does Howard Moscoe feel?
Mr David Johnson: I might say that AMO represents 700 of the 832 municipalities in the province of Ontario and it opposes this legislation. I'm sure my colleague from St Catharines, inquiring about the status of Howard Moscoe, opposes this as well.
It's being indicated from across the way that it is midnight and if that's the general consensus, I will --
The Speaker: This would be an appropriate time for the member to break his remarks. It being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2400.