Journal des débats 1993-déc-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): In an era when Canada is preoccupied with international trading agreements and NAFTA, we'd do well to reflect that it is to Canada's advantage when Third World nations improve their lot and strengthen their economies; so it is that projects of Third World assistance are not only acts of altruism. Naturally, they benefit the people of the receiving country directly, providing the projects are well conceived and respect the right of Third World peoples to self-determination, but by contributing to fiscal benefit and stronger economies around the globe, we build a healthier and safer international community. That in turn strengthens the world economy and benefits Canadians as present and future trading partners of developing nations.

I'm rising therefore to thank several Canadian companies for their generous contributions to Third World humanitarian aid and to applaud their generosity and foresight. The companies are Apotex Inc, Weston; Big V Pharmacies Ltd, London; Canadian Medicine Aid Programme, Toronto; Genpharm, Etobicoke; Herdt and Charton Inc, Montreal; Ingram and Bell, Don Mills; C.E. Jamieson and Co, Windsor; ICN Canada Ltd, Montreal; Novopharm Ltd, Scarborough; Starkman's Surgical, Toronto; J. Stevens and Son, Brampton; and a special thank you for the very generous assistance of Delta Hotels.

To all these fine Canadian companies, our sincere appreciation for your humanitarian service and generosity.

HOCKEY HALL OF FAME

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Last week I had the opportunity, along with my caucus colleague the member for Oakville South, to visit a wonderful tourism and sports attraction that exists in the heart of Toronto, the Hockey Hall of Fame.

When the NHL season is in full swing, many NHL teams come to the hall for autograph sessions. I understand that after our visit Walter Gretzky, Wayne Gretzky's father, arrived for his first visit and Dave Andreychuk of the Toronto Maple Leafs came in with his family in the afternoon.

Since the Hockey Hall of Fame opened its doors in June, many hockey fans have visited this unique facility.

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: The Hockey Hall of Fame is projected to draw a minimum of 600,000 visitors, including the member for St Catharines, in its first year and inject about $21 million into the Toronto economy.

One of the key attractions of the hall of fame is an exact duplicate of the Montreal Canadiens' dressing room. Another feature allows visitors to participate in simulated game situations that challenge guests to match their knowledge and playing skills against a computer-based collection of hockey knowledge. Hockey fans will also appreciate the Bell Great Hall, which is home to the Stanley Cup as well as other NHL trophies.

My congratulations to the employees of this great facility, with special thanks to Christine Simpson and Scott North, who made our visit to the hall a truly memorable event. The corporate sponsors are also to be commended for their assistance in making the hockey museum a reality.

It's well worth a visit, and I would encourage the public to make the trip to this remarkable attraction.

Mr Speaker, as I have seven seconds left, I want to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas, as well as all members of this Legislature, as well as the staff in this fine building.

EVENTS AT TRENT UNIVERSITY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): On Thursday, December 8, I was with the Honourable Howard Hampton, Minister of Natural Resources, at Otonabee College, Trent University, for two major events.

One was the unveiling of a model of the new MNR building, the construction of which in downtown Peterborough will start next spring. The other was the official opening of the Natural Heritage Information Centre, located in McKenzie House on the campus of Trent University, by Mr Hampton and representatives of the other partners in the venture, Nature Conservancy Canada, Natural Heritage League and the National Conservancy.

The information centre will be a central repository for all available information on endangered species and areas. This centre links Ontario to an information network that includes 68 jurisdictions throughout the western hemisphere.

Both these events enhance Peterborough's developing role as a centre for environmental activities of all kinds. I welcome these developments, for which Peterborough is uniquely suited and which bode well for the future of our city and area.

I would also like to take this opportunity to warmly welcome Dr Leonard Connell as incoming president of Trent University. He takes over formally on January 1, 1994, but was on hand to welcome us on December 8, since acting president David Morrison could not be there. I wish him every success.

CHILD CARE AND HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to bring to the attention of the Legislature one more example of the NDP government's continuing attack on the private sector in this province.

A woman in Oshawa recently wrote a column in the Oshawa Times outlining her experience in trying to support herself in Bob Rae's Ontario. First she says: "Mr Rae and his government have put me and countless others out of a day care job with his universal non-profit day care scheme. With private centres closing down, and not being replaced, there are no jobs for us." But she goes on to say, "I finally found a new job as a home support worker with a health care agency, and much to my surprise, Mr Rae...is trying to close all privately owned health care agencies."

This woman and thousands like her are only trying to survive in difficult times. The NDP government claims to be concerned about job creation, yet its child care and long-term care policies continue to attack private sector jobs. These private sector jobs employ mostly women.

1340

MARY'S PLACE RESIDENCE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to know why this government has turned its back on the vulnerable women in my community. Why are they ignoring the female victims of violence?

Mary's Place houses women in my community who are fleeing abusive relationships or who have suffered long-term physical or sexual abuse in their past. This shelter, Mary's Place, is facing a $100,000 deficit this year. Despite the importance of Mary's Place as a haven for women who are victims of sexual abuse or violence, it has recently been informed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services that its funding for a family violence counsellor will not be renewed this year.

Mary's Place is an integral part of the support network for women in my community who are in desperate need of assistance, and the possibility that it will be forced to close or cut back on service is completely unacceptable. Without the services provided by this shelter, many women who are escaping from abusive situations will be left without the support they desperately need.

I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services in the strongest possible terms to take immediate action to ensure that funds are made available to help the victims of violence who are housed at Mary's Place. It is imperative that this vital community support agency be given the financial assistance it needs so that it can continue to help the women in Kitchener-Waterloo.

KIDNEY FOUNDATION FUND-RAISING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): The Kidney Foundation of Canada is an organization that many members will be familiar with. Kidney diseases are common, and while considerable progress is being made, there remains much that can be done in the way of research, education and advocacy.

I'd like to take the opportunity to make members of the Legislature and the public aware of an innovative fund-raising project of the kidney foundation that will benefit health, the environment and the economy.

The foundation will be accepting old cars and give a tax receipt in return. The cars will be resold or scrapped and the funds used towards helping with its programs.

As you are aware, cars are among the major causes of environmental damage, of death and disability. The primary cause of death in children between five and 14 is street traffic. Over 10 years, a car produces 36 kilograms of hydrocarbons and 1.076 million cubic metres of polluted air plus soil and groundwater pollution. It would be surprising if this was not a factor in kidney disease.

The $7,000-plus a year that it costs to operate an average car is in addition to the $4,500 net after taxes that cars cost to government and society. The potential for saving that could be redirected to health, education and job creation is substantial.

The traffic calming and car reduction that will be required as we move towards rational and economical transportation will be helped by the kidney foundation's initiative. I know there are viewers at home who would like to get involved and I would encourage them to call the kidney foundation, toll-free, at 1-800-565-5111.

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to make a statement, particularly to the Premier. This morning, Premier, if I understand accurately what you said on radio, I think you are incorrect and I think you need to correct the record. You said on the radio, I understand, that the new WCB building was contracted for by the previous government. That is factually incorrect. I think it's time that the Premier came forward and was straight with the people of Ontario.

You can see by the Workers' Compensation Board's own minutes, Premier -- as he shakes his head no, playing very loose with the facts, trying to get himself out from under a major political problem -- it is clear that it was in the fall of 1990, after the provincial election, that Workers' Compensation put in the paper advertisements looking for proposals for a Workers' Compensation Board building. After the election, an ad: It was in December, well after the election, that the board was still looking at quite a number of proposals, and it was in February 1991 that the board entered the agreement.

And so, Premier, this morning as you spoke on radio you were awfully loose with the facts, and I think it's incumbent upon you to be straight with the people of Ontario. Factually, you are incorrect. The decision was made when you were Premier, and I think it's important that you come clean with the facts.

As someone once said, "If you keep telling lies about us, we'll tell the truth about you."

LANDFILL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the bizarre environmental assessment hearings into a proposal to establish a landfill site in the township of Tiny.

This controversial landfill site proposal for site 41, 150 acres of prime agricultural land in Tiny township, was originally rejected in 1989, but the then Liberal government decided to reconvene environmental assessment hearings.

After seven months of expensive, time-consuming, on-again, off-again talks before the Environmental Assessment Board, Chairman Robert Eisen has now unilaterally decided he wants to move the hearings from Midland to Toronto during the winter months.

This is an unacceptable and unprecedented move, because the environmental assessment process is designed to be held in the area where those directly affected actually live.

Having said that, I would suggest the chairman would be providing a more valid service to ratepayers by cancelling the hearings altogether. I would submit that we do not require any new landfill sites in Simcoe county. I believe landfill sites have gone the way of the dinosaur.

It is incumbent upon all levels of government, industry and interest groups to put aside their partisan feelings and join in the search for new and environmentally sustainable methods for handling waste management, such as rail haul or waste to energy.

Bill 51, county restructuring, can direct Simcoe county waste to any one of its 17 sites, and we don't need any more new ones.

CHRISTMAS PANORAMA

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Today I'd like to bring to the attention of this House an event that happens yearly in the town of Simcoe in my riding. It's called the Christmas Panorama, or some call it the Simcoe lights. This event takes place in Wellington Park in the centre of the town of Simcoe and depicts festive themes throughout the park. The park runs right through the centre of town and is very picturesque indeed.

At this time I'd like to congratulate the people who work on this theme every year and the committee that puts this all together. The committee is structured from the business community, the labour community, and this committee and the community itself really take pride in the town of Simcoe.

This event has gone on now for some 36 years and it improves every year. This event, which I invite everyone viewing and everyone in this House to experience, is an event that really promotes the festive season. Over 150,000 people each year visit Simcoe to see this display of lights in the Wellington Park, and I can tell you they come from great distances to do so. I would like to invite everyone to experience this wonderful display of the festive season in Simcoe, Ontario.

OPP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order -- you may see if it's a point of order or a point of privilege; you're more expert than I in this -- is that I would like to know, when the Ontario Provincial Police come in to interrogate a member of the press gallery or a member of this House, whether they have to get permission from you or the Sergeant at Arms or someone to come into the building to conduct an interrogation of a member of the Legislature.

As you will be aware, Mr Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen and Mr Richard Brennan of the Windsor Star were both interrogated by the OPP, as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations admitted on Thursday, at the behest of her ministry, and I'm wondering whether they had your permission to come in and interrogate those people.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does raise a point of order. I'm very pleased to review the procedure, as I had announced to the House some time ago.

It's a very straightforward procedure that if any police force wishes to enter the premises to talk to any of the staff, the members or indeed the press gallery, then they are to check with the Speaker's office first.

Secondly, the individual involved must agree to either have the visit occur in his or her office or make alternative arrangements.

Once those two conditions have been satisfied, then of course the police are free to continue with their interview with either the member, the staff or the press gallery.

It's a very straightforward procedure. We informed all the police forces in Canada, and to date, of course, we've enjoyed compliance with our request.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On that point, Mr Speaker: I don't want to belabour it, but I am concerned about this development, because we had this debate some months ago as it affected members of the assembly.

Yesterday, in the Ottawa Citizen, Mr Coyle wrote about his experience in this last round, and there does appear to be a continuing problem. I recognize that from time to time certain actions might have to be considered, but in the last few years around this place there have been more visitations from the provincial police to members of the Legislature, their staff and now members of the press gallery than I can ever remember in many, many years beforehand.

1350

I saw the Premier the other day. He was obviously exercised when the member for St Catharines raised the point. Then I heard the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations I think tell the member from Brockville that in fact there had been a direction from that department to the OPP.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, and through you to the leader of the government, who has a considerable reputation as a civil libertarian, that there continues to be a problem; I think it's more than a perception. But I say, as one member of this Legislature now of some 18 years' duration, that this ongoing tendency from this government to order the OPP into members' offices to investigate members, their staff or now the parliamentary or legislative press gallery is a very worrisome and dangerous trend that ought to be stopped, and the leader of the government has a responsibility in that regard.

The Speaker: The member will know that he does not have a point of order. What I have indicated to the members is that if it is not convenient for a member to meet with a police officer at the member's office, then indeed other arrangements can and should be made.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I would invite all members to join with me in welcoming to our gallery, seated in the members' gallery west, Mr Allan Warnke, who is an MLA from the province of British Columbia. Welcome to our chamber.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm quite concerned that during all the time we're talking on other points of order, the member for Etobicoke West is raising a red sign, "Call the police." Is that acceptable, Mr Speaker? Can you have him put that sign away or destroy it? It's very unparliamentary.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What don't you like, the sign or the colour?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I realize it glows in the dark. If the member would please take his seat. Members will know that in order to try and maintain decorum in the House, we discourage members from having signs of any description, and would ask members to please abide by that.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If this sign was offensive to the member for Durham, specifically this sign, I will certainly put it away and not hold this sign up for the rest of this session.

The Speaker: The member well knows that what was raised is a legitimate point of order.

OPP INVESTIGATIONS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): With respect to the point of order which was raised by the member for St Catharines and on that point, I want to remind you once again -- you have indicated that an interview may well be set up in another location. I suggest to you that if that location happens to be the member's constituency office, the rules are significantly different than they are if they are in the House.

You know I have on other occasions raised this matter as a breach of privilege of the member, in that the police are not required to request your permission or to advise you that they are conducting an investigation in a constituency office, which is in fact an extension of the member's office in this place.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre will recall quite clearly that the Speaker has jurisdiction over the precinct. The precinct does not include constituency offices. Whether or not that change should be made in the Legislative Assembly Act is up to the House to determine but, very clearly, the Speaker has no jurisdiction beyond the immediate precinct, which includes this building and the grounds and the first three floors of the Whitney Block.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. Over the weekend, it was reported that the Workers' Compensation Board building will cost an extra $40 million to finish the interiors, bringing the total cost of the building from $180 million up to $220 million. This is not, I stress, not a $40-million cost overrun. To quote officials at WCB, this was because you built a New York-style building instead of a Toronto-style building. New York, sir, is just built as a shell. This is $40 million that the WCB knew about, that Brian King, the vice-chair, knew about, that your chairman, Odoardo Di Santo, knew about and that your minister must have known about.

My question is, when did you know the true cost of the WCB building? Did you know about it before this weekend? If so, why didn't you or your minister or the chair of Workers' Compensation tell the taxpayers the real cost of this building? Why did you withhold the truth?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer all questions about the building to the Minister of Labour.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I caution the member for York Centre, that language is not parliamentary. It is not appropriate to setting up an appropriate atmosphere in which to conduct an orderly question period. I ask for the member's cooperation.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): There's been no false information given whatsoever. Most of what has been discussed in the paper recently was also before the committee and in the auditor's report. I might point out to the member across the way that we have said the cost is $175 million to $180 million, and that is the cost currently of the building to the WCB.

Mr Mahoney: I have the auditor's report here. I would challenge the minister to show me where the additional $40 million in cost appears in the auditor's report. I would challenge him to show me where it appears in the report of the presentation by the Workers' Compensation Board to the public accounts committee, which I have here as well.

Minister, in the Hansard from the meeting of the standing committee on public accounts of January 11, 1993, Mr King is being questioned about the cost of this new building. In Hansard, sir, Mr King complained that opposition members are wrongly citing the cost as $200 million. He said, "I've already indicated that $200 million was the high estimate at the time, and it has come in significantly lower than that.... Around $180 million, less than $180 million."

Minister, why did Brian King tell the committee that the building would cost $180 million instead of $220 million, why was the $40 million withheld and not mentioned in response to questions by committee members about the cost of this building, and what does this say about the integrity of your vice-chairman of Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The cost of $220 million to build Simcoe Place is not the WCB's cost alone. The WCB is a 75% owner of Simcoe Place. The board will pay about $140 million for hard construction costs and about $40 million for internal design costs which are necessary as a result of some of the problems we've seen for a long time up on Bloor Street.

This means that Simcoe Place will cost the board about $180 million, what the WCB has been saying all along. The WCB costs to build Simcoe Place have been a matter of public record ever since the Provincial Auditor released his report on Simcoe Place in June of this year.

Mr Mahoney: Somebody is giving misinformation. We're not going to use unparliamentary language in here, but contrary to what the minister has just said, board vice-chairperson -- I'm sorry, this is from Derek Ferguson in the Queen's Park bureau, right in the newspaper -- I'll just quote it. Maybe he's not giving us the right information.

It says: "Board vice-chairperson Brian King confirmed yesterday in an interview that the $177-million tab covers only the shell of the building." There was no mention of an additional $40 million. Is the board going to operate in a shell? Is the board going to move in without finishings? What kind of coverup is going on here?

1400

It appears, with the smugness of the Premier, that the misinformation that's being thrown around has even reached his office. This morning on a radio talk show, when under attack about the $40-million coverup, the Premier said, "The WCB building was contracted for, planned and well-known-about to the Peterson government." He then goes on to say, "Basically, it was another one of the things we inherited from the Peterson government."

Minister, a chronology provided to us by the Workers' Compensation Board staff and the public auditor presents quite a different story. In July 1990, the board of directors authorized the WCB adminstration to investigate alternative sites. In the fall of 1990, when you were the government, the board authorized negotiations with proponents to begin. Minister, you could have stopped the project then without penalty, but you didn't. Negotiations and tenders continued until April 1992, fully one and one half years into your mandate, when the WCB authorized documentation to finalize the Simcoe Place deal.

Minister, you or the Premier could have stopped the deal at that time, but you didn't. Are you so deep in trouble with this project that your only response and the Premier's only response is to provide misinformation on a public radio show and to palm off your problems on the previous government? When, sir, are you going to take responsibility for all the screwups at the WCB? When is there going to be an inquiry to get to the bottom of this? Finally, will you at least correct the misinformation given by the Premier on Toronto's radio station CFRB this morning about the chronology of this building's approval?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member that on pages 3 and 4 of the auditor's report the Provincial Auditor noted that while the hard construction cost of the building would be about $178 million for all three owners -- WCB at 75%, 12.5% each for Cadillac Fairview and Toronto-Dominion Bank -- the leasehold improvements designed to accommodate the WCB would cost an additional $35 million to $45 million. That's actually slightly less than $140 million as the board's cost, plus the additional cost for the design and some other costs in terms of the building. The WCB pays only 75% of the $178 million for the hard construction costs.

Mr Mahoney: Correct what the Premier said.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell the member across the way as well that the very first briefing I had as minister in this ministry was with the previous chair of the WCB, who pointed out the approach they'd taken, and at that time we asked him to go the Royal LePage route to see what else was available. Their report clearly showed there was nothing else available that met the needs of the board in Toronto at the time.

Mr Mahoney: Will the Premier tell the truth or not?

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, it is not appropriate for you to use unparliamentary language.

Mr Mahoney: Are you going to tell the truth?

The Speaker: The member should withdraw the unparliamentary language. It is not appropriate -- the member knows that -- and it is not conducive to an orderly question period either. I would ask the member to simply withdraw the unparliamentary remarks which he made.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, since there is a long day ahead of us, I will withdraw the remarks.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member.

LANDFILL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the minister in charge of the garbage dump fiasco in the greater Toronto area. Minister, in Saturday's Globe and Mail we learned that the mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville is absolutely outraged by the Interim Waste Authority's secret negotiations with WMI, a waste management company, to add its property to the list of sites.

Minister, as you know, this site was ruled out over one year ago, because it was not at that time environmentally suitable. We know that these secret negotiations are really a carry-on of continuous secret negotiations that are held by the IWA and we know of the issue of Superior-Crawford and the ongoing negotiations that are taking place with Superior-Crawford and the IWA.

I now have further documentation that these two incidents of secret negotiations are not isolated. I have a series of letters between the Interim Waste Authority and the law firm of Goodman and Carr which represents a company called BTF. According to the documents provided to me, the IWA is secretly negotiating with BTF Holdings Inc, a company that owns a 746-acre lot in the township of Brock. Coincidentally, the BTF site was considered in the first IWA stage but was ruled unacceptable.

I am sure that the public, the residents of Durham and Jim Wiseman would like to know what is going on. What can you tell us about these new secret negotiations? Can you tell the House and the people of the province what other sites are being secretly negotiated in the areas of York, Durham and Peel between the IWA and others in the area of this debacle, this chaos in terms of the megadumps that Bill 143 has prescribed?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There are no secret negotiations, but the Minister of Environment and Energy will be here, and if the member would like to stand down the question, he will be happy to answer the question. If the member would like me to answer the question, I'd be happy to proceed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): That's rather an unusual way to handle things, but the offer was made to the member.

Mr Offer: Before I go on to a supplementary, the minister has indicated that he would like to answer the question about the secret negotiations being handled between the IWA and now BTF, and I would like the minister to answer.

The Speaker: Just to be clear, the minister did respond that if you wanted to stand down the question, the Minister of Environment would be here, or he would be pleased to reply. The minister may provide a response.

Hon Mr Philip: The IWA's site search has always been the open and participatory process based on the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act. At any time, any company or indeed any land owner can come forward with a set of proposals. On November 1, the IWA received correspondence from Waste Management of Canada suggesting that it has data and information that demonstrates the potential suitability of lands the IWA had ruled out earlier for site selection. It's quite appropriate for the IWA at any time to accept new information. There are no secret negotiations going on. The IWA is quite prepared to accept any additional information from anyone at any time.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, the minister says that these discussions are always held in the open for the public to see. The public does not know about the discussions that were going on between the IWA and Superior-Crawford. They are not aware of the discussions that are going on between the IWA and WMI. My question had nothing to do with those first two areas but rather with the new discussions which are going on with the company that owns almost 800 acres in Durham.

Mr Minister, in October 1992, I have a letter from the member for Fort York.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who's that?

Mr Offer: Mr Marchese. He wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources, who is now the Environment minister, on behalf of BTF urging him to re-examine the decision that knocked the BTF site off the potential site list. One year later, after meeting BTF, that company, the Interim Waste Authority decided that if the company conducted its own tests, the waste authority would consider placing this site back on the list.

1410

Minister, throughout the whole process the public was never informed about this decision of the Interim Waste Authority. This is not an open process. This is not what you told the people of the province. Will you guarantee today that the IWA, the Interim Waste Authority, is not conducting any other secret negotiations, and if it is, will you immediately direct the Interim Waste Authority to cancel all negotiations dealing with landfill that the public is not aware of?

Hon Mr Philip: The member seems to be of the opinion that if he repeats something that is simply not correct over and over again, somehow it becomes correct. There are no secret meetings going on. The IWA, I understand, has not had a meeting with the company in question. The IWA at all times has said it will be prepared to accept any new information. It rejected the original proposals because of a variety of technical and environmental reasons, but at the same time, it has to remain open to any process in which a company that has been rejected may bring forward new information. That is a completely open process. That's a lot different than the process that you had when you wanted to dump Metro's garbage in Durham without any proper, thorough environmental assessment process.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): One wonders whether the NDP member for Fort York is registered as a lobbyist in the province of Ontario.

My final supplementary to the minister, who is responsible for Bill 143, is as follows: He will recall that when this bill was passed it was designed to find an environmentally suitable dump site where the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto could dump its garbage in York region. One is not surprised that secretly the IWA is still looking for an environmentally suitable site, notwithstanding the terror that is now afoot right throughout the Vaughan area and the area around the site that is the so-called preferred site.

After much work, the community group Vaughan CARES finally got hold of the IWA's work plan for the so-called preferred site. Remember, Minister, that the whole $50-million process was designed to find an environmentally suitable site. This is what the work plan says. It reads as follows, "The preferred site does not show appreciable natural protection either through an extensive low-permeability attenuation layer, nor through potential for hydraulic containment."

Do you know what that means?

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

Mr Sorbara: It means that the site is not a suitable site to dump garbage, and yet you are continuing with the charade that suggests --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Sorbara: -- that garbage can be dumped there.

My question to the minister is simple. Will the minister now not realize that the flaw in this work is the mandate of Bill 143, which insists that the only suitable place for a site is in York region? Will the minister now agree that we can solve this problem by expanding the mandate of the IWA and allowing it to look at all acceptable sites in the province of Ontario and investigate all available technologies? Will the minister not now solve this problem --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- by expanding the IWA's mandate in that way?

Hon Mr Philip: The process is completely open and unlike the political process --

Mr Sorbara: The site is no good.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Philip: The member feels that by yelling me down, he can stop the truth from being understood by the public, but I refuse to let that happen. I can tell you that the process is completely open. It is not my role or the role of the Minister of Environment to second-guess the Environmental Assessment Board or the Ontario Municipal Board because we believe that the process has to take place --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: You are a joke. Don't you understand that? He's a joke. The document says the site is unsuitable for garbage and they've wasted $50 million trying to pretend that it is.

Hon Mr Philip: We, unlike the previous government, are not prepared to open up a process that would put many dumps all over Ontario, that would possibly put a dump in Timmins and all of the northern Ontario communities that have open pits. We believe that municipalities and areas should solve the garbage problem locally and that's what in fact the process is doing.

Mr Sorbara: Well, keep it in Metro then.

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

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Premier. Premier, when you get up in the morning and read the paper, there must be days when you want to roll over and climb back in bed. Let's take a look at some of the things that have happened.

The Windsor casino bid: The winner has been found in contravention of several gaming laws.

At a time when the auditor said this ministry is wasting money, $5,000 dollars was spent on a lavish Ministry of Correctional Services party.

An accused cop-killer was released by the Ontario parole board despite warnings from a parole officer.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. This government doesn't seem to be able to get anything right.

My question to you, Mr Premier, is, how do you think the people of this can province have confidence in you and your government when you can't even get the little things right?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the member's concern for how I feel when I wake up in the morning. I want to assure him that I continue to feel distressingly well, I'm sure, from his perspective.

I must confess that when I get a lecture from a member of the Tory party with respect to the subject of the financial management of the province, or indeed almost virtually any political issue, I reflect on the fact that it was the honourable member who was on a platform with Mr Mulroney; he was on a platform with Kim Campbell; he was around parading and happy and proud to say how he was there. This was the party that was lecturing us for three years, for 36 long months, with respect to what was happening and then comes back, and instead of having a $33-billion deficit, we find the deficit's at $46 billion.

Those are the realities we face every day with respect to the Tory party, and that's why I've been saying for some time that when I compare myself to the alternative, I am positively consoled with respect to the situation facing the people of the province.

Mr Carr: This from a Premier who has done more to destroy this province economically, politically and socially than any other Premier in the history of this province. That's your legacy, Mr Premier. That's the legacy you're leaving this government.

In an attempt to be constructive, and since this government seems to have lost its way, what we suggest you do is come in with a throne speech in the next spring session. Come in with a throne speech that will give the people of this province some confidence.

He said before the introduction to this session that he was going to make jobs a priority. When you came into government, the unemployment rate was 6%. It's almost doubled. You've killed more jobs than any other Premier in the province and any other Premier in this country.

My question to you is this: Will you come back in the spring session with a new throne speech to set this province on a course, and will you today commit to coming in with a throne speech in the next session?

Hon Mr Rae: The member asks whether we will come back in the new session, whether we'll be back in April or in March. I can assure the honourable member we will all be back in March, we will all be back in April and we will be working on behalf of the people of the province.

He will not reflect this, but I have enough time for the honourable member to say that the next time he calls and asks for my intervention with respect to the jobs in his riding and when we win a battle against moving Lear Siegler Seating to Buffalo -- we now know it's coming into his constituency -- and he's there on the phone asking for my intervention and he's there asking me to phone and he's there asking me to make those interventions on behalf of him and his constituents, I can say I'll be there. I don't know where the honourable member will be. I'll be there.

I'll be there fighting for jobs. I'll be there fighting for employment. I'll be there, and I can assure the honourable member I know where he'll be. He'll be there asking this same incompetent, terrible, disreputable Premier to help him day in and day out, and that's exactly what I'll be doing: helping the honourable member.

Mr Carr: I say to this Premier, I will not be calling you for any help. I won't be calling you for any help. You've done more to destroy jobs in this province than any other Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Carr: The day I have to call on this Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

1420

Mr Carr: All I'm asking the Premier to do is to listen to us on our recommendations on WCB, education, health care, all the things we've been telling you for the last three years, if you would act on some of those recommendations. That's all we ask you, Mr Premier. We don't need your help with these other things. Just act on some of our recommendations.

Let's take a look. Our province's credit rating is going down. The deficit is going up. If you won't bring back a throne speech to set out a direction, with our deficit rising almost daily, will you at least commit today, through your Minister of Finance, to bringing in a mini-budget in the new year so the people of this province can have some confidence in the financial ability of this province? If you won't bring in a throne speech, will you bring in a mini-budget? Will you commit today to doing that, Mr Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: The Tory party can't have it every way. This is the caucus, this is the government, this is the Minister of Finance that has taken on the toughest issues, that has brought the deficit firmly under control in this province, and we did it in a year. We did it despite the discrimination that your party has inflicted on this province, despite the $7 billion in cutbacks in the Canada assistance plan and in welfare that your party and your government have inflicted on this province, the Tory party nationally, and despite the fact that in the very year, this very fiscal year that the member of the Progressive Conservative Party is standing on his feet and saying this and that and this and that, the party he was out campaigning for in the last election, pretending to the people of Canada it was $33 billion, in fact is coming in with a $46-billion deficit. That's $13 billion that the people of this province ought to be wrapping around your necks and telling you what --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- they think of your sense of financial and fiscal responsibility. You people are a financial joke.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General. It's 67 days now since Sudbury police constable Joe MacDonald was executed. There have been no answers forthcoming in respect to the decision of the Ontario parole board to grant an early release to Mr Clinton Suzack. The minister indicated he was going to have a study undertaken and the answers would be provided to the public, but of course the minister, since the completion of that internal study, has refused to release the details surrounding the decision: a smokescreen to protect his ministry and his political appointee, in my view.

Some more information came to light this weekend in respect to the decision by the board, an indication that the board had a letter from the parole officer indicating that there were no favourable recommendations to be made in respect to the early release for Mr Suzack. We've also been advised that the board had a letter from Mr Suzack's girlfriend expressing her concern about the early release of Suzack, indicating that she was afraid for her life and that indeed Suzack would kill someone if he was out on the streets.

Given what we know, what the parole board knew at the time Mr Suzack was released, can you indicate to the House today whether you believe the parole board made the correct decision in granting Mr Suzack an early release?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As the honourable member knows, immediately after the circumstances of this matter came to my attention, I initiated a thorough investigation of this matter and made commitments that the report that was delivered would indeed be made public, subject to certain provisions of the freedom of information act and other considerations.

At the time of receiving that thorough report, I sent it to the Attorney General's ministry for advice on how much of the report could be made public, bearing in mind certain matters before the courts. The advice that I received very clearly and very directly was that no part of this report should indeed be released until such time as matters that are now before the courts have been completed.

I have received no other information from the Attorney General's ministry advising me otherwise.

Mr Runciman: The fact that the parole board decision and the circumstances surrounding it has anything to do in terms of ensuring Mr Suzack a fair trial is in my view an absolute fabrication; nothing less. The minister has been protected by an appointee of his government, Mr Michael Code in the Attorney General's office, who was put in place to protect the government, in my view, in matters such as this, because this has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Suzack receiving a fair trial.

I want to go over some of the things that we know. The Sault police sent a letter saying that Suzack was a menace to society. There was an outstanding warrant from the province of Alberta. Mr Suzack had a criminal record which involved something like 30 convictions involving violence. We've also indicated the matters that were released this weekend in the press. The chair of the board, Mr Don Wadel, went on record defending the decision of the board, saying there was nothing unusual and that Mr Suzack's record was not serious.

My question: Does the minister still think that Mr Wadel should be chair, and if he does, how can he possibly defend that, based on what he knows today?

Hon Mr Christopherson: First, let me say that I think it's extremely unfortunate that the honourable member would choose to use this place to potentially besmirch the reputation of a senior official of the Ministry of the Attorney General. However, he has certain rights and privileges in this place and it's his choice to exercise them or not.

My answer to the question is what it has always been and what it must be. Regardless of the lack of weight that the honourable member wants to place on the advice I've received from the Ministry of the Attorney General, to do anything other than what I have done to date and to take the position that I have taken to date would be absolutely irresponsible. I do believe the honourable member would be the very first on his feet to say so, should something happen to any given court case that I or any other minister happened to comment on during the course of question period.

Let me end by saying that I had indicated that any action that needed to be or should be taken as a result of the findings of the report would indeed happen, and that is the case.

Mr Runciman: It's absolute nonsense and very offensive when the minister gets up and tries to suggest things like he's suggesting here today. I don't mind supposedly besmirching the reputation of the minister or his appointee in government, Michael Code, because the minister has not stood in his place and indicated to the public of Ontario, let alone Joe MacDonald's wife and family and the people of Sudbury, exactly why Mr Suzack was released and why the circumstances surrounding that release can't be made public, and how that might in any way, shape or form impact on Suzack getting a fair trial. It simply doesn't wash, Minister.

What you're doing is hiding the incompetence of your board and your own appointees. If you're prepared to participate in that coverup, Minister, I say to you today, get up, make the facts known, make them public and demand Mr Wadel's resignation immediately. If you're not prepared to do that, you are indeed participating in the coverup and you should resign.

Hon Mr Christopherson: With all due respect to the individuals who may be involved in any way, shape or form with this matter, let me just say that in answer to the member's last supplementary, I still have not heard anything at all that would suggest to me I should do anything other than take the very clear advice that I have been given by the Attorney General's ministry with regard to this matter.

1430

OPP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question of the Premier. On Thursday, I asked the Premier about the continued use of the OPP, as the Ontario political police, to investigate members of the opposition and members of the news media as related to the release of government documents that are embarrassing to his government.

When I asked the question, the Premier denied that his government had anything to do with the latest investigation, which was an investigation of Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen and Richard Brennan of the Windsor Star. He denied that the government had anything to do with this. Would the Premier inform the House how it is that his government had nothing to do with it when his minister admitted in the next question that in fact it had been initiated by his government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I just say to the honourable member that the question he asked me on Thursday was with respect to a particular investigation, and I said I frankly wasn't aware of any of the details of the investigation, nor had I had anything to do with it, nor would I have anything to do with any such investigation.

I would not have anything to do with telling the police what to do or how to do their job. They have a job to do. If somebody is aware of certain sets of facts and presents those to people in terms of investigations, that's one thing. But the idea that the government or the Premier would in any way, shape or form have anything to do with any kind of police investigation in our province in this day and age is simply preposterous. That's not how things work.

Mr Bradley: What is preposterous is the fact that the Premier could stand up and give an answer like that.

The Premier's answer on Thursday said: "The allegation you are making that this Premier or that any member of this cabinet had anything to do with that investigation has absolutely no foundation. If you had an ounce of integrity, you'd stand up and say that there's nothing been directed at us. You have none."

On every one of the occasions where the Ontario Provincial Police have visited either a member of the news media or a member of the opposition to investigate the loss of documents by the government, documents embarrassing to the government, on all of those occasions those investigations were in fact begun by the government itself, the deputy minister of the various ministers, who supposedly answer to the ministers, initiating those particular investigations.

The OPP do not stroll down the hall and decide to walk into a reporter's or a member's office. The OPP don't watch question period and decide that they're going to initiate an investigation based on a document used in the House.

I ask the Premier, when are you going to stop this practice of having people within your government initiate investigations against the press and against members of the opposition, in fact using the OPP as a political police force?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member as emphatically as I possibly can that the assumptions of his question are false and that it is quite simply unfair on the part of the honourable member to continue making the kinds of allegations that he's making.

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Premier. There's been a tremendous amount of misleading information circulated regarding the new Workers' Compensation Board building. This morning you were quoted on the CFRB show in stating that the Liberals had contracted for the construction of the new WCB building and that you were unable to cancel the deal.

Is that true? Are the Liberals responsible for the mess we're in regarding the new WCB building?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): As the honourable member has posed the question directly in terms of what I've said this morning, I will say to the honourable member that my understanding of the situation, and I only go by the auditor's report and my understandings from the minister, is that the discussions within the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to this matter date back to -- well, they had set up a company that could invest in real estate in 1988. They then proceeded to intensify discussions through 1990, and those discussions were had with the board of directors of the WCB through the spring of 1990, July 1990 and September 1990. It's also the case that the contract was let after October 1, 1990.

Mrs Witmer: Just for the information of all concerned, the facts in the auditor's report were as follows: fall 1990, public tender process; December 1990, the board authorized the administration to negotiate with proponents of short list; February 1991, the board authorized administration to negotiate an agreement with the proponents of Simcoe Place; April 1991, the board ratified the lease letter agreement and authorized administration to negotiate all related documentation; and finally, in April 1992 the board authorized WCB administrators to execute documentation to finalize the transaction with proponents of Simcoe Place.

Have you been misled by your own staff in believing that the Liberals are responsible for the mess we're in?

Hon Mr Rae: I wouldn't say that all, but I have enormously high regard for the member for Waterloo North, and I might say by way of an answer, why would you omit all of page 17 from the chronology of the auditor's report in your presentation of the chronology of events even today?

The honourable member would know full well that this chronology, as set out in terms of pages 17 and 18, refers to all that took place prior to October 1, 1990. I'm surprised that the honourable member, for whom I have enormously high regard, would in terms of her listing of all the events -- why wouldn't you talk about the activities on May 5, 1989, or July 5, 1990, or September 6, 1990, or September 7, 1990? Why wouldn't you also be asking, what did the Minister of Labour under the previous administration know about the extent of this project and the extent of this process? Why wouldn't that be part of your record and part of your question?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Once again the Premier tries to suggest that previous ministers of Labour, myself and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, were instrumental in authorizing the Workers' Compensation Board to construct the building. I just think --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of privilege. Order.

Mr Sorbara: -- that it is a lie and it is a misrepresentation of the truth.

The Speaker: Order. The member has himself raised a point of order. He is out of order, and I ask the member to withdraw those remarks immediately. I realize that for the honourable member for York Centre this is a difficult and contentious issue. At the same time, I realize that the member, as a distinguished member of the House, would not want to use unparliamentary language in the House. I would ask him to please withdraw those unparliamentary remarks.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the remarks and invite the Premier to correct the record now.

The Speaker: It is now time for a new question.

1440

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is for the Finance minister. Recently, I've received many calls from constituents in Prince Edward county who are concerned about the effects of market value assessment on their municipal tax bills. They've received their assessment notices, and people like Mac McArthur from Wellington and Monica Coughlan from Wellington and indeed even my mother gave me a phone call. She was concerned about how the increase in the value of her house was going to affect her taxes.

Can the minister tell me why a system of market value assessment based on 1988 property values has been implemented in many areas and whether he has looked at all the implications of this system.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): For the member from Prince Edward-Lennox, who has raised the whole question of local property taxation with me on numerous occasions, I would simply remind him and other members and his constituents that the decision to seek a reassessment of property taxes originates at the local level.

Once a municipality has asked for a reassessment, they understand on which year that reassessment will be based. The Ministry of Finance does an impact study which indicates to that municipality exactly what the financial impact will be, because inevitably some property taxes will go up and some property taxes will go down. I didn't want the member from Prince Edward-Lennox to think there was any motivation behind the reassessment other than that requested by the local municipality.

Mr Paul Johnson: These people are concerned, of course, because as they see their property assessments going up in value and as mill rates are applied, they have an expectation of a large increase in their municipal taxes. What they all want to know is, will there be any financial assistance available for those who are on fixed incomes who are particularly affected by these changes?

Hon Mr Laughren: That's a good question. Under the Municipal Act, a municipality has the right to pass a bylaw to phase in any of the impacts of the reassessment, in this case to market value assessment. I believe it started out on 1984 assessment values. Once that's been done, under the Municipal Act the ministry is required to reassess every four years in order to maintain fairness in the system. The municipality can pass a bylaw to phase in the implementation of the change to mitigate the impact on local property taxpayers. Finally, there are tax credits in the form of property tax and sales tax credits that do mitigate somewhat the impact of property taxes on relatively low-income people in the province.

HIGH-ALCOHOL BEER

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Today the Toronto Star makes reference to some comments from Metro Toronto police that indicate that charges under the RIDE program are up some 39% this year over last year. That is reversing a trend over the past number of years, where I'm pleased to see the trend has been for a reduction in charges.

The police have indicated that one reason for the increase may be, and I'm quoting from a police officer of the Metropolitan Toronto police, "More people are drinking home brew and new brands of beer on the market this winter with higher alcohol content."

You will recall, Minister, that a few days ago, in fact on November 24, my colleague the member for Mississauga North asked you what you in your role as minister were doing to inform the public about the impact of high-alcohol-content beer. The industry has voluntarily entered into a marketing code and a protocol that controls its product distribution and its marketing and so forth. Your response to that was that you endorsed it, that you were in favour of it.

But at the same time you refused, in your capacity, to take any proactive role to accept any responsibility or to indicate that you, through the office of your ministry, would initiate some public service announcements and help educate the province and the people of this province. Are you completely satisfied that the people of Ontario are fully informed about the effects of higher-alcohol-content beer that they may be consuming?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, I'd like to welcome the member for Brampton North back to the House. It's good to see my esteemed critic from the Liberal Party back here today.

I don't know if he was in the House when this question was addressed to me before, but he's right that what I said at the time was that I expressed great concern about the possibility of these beer strength wars starting here in Ontario. What I also said is that these beers are not new to Ontario; about 15% of the market already has the higher-alcohol-content beers in the market.

What I am attempting to do, and I think successfully, although we'll have to monitor the situation, is, where possible, to get the big beer companies which are producing these beers and marketing these beers -- and this makes eminent sense to me, given that we are in a recession and we do have a deficit -- get the corporations which are marketing the products to pay to get the information out there to the public. That is part of their marketing strategy, and I'm monitoring that to make sure it does happen.

Mr McClelland: Thank you for the non-answer, Minister. I might indicate that maybe you've been absent, running around the province playing games with casino projects and so forth, but many of us have been here doing our jobs. I'm surprised the Speaker didn't jump on that in terms of the inappropriateness of your comment.

At the end of the day, you are responsible for protecting the interests of consumers in the province of Ontario. That's your job. The police say that many people may be getting into their cars and driving without realizing they've gone over the limit. They may be drinking what they think is a safe limit, but in fact they're getting much more alcohol than they realize. It's clear that the public needs to be educated and needs to know about the effects of what they're drinking. We're talking about lives. Happily, there have been no fatalities. Minister, act before it's too late.

The industry appears to be doing its share and is willing to do its share. Will you commit your government to do its share and its part to protect the people of the province of Ontario through whatever means are necessary? The public deserves the kind of information that it needs to know. I'm calling on you to fulfil your responsibilities and to begin to act today.

Hon Ms Churley: Despite all the rhetoric from the member opposite, he's not listening to my answer. I have in fact acted, and I've acted quite responsibly, by meeting with the anti-drinking-and-driving group, by having my deputy and other officials meet with the beer companies concerned and expressing my views and the anti-drinking-and-driving views, expressing our concerns about this very issue.

As I said before when I was asked this question in the House, the Liberals cannot have it both ways. One day they're saying, "Spend, spend, spend," as today; the next day they're saying: "Don't spend. Do something about the deficit." Won't they wake up and smell the coffee? The government cannot do it all.

We are in a position here where we can reach out to the companies which have millions of dollars of profit and tell them what our concerns are and ask them, which they said they would do, to make sure this information is given to the public. We are monitoring that. If they don't do as they said they would, then we'll review our options, but at this point what we're doing is acting quite responsibly under the circumstances.

RESEARCH GRANTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I'm happy to see him talking to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, because it has to do with his department as well.

Two things have happened: Today we learned in an article from the University of Toronto press that there's a major review of funding for the universities in Ontario proceeding. Secondly, in a discussion with the minister's staff a couple of weeks ago on a briefing, we were advised that there is a discussion about eliminating some $30 million in research overhead expenditures in grants to colleges and universities. Could you please advise us if in fact you are considering eliminating or reducing research grants to the colleges and universities?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The only number in terms of $30 million, that the member must be confusing between two items, is the second year of the expenditure control plan with the $34 million to colleges and universities that was explored in the House last week and that colleges and universities had been told about in the summer.

Mrs Cunningham: I can assure the minister that I'm not confusing the two numbers; I went to a great extent to get them clarified. At this point in time I can tell him that the industrial policy framework, the backgrounder that went with the document released by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, underlines and states, for his information, "Although Ontario outperforms Canada as a whole, it underperforms its competitors in research and development and has been slow to adopt new technologies."

It goes on further to say --

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Not any more, it doesn't.

Mrs Cunningham: Did the minister say to ignore this?

Hon Mr Philip: I said, "Not any more."

Mrs Cunningham: I don't think so. "Ontario's high-incomes competitors have recognized the importance of technology and are investing a much larger share of their economic output in research and development." I think research and development is extremely important to this particular minister and I think he understands it very well.

1450

But we do have a very big concern and that is, if in fact we are looking at reviewing the universities, and if in fact some staff and the universities themselves are very concerned about the research component, and if in fact we're saying it's extremely important to the future of Ontario, and if we know from our own booklet that we released more recently --

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

Mrs Cunningham: -- that other individual states are ahead of us in research and development, could the minister stand and inform this House and the universities today that the research and development component will not be cut as a result of these discussions?

Hon Mr Cooke: We're not talking about, through the OCUA referral that was made, cutting back on research. What we are talking about is more of an emphasis on teaching in our colleges, specifically, in our universities. There are many people who have recommended this for many years, that there should be more of an emphasis on teaching, that one of the options may in fact be that there'll be a bit more teaching time from professors so that class sizes could be decreased and the quality of our universities can be improved.

That doesn't mean there's a decrease in the emphasis on research. In fact, if the question were directed to the minister responsible for economic development, she would tell the member that every effort has been made to focus our research money that goes out of that ministry across the province to make sure there is a strategic value to it and that the dollars have been protected, because we believe in this government that that's a top priority.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, the last --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr Owens: The member for St George-St David refers to me as John Candy, but it's better than some of the names that he's been referred to as.

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is with regard to the Ottawa-Carleton act. We've been working for a number of months to bring municipal electoral reform to the Ottawa-Carleton region. It's been blocked. Can you tell me when you hope to bring this piece of legislation in?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Thanks to the screaming of the opposition, I couldn't hear the question. May I ask that the last two sentences of the question be repeated? I couldn't hear them.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre was recognized to ask a question. I would ask the members of the opposition to allow him the opportunity to do so. I did not hear the last part of the question.

Mr Owens: The last part of my question, Minister, was that you and the Minister of Housing, the member for Ottawa Centre, have been working quite diligently to bring this piece of legislation, Bill 77, to the House. Can you tell this House when you hope to have it introduced and the kinds of reforms it will bring to the Ottawa-Carleton area?

Hon Mr Philip: It's on the order paper. We hope to call it before the House adjourns. Clearly it has very widespread support from such people as Claude Bennett, the former Conservative Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has called me on a regular basis, from the Ottawa Board of Trade and from numerous ratepayers' groups. Indeed I believe that on the weekend two Liberal members of the Legislature issued some press releases supporting it.

With that kind of support, I'm sure we can get the bill through the House fairly quickly.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): A question for the Solicitor General: The Solicitor General will know that Clinton Suzack is charged with the first-degree murder of Sudbury Constable Joseph MacDonald. The fact is that Mr Suzack was released on parole when seemingly everyone, the parole officers, police and others, according to the new facts out on the weekend, agreed that he should not be released. We want to know why, Constable MacDonald's family wants to know why, the public wants to know why he was released.

There are real problems with respect to the parole board and the parole system. It's not just in this case, although it is clear that a parole officer recommended against release. But in the Stephenson inquest, which is now over a year old, Solicitor General, we can't even get answers on the status of your response to this report from your ministry. You're not prepared to tell us anything that's going on in the probe. There's clearly a problem. You're hiding the problem. We want to know what's going on.

Are you going to tell us why Clinton Suzack was released and what you're doing with respect to the Stephenson inquest report?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I heard two questions. One is on the review of the parole decision which, as I have also said to the honourable colleague in the third party, is the matter of a report that was presented to me immediately following the incident in question and the decision.

I have that report, as the honourable member knows. I have referred it to the Attorney General's ministry for advice on how much of the report can be made public. The honourable member knows I have received advice that I cannot release any part of that report for fear that it may prejudice matters that are now before the courts.

With regard to the second part of the question, let me say that it is our intention to respond to those recommendations in the time frames outlined in the report.

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been looking through for the specific point of order and perhaps you can help me with it. You corrected the member for York Centre today, or rather raised a point of order about his allegations of untruths, and you did so with me as well.

I wonder if you could advise as to what procedure might be in place with regard to the reference by the Premier to page 17 of the public auditor's report in which, in answer to the question from the member for Waterloo North, he indicated that something had occurred in this chronology which indeed had not occurred.

If you could just bear with me on the point of order, the chronology that is referred to by the Premier on page 17 of the auditor's report dated June 30, 1993, begins on October 14, 1988, when 799549 Ontario Inc was incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Workers' Compensation Board, and all through October 1988, May 1989, August 1989, October 1989, July 1990, up to that point all references that the Premier referred to in answer to the question from the member for Waterloo North in relationship specifically to the chronology for the decision --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): What is the member's point of order?

Mr Mahoney: I have to give you a bit of background to help you in ruling on it. All of the chronology referred to and relied on by the Premier does not deal with any decision in relationship to the Workers' Compensation Board building.

The Speaker: What is it that is out of order?

Mr Mahoney: The point of order is, sir, that if you're going to correct members of the opposition in pointing out something that may be construed as an mistruth in this place, is it also important that you would correct the Premier for uttering his mistruth on the radio?

The Speaker: No. The member is treading on very dangerous ground. I ask the member first to take his seat. Second, the member should know full well that what is a question for the Speaker is the parliamentary language. Details, facts, differences of opinion are not for the Speaker to determine, nor the veracity thereof, but simply whether or not language appropriate to the decorum of a chamber is used. That's all, and the member knows that full well. This is nothing new. It's only 700 years of history that dictate what the Speaker does with respect to conduct in the chamber, and that's what I'm attempting to fulfil.

PETITIONS

WOLF POPULATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I rise today to present a petition signed by over 1,000 of my constituents living in west Renfrew county who are, to a person, enraged and furious about the unilateral imposition by the Ministry of Natural Resource of a wolf ban on the townships of Hagarty, Richards and Burns.

I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf to the House and particularly to the Minister of Natural Resources.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Here are approximately 1,000 more signatures on a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill" --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): How about Bill 55, while you're up there?

Mr Cousens: Bill 55 has been withdrawn. I announced that last week.

1500

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Not just to the member for Markham but indeed information for all members, what is most appropriate is either to provide a short summary of the petition or simply to read verbatim the essential parts of the petition. No editorializing.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority with no PC support in the second reading debate of June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to it.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the taxpayers of St Thomas Aquinas, St Bernadette's, Our Lady of Good Counsel, Good Shepherd and Prince of Peace schools on the subject of the high school for East Gwillimbury-Georgina:

"Our children, the students of East Gwillimbury-Georgina, currently travel two hours each day to attend the overcrowded Sacred Heart school in Newmarket and are now being required to add one hour more to reach Cardinal Carter school in Aurora.

"Three hours of commuting for 14-year-old children is too much. York region separate board has just put an unreasonable request upon its families in communities in the north. The experts from planning and service within the separate school board recommend that Georgina get a new high school.

"We, the parents of these children, request that the Minister of Education consider our plight when processing the distribution of allocations for new schools is implemented. The attached signatures indicate support for the above and rely on your impartial and good judgement to do the right thing."

I affix my signature to it.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): A petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario is planning to implement a photo-radar system to penalize speeding drivers; and

"Whereas the provincial freedom of information commissioner has ruled that the NDP's photo-radar system violates the province's protection of privacy legislation; and

"Whereas there may be a number of legal and constitutional challenges to the NDP's photo-radar legislation; and

"Whereas the photo-radar system will cost millions of dollars to set up and implement; and

"Whereas the photo-radar fines involve no demerit point penalties, which the Minister of Transportation has said is the only way to force the public to obey other highway safety regulations, such as the use of seatbelts; and

"Whereas the photo-radar legislation penalizes the owner of the vehicle even if he or she is not responsible for the violation; and

"Whereas there have been concerns raised as to whether the photo-radar technology will even accurately measure the speed of all vehicles; and

"Whereas a government newsletter quotes a ministry staff person admitting that photo-radar is only being implemented to bring new revenue to the province; and

"Whereas the NDP government is already wasting too much of the revenue it does receive;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the NDP government cancel its plans to implement photo-radar and cancel its photo-radar legislation."

This is signed by many constituents in the province of Ontario and I've signed my name to it.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government should not interfere in business in any way; and

"Whereas any person applying for a job should be judged solely on his or her abilities and experience; and

"Whereas their colour, religion, race, gender or other such characteristics should not enter into the equation; and

"Whereas Bill 79 will establish a quota system by hiring by race, colour, sex or other physical characteristic; and

"Whereas employers should be allowed and required to judge each person as a person and hire them on merit;

"We demand the government withdraw Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act."

That's signed by a number of concerned people from the province of Ontario and I too have affixed my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"The insertion of 'sexual orientation' in subsection 2(2) and 5(2), the omission of 'opposite sex' in subsection 10(1), the omission of 'religious belief' in subsection 2(2) and 5(2);

"Therefore we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a petition to the House today regarding the private member's bill, the Liberal bill, Tim Murphy, Bill 45, and the Conservative Bill under Mr Cousens, Bill 55. It comes from Bethel Pentecostal Assembly, some 187 names, and their opposition to those bills, and then further, a constituent, Peter Vandriel, and the community he represents, with over 462 names, and their displeasure with Bill 45, and I do so give to the House today.

BROADCAST OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario residents are deeply concerned about issues such as taxes, auto insurance, wasteful spending and the provincial economy; and

"Whereas the broadcast of the proceedings of the Legislature is crucial to helping the public understand what its elected officials are doing; and

"Whereas TVOntario does not broadcast the daily question period until late at night;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government encourage TVOntario to schedule its broadcast of question period earlier in the evening so that all Ontarians can become more involved in the proceedings of the Legislature and the actions of their elected officials."

I'm very pleased to sign this petition as well, because I support it.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the petitioners are lawyers in the employ of the Ministry of the Attorney General and are the respective presidents of the two associations of government lawyers; and

"Whereas the government is moving amendments to Bill 117, entitled An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, which will affect collective bargaining between the lawyers and the government; and

"Whereas the result of certain of these amendments will remove mandatory binding arbitration as the current way in which lawyers in the employ of the Ministry of the Attorney General are able to resolve disputes which arise in collective bargaining with the government; and

"Whereas a further result of these amendments will be, in the event of an unresolved dispute in the collective bargaining process, to require lawyers to vote to go on strike before they may have access to a dispute resolution mechanism to be determined by the labour relations board; and

"Whereas only the labour relations board will have the power to order mandatory binding arbitration; and

"Whereas during the course of consultation by the Ministry of Labour with the two associations, the aforementioned requirement to go on strike prior to access to potential arbitration was never raised;

"Therefore, the petitioners respectfully request that this honourable assembly instruct its committee of the whole House to hear representations by counsel for the lawyers in the employ of the Ministry of the Attorney General on the adverse effect that the amendments to Bill 117 will have on government lawyers' ability simultaneously to exercise their collective bargaining rights and to discharge their professional obligations."

It's dated December 9, 1993, signed by Bev Brown, the president of the Ontario Crown Lawyers Association, and James Gurling, president of the Association of Law Officers of the Crown, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I have affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"The use of sexual orientation, section 7.1; the use of sexual orientation, section 26.1(a) and (b); the omission of religious belief in sections 7.1 and 26.1(a) and (b); the convictability of anyone contravening sections 7.1 and" -- I'm sorry, I can't read that part.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

SEWER AND WATER PROJECT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the future users of the proposed Mindemoya water and sewer project, do strongly object to any further environmental studies of the proposed site. We have the utmost confidence in the recommendations of the consultants hired by the township of Carnarvon. Further, we believe that any additional delay will unjustifiably increase the cost to taxpayers while unnecessarily jeopardizing the health of the citizens in the area.

"Therefore, we respectfully request that work on this project be started immediately and without further pump-out studies."

I will affix my signature.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents in my riding of Oakville South have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government should not interfere in business in any way; and

"Whereas any person applying for a job should be judged solely on his or her abilities and experience; and

"Whereas their colour, religion, race, gender or other such characteristics should not enter into the equation; and

"Whereas Bill 79 will establish a quota system by hiring by race, colour, sex, or other physical characteristics; and

"Whereas employers should be allowed and required to judge each person as a person and hire them on merit;

"We demand that the government withdraw Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act."

I have affixed my signature to that as well.

1510

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on user fees.

"Whereas the NDP has always said it was against user fees in health care and other social services;

"Whereas the NDP promised it would never implement user fees for health care and other social services;

"Whereas the NDP has bowed to pressure from the Conservative Party and is now working to implement user fees in a number of areas; and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to implement a number of health user fees by charging for various necessary drug treatments, for annual checkups, psychiatric counselling and speech therapy for children, and other necessary services; and

"Whereas the NDP government is trying to fool the public by saying that these are not user fees but rather copayments; and

"Whereas it has been shown that user fees do not make health services more accountable but only restrict access;

"We, the undersigned, urge the NDP government to reconsider its new policy on user fees and protect the integrity of our universal health care system by cancelling its proposed user fees on health services."

It's signed by a number of citizens of Ontario and I affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have several petitions here from people in the Waterloo region and surrounding communities: from Mary Patterson, Elmira Pentecostal Assembly, Gwen Van Bruwaene and Claudia Kempster.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age, sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code."

I hereby affix my signature as well.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition that's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Accompanying those petitions is a letter to Michael Harris, leader of the third party, expressing opinion about Bill 45 and Bill 55. They are asking, on behalf of those constituents, that both Bills 55 and 45 be refrained from passage in the House. On behalf of those constituents in my community, I present the petition.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 43 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel.

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families,

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

I have signed that as well.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When I was reading my petition I forget to mention, "Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Brown from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario / Projet de loi 26, Loi concernant les droits environnementaux en Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 26 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES CINÉMAS

On motion by Mrs Witmer, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Theatres Act / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les cinémas.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This bill gives the Ontario Film Review Board the power to review and classify video and computer games by amending the definition of "film" in the Theatres Act to include such games.

On a number of occasions, I have indicated to the government that there is a need for such legislation because of the proliferation of adult video and computer games which include violent and sexual aspects. This bill will give the government, through the Ontario Film Review Board, the ability to regulate and classify these games.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Deferred vote on the motion for third 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 Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1518 to 1523.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved third reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise until your name is called.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Mackenzie;

Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 58; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES IMMEUBLES D'HABITATION

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of 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.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now vote on second reading of Bill 120. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1526 to 1531.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Gigantes has moved second reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 58; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Interjections: No. Committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Which committee shall it be referred to?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The general government committee, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The general government committee.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before I call the order, the House leaders have been having discussions about the next few days of sitting. I think we reached an agreement to sit past 6 of the clock today, so I seek the consent of the House to sit past 6 this evening.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do we have unanimous consent? A point of order?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Not a point of order, Mr Speaker, just a point of clarification, actually. Provided there's a limit on that to no later than midnight this evening, I think was the agreement.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed.

1540

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

Mr Pouliot moved third reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'administration de la justice.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): This bill has been controversial and has brought forward several points of view, comments, questions and queries vis-à-vis what is essentially a safety measure.

Throughout the discussion, the opposition has insisted on talking about money. Among the most cynical were those who said it was a tax grab. Others said the government's appetite was insatiable, that it would go to any length. Some went as far as to suggest that the Minister of Transportation had been frozen out of cabinet, imputing motives to my good friend and colleague the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance, saying I was merely driving the car for Floyd, for the Treasurer.

This is a safety initiative. It's no more than that and it's no less than that. It's a safety initiative to achieve the mission and the mandate of having the roads of Ontario the safest in all of North America. Some 1,100 lives were lost on our roads and our highways last year in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, the member for Huron.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Some 90,000 Ontarians were injured. It cost billions of dollars in lost opportunities and productivity. One out of every six fatalities was the result of exceeding speed, people surpassing and exceeding the speed limit.

You've seen them. Take last Friday and Saturday nights on the 401. At 12 o'clock, people just whiz by at speeds exceeding 150 kilometres an hour. Well, those cowboys will now have to pay the price for jeopardizing not only their own life but the lives of other Ontarians. That's what this measure does. That's all it does.

The Ontario Provincial Police, the people in the know, those masters who work in their crafts on a daily basis around the clock, will tell you that speed kills. We all know this. Other jurisdictions -- the state of California, the state of Arizona, the province of Alberta, most countries in Europe, and Australia and New Zealand -- have photo-radar. Is it a tax grab? Is it intended that way? Do they rob people or do they just wish to reduce speed? In each jurisdiction, the number of fatalities has dropped. In some cases it's dropped by as much as 15% during the first year.

Others have mentioned that photo-radar is an invasion of privacy. I've searched long and hard to find meaning in this charge, an invasion of privacy, Mr Speaker. Picture this; we'll do it together. You're an educated man and you are about to find out -- well, you know already, sir -- which side is telling the truth. You have someone going at 150 kilometres an hour in the left lane and you have a picture --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The minister said the House is about to find out which side is telling the truth. I think he is imputing my motives as someone who has a right to say that photo-radar will do nothing to get the drunk drivers off the highways --

The Deputy Speaker: Please. Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: My apologies. In any event, which side is most economical with the truth?

As I began to say, 150 kilometres an hour in the left lane, and if you get a picture of the licence plate at the back of the car, take it. I fail to see where the invasion of privacy is.

Mrs Marland: And the drunk drivers are still driving.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Margaret, we don't have photo-radar yet. Get off your high horse.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Durham West, the member for Mississauga South.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who's talking about a high horse?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West. There'll be questions and comments afterwards. Wait, please.

Mrs Marland: Are there questions and answers?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The irony is our police forces are stretched very thinly. Really, there aren't enough officers to police the speedster.

Let me share with you what a true invasion of privacy is, an invasion of the worst sort. As the police are deployed along our highways to monitor, to enforce the law, people are breaking and entering and invading the privacy, the sanctity of homes, that piece of heaven which you call your home, that small castle. That's an invasion of privacy of the first order, not taking a picture of the licence plate of someone going at excessive speed.

We will make the roads of Ontario not the second-safest but the safest in North America. Photo-radar will help us achieve that. If you're suspicious, slow down and abide by the law. This government will not go soft on crime. Never.

Look at what's happened elsewhere. Just look at it. If you have an opportunity to enact some sensible legislation, when you have 1,100 Ontarians losing their lives, and the opportunity passes and you don't seize it, you might as well quit. They'll appoint somebody else. Just throw in the towel and say, "Let them go."

I don't have the responsibility as a minister to do what's correct? We'll play political games. We'll test the waters and say: "If it's popular, if people mark an X beside our names, we'll do it. If it's not popular, then we won't do it." You can't operate that way. In conscience, you can't do it. Maybe some can. I know I can't.

I wouldn't be standing in my place today in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario carrying the can for the Treasurer, the Premier or cabinet. I don't need it. I will never need it. This is a bill that is sponsored by the Ministry of Transportation. They keep talking about money; we keep talking about saving lives.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You never answered our questions. That's the reason.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We will not be deterred, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills, please.

Mr Turnbull: Why don't you answer our questions? We have challenged him and he's never answered our questions.

1550

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills, I advise you to remain quiet, please. Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I can understand the passion associated with this legislation. That is a prime example indeed of the human dimension. This is the essence of life and nothing else matters.

Small glitches will have to be addressed. What we are proposing under Bill 47 is a pilot project for a duration of six months, where we will be able to iron out some of the pitfalls, the workings associated with the implementation of photo-radar.

Mr Stockwell: How much money will you raise?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member opposite asked, "How much money will you raise?" The question should be, "How many lives will be saved?" We are hoping, in terms of money, since the member opposite wishes to know, that it will not cost the province of Ontario too much money to put it in place.

The jurisdictions where photo-radar has been implemented have all experienced a significant reduction in the number of fatalities, in the number of accidents, and yes, the flow of traffic has been smoother and people are actually able to get from point A to point B more expediently.

Vous savez, les critiques ont été nombreuses, dans la plupart des cas non justifiées, vis-à-vis l'initiative, le projet de loi 47, qui désire faire des routes de l'Ontario les plus sécuritaires en Amérique du Nord.

Certaines gens, bien sûr, ont soulevé à plusieurs reprises que ces mesures n'avaient comme intention que d'enrichir les coffres du ministre des Finances du gouvernement actuel. Bien sûr, ce n'est pas le cas ici ; ce n'est pas le cas du tout.

Le ministère des Transports de ce gouvernement n'a qu'une seule intention : c'est de réduire le nombre de fatalités sur nos autoroutes, sur nos routes en Ontario de 1100 au plus bas possible dans un avenir rapproché.

Vous savez, es autres juridictions, celles qui ont eu le courage avant nous d'instituer un tel programme, chacune des juridictions, qu'on parle ici de l'Australie ou de la Nouvelle-Zélande, qu'on parle en grande majorité d'à peu près tous les pays de l'Europe, de certains États, dont l'Arizona, la Californie et la province de l'Alberta, ont toutes inévitablement été les récipiendaires d'un nombre beaucoup moins élevé de fatalités et d'accidents et de coûts associés à ces deux choses, donc les fatalités, des accidents.

Comment laisser passer cette opportunité qui vous donne la chance, si vous avez la capacité juridique de le faire, de réduire le nombre des accidents --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills, the member for Durham West, if you want to hold a conversation you're free to do so. All you have to do is to leave the House. Do it outside the House, not in here, please. Minister.

L'hon M. Pouliot: On ne pouvait pas laisser cette opportunité passer.

Simply put, you obey the law and there's no fine. I understand that. I think everyone understands this, so why the big hype? Do you speed? Do you have a problem?

Mr Stockwell: How much money are you going to raise?

Hon Mr Pouliot: As members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, do all those people across there buckle up? We have an 84% rate of compliance. I recall -- oh, do I recall vividly -- when safety belts were first introduced, it was going to be a tax grab. It was unsafe to wear your safety belt; I recall that. There were all kinds of gimmicks: If you were pregnant, you couldn't wear a safety belt. If you had a child, the child would bounce all over, with or without. They scared themselves. They spooked themselves. They tell stories to themselves.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is speaking about seatbelts. I'm not sure that has anything to do with the issue that's being debated today. Furthermore, if you don't wear your seatbelt you personally get a ticket.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: You don't get a ticket with your licence. How much money are you going to raise?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West. You'll have your time to ask your questions or make your comments. In the meantime I would ask you to refrain from heckling, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Just the point I was making: It's the same people who don't want to talk about photo-radar who didn't want to talk about seatbelts.

Mr Turnbull: Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. That's misleading.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Just the point I was making.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills, I would ask you to withdraw your remarks.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I'm asking the minister to withdraw his comments.

The Deputy Speaker: I ask you to withdraw. Are you withdrawing?

Mr Turnbull: We aren't the ones who didn't want safety belts. It simply isn't true.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you withdrawing your remark?

Mr Turnbull: Yes, I am, and I would ask the minister to withdraw too.

The Deputy Speaker: I advise the member for York Mills to please refrain from arguing with the Chair. Take your seat, please.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, he's imputing motive.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: At the beginning it was a tough sell. The government of the day had tried, through education, to make it a soft sell. It took a long time. Over the years, 6.5 million Ontarians with a licence in good standing -- and that number increases by 250,000 each and every year -- 84% of those 6.5 million people who drive car and other vehicles are now wearing their safety belts. It's not in question any more.

You have some hard-core, reluctant candidates, and as of January 1 they will be penalized for two demerit points on their licence if they don't wear their safety belt. We didn't get to 84% compliance overnight. It took a lot of education. People had to be convinced themselves that if you fasten your safety belt, you have a better chance; it could save your life. Coupled with the new addition of air bags, you put the marbles in your pocket, you cash in the chips. The chances are on your side more and more.

This doesn't surprise. When all is said and done, speed still kills. We don't have to be a mathematical genius emanating from Princeton, from Harvard, from U of T to understand that. Listen to the people who are doing their job, the foot soldiers, the front liners, the police who have to call the fire department to extract someone from the hunk of junk after an accident, when people are trapped inside. Listen to those people one time. Work one shift. Hear people moan inside the wreckage. Go to the trauma unit at Sunnybrook hospital and you will come back a different person indeed. Do those things.

1600

I will not be accused of having blood on my hands by preferring the status quo. I will not be accused of carrying the guilt because I didn't stand up because it was unpopular. I don't operate that way; I don't. This is an opportunity that is presented to us to make the system better. When the opportunity passes, I seize it and I make our roads safer. I'm convinced of that. If I weren't convinced, if my colleagues weren't convinced, this bill would not be in front of us for the consideration of all members of the House. I have no hesitation. I don't wish to catastrophize. I'm not the kind of person who keeps repeating that at 150 kilometres an hour, you go straight from the accident scene straight to the bag, and you're dead. No, sir. Enough is enough.

This is a good piece of legislation. It's going to have a six-month pilot project and it's going to keep people with us. Too often we get up in this House after the fact and we try to explain and we talk for those who no longer have a voice. They're no longer with us -- 16, 17, 20 years old; 15% of people with a licence in good standing are between the ages of 16 and 24. Remember, we have six and a half million people out there with a licence in good standing; 15% are between 16 and 24. When it comes to fatalities, it's 30%. Year after year after year it's twice the representation.

It's not only for speeding; that's a component. Speeding is not catalytic, is not the one argument, but is one of the many arguments that leads to fatalities being twice as high as the provincial average.

We're proud this is a tough but fair initiative. This initiative demands the resilience to stand up and do what's right for Ontarians. For some, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but for the collective, it is the only pill to swallow. What is being done here is right. There is no getting away from the safety initiative. You can twist, you can turn, you can play shell games. When it comes back to focus, when all is said and done, if you don't speed, you don't have to be concerned, you don't have to be worried. Only those who exceed, who surpass the speed limit are in danger of getting caught by photo-radar.

If it were a tax grab, governments could strike universally.

Mr Stockwell: How?

Hon Mr Pouliot: There would be no if and but.

Mr Stockwell: How?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You can implement programs that are universal.

Mr Stockwell: What's going to raise you a billion dollars?

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is voluntary.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to cooperate. I ask your cooperation.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): If I might on that point, very briefly, Mr Speaker, the impression is that the time allocation is quickly approaching some difficulty, so I think it would be useful if we just all in these last few days of this session tried to behave accordingly; I suppose all of us.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I thank the member from Renfrew, the wise sage, and the authority that he commands, and rightly so, around this assembly, for kindly reminding me that time is of the essence by virtue of an agreement prior.

I will conclude by encouraging all members of the House that there are no losers with third reading of Bill 47; there are only winners and contributors to again helping all of us Ontarians in making the roads of Ontario the safest in North America.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The government House leader has advised that there's all-party agreement that the remaining time until 5 o'clock will be shared equally between the two opposition parties without questions and comments.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was not aware of this and I was under the understanding that we had questions or comments. Would it be appropriate to have questions or comments pursuant to the minister's speech and then we could allocate the remaining time?

The Deputy Speaker: If everybody agrees, that's fine.

Mr Conway: We had a discussion on that very point but we thought it would be easier, given the shortness of the time available, to take our time within the allocated portions and try to discipline ourselves within the individual caucus allocations.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed. Further debate?

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to quickly go on the record. We had time allocation with this minister. He was supposed to make brief comments. In fact, the minister's speech will be as long, if not longer, than the total opposition time allowed. I don't think that's part of the deal and I take exception.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement to split the time till 5? No questions or comments? Agreed. Further debate, the member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I would very much like to enter into this debate as we discuss photo-radar, which is only one aspect of Bill 47, but it certainly has become the most controversial. Bill 47 has been described as a cash cow. It's been described as an intrusion worthy of Orwell with its Big Brother implications.

When I have reviewed the material concerning Bill 47, and particularly the photo-radar section, I have found a number of objections which I, as an individual member and as a citizen, have to this legislation.

First, it limits freedom of individuals, in fact erodes two rights which we, as Canadians, have long held sacred: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to face our accuser in court.

Secondly, there's no real deterrent in this photo-radar legislation. There are no demerit points issued; there's just a monetary fine.

The third point is about highway safety. If I believed what the Minister of Transportation said about this making our highways safer, then I would support this legislation, but I think that's a smokescreen.

There was an excellent letter in the Toronto Sun recently, letters to the editor, by Troy Pulchinski from Oshawa and I'd like to read it into the record. I think it synthesizes the safety issue.

"The NDP government's efforts to impose highway photo-radar systems completely undermines any rational attempt at curbing accidents which are costing lives on Ontario highways. These machines lack the ability to evaluate a situation which may force a driver to exceed the posted speed limit, even for a few seconds. A sound example came out of your paper last week when a man was rushing to his wife's side after the birth of their child. A police officer, instead of ticketing the motorist, escorted him to the hospital. Photo-radar does not 'see' motorists who tailgate, cut off, drive with their lights off at night, or change lanes without signalling. It does not see if the car is swerving because the driver is impaired or if the car is not roadworthy. All photo-radar will see is huge revenues for this government and justification to reduce the already depleted numbers in our police forces."

From that, and I agree wholeheartedly with those comments, it becomes clear that other safety provisions which are right now monitored by our police officers on our highways will no longer be in place.

The experts believe this legislation will be challenged constitutionally and in fact the Attorney General herself has agreed; she believes this will be challenged. The Information and Privacy Commissioner, Mr Wright, sees this bill as a violation of an individual's rights and civil liberties. Finally, the delay between the time an alleged offence occurred and receipt of the notice of the offence will make it more difficult for innocent persons to defend themselves.

I happen to be in a household where there are three drivers. If I get a notice some six weeks later of an infraction, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether one of us was driving the car on that particular night or if the car was at that particular location on that particular night. I really feel this is going to be a very difficult problem that we will face later on.

1610

I had an excellent letter from a constituent which I would like to read. In summary, it is to Gilles Pouliot, the Minister of Transportation, and it summarizes many of the issues that have been debated in this House concerning photo-radar:

"Dear Sir:

"What the h -- do you think you're doing?

"Invoking closure on the most draconian bill ever seen in this province? Allowing only two days...for public hearings? Are you out of your mind? Or do you think that we are out of ours?

"Whatever happened to the NDP commitment to 'consult widely on all legislation'?

"You are certainly entitled to some credit. Under your guidance the ministry has done some impressive work in the area of road safety. I strongly support the graduated licence program and Bill 39.... Let's move it along.

"But only two days for the public to address a bill that damages two of the most sacred precepts of our legal system? Let's get real! Please remember that we are all innocent until proven guilty, and we also have the right to face our accuser. Bill 47, section 2, erodes both these cornerstones.

"Not only that, but the Attorney General has admitted publicly that this bill is going to be challenged. Why push through legislation that is vulnerable to both the charter and the Constitution? Defending such a challenge will cost Ontario taxpayers millions -- which we can ill afford -- and if it is overturned, you may have to return the revenue. And we'll be stuck with a pile of $80,000 photo-radar boxes with no residual value.

"Please scrap Bill 47, sections 1 and 2. This is bad law, and nothing better than a hidden tax. Removing the demerit points traditionally attached to speeding offences proves this conclusively. Besides eroding our traditional rights by invoking the Napoleonic Code, please recognize that photo-radar has been thrown out of many jurisdictions as a dysfunctional headache. Units have been destroyed by shotgun blasts. Officers have had to be deployed to guard photo-radar installations. Bottom line, Ontario drivers won't accept this. Please don't force them to become scofflaws or, even worse, vandals or criminals. Develop a backbone and stand up for what's right and proper.

"If you need additional revenue, consider this: Expand the existing motor vehicle inspection program. Make it mandatory for all vehicles that are three years old or older to undergo an annual inspection. Charge $100 a time. Fine fraudulent mechanics $1,000 per offence, and take away their permit to perform the inspections. This will remove a lot of unsafe, unfit or marginal vehicles from our roads, reduce pollution, produce hundreds if not thousands of jobs, improve everyone's safety, and will drive car and truck sales up. And that sector, don't forget, is the number one industry in Ontario.

"As the Minister of Transportation, you have a responsibility to improve roads, drivers and related safety issues. Leave taxation to the Minister of Finance."

That letter by Mr M.J. Elston from Penrose Road in my riding I think says it all. It's a very articulate response to the proposal by the Minister of Transportation.

I would urge all members of this House to stand up for our individual rights and freedoms and to vote against this very intrusive legislation.

Mr Turnbull: Briefly, this has been a time-allocated bill in which the government, after four days and 20 minutes, closed down debate on second reading, which is the substantive debate of the bill. They put it into committee. The minister, when questioned as to whether there would be any public hearings, said yes in this House. There were no public hearings. There were actually two days that they allocated to this. How he can be allowed to make a statement in this House without censure of the fact that there have been no public hearings is completely beyond me.

When this government was elected, Bob Rae said that this was going to be a different government, that it was going to be a government which would consult the people and would be open. There have been no public consultations on this.

In my own office I have received to date about 325 phone calls, letters and faxes. Minister, there have been five of them in support of your legislation -- five out of 325.

You would have learned this if there had been any public debate, but you did not allow any public debate. You rammed it through the House. You brought it in just a few weeks ago. It's amazing that it's taken you over two years of my urging for you to come forward with graduated licences, which is a good safety measure you're going through at the moment. Yet with my urging, after two years, you're finally getting down to it. This you're ramming through in a matter of weeks with no public hearings.

I will remind you that we had two weeks of public hearings on graduated licenses. Why are we not getting the courtesy in this to allow the voters of this province to be able to comment on whether they accept your law?

I've stated over and over again that this is a tax grab, and the minister says "No, that's not true." In repeated debate, I've pointed out both in second reading and in clause-by-clause and in questions to the minister that if this is not a tax grab -- it's quite easy -- he can prove it by dedicating all of the additional revenues that will be created by this to safety-related matters for the police. The minister has talked about everything else and we all know he's a very eloquent fellow, but he has studiously ignored that challenge. I was very interested to see that the Ottawa Citizen took up that and pointed out the fact that you have studiously ignored my challenge on that.

Let's just talk to the question of the ticket going to the owner of the car as opposed to the driver. There's a serious impact on the owner when that happens. There are auto rental companies which cannot afford that. In fully 40% of all of the parking tickets that are accrued by rented cars in this province the driver of that vehicle never pays the ticket. That's an average $25 ticket. Minister, you know that the average ticket here is going to be about $100. What chance do you think they're going to be able to collect a $100 ticket when they can't get 40% of the tickets which are $25?

Minister, let me tell you that the average automobile rented in this province is $35 a day. All you are going to do is you're going to force up the cost of rental cars and everybody, the innocent drivers who have nothing to do with speeding, is going to end up paying that ticket.

There is a solution and I've offered it to you because every debate I've ever joined I have always offered you solutions and constructive criticism. I have said that you should adopt the model which is used down in Arizona where the deposition can be made as to who the driver was. You have studiously ignored that question.

There are very clear ways of making this horrible piece of legislation at least a little bit better, but you don't want to because it is a tax grab; it is a licence to speed. The affluent will not be affected by this legislation, but you are not interested in that. You are going to hurt most severely the people whom you have always said, as a party, you are there to support. You've had all kinds of expressions over the years. It used to be "the little people"; then that wasn't a very nice expression and we became more politically correct: "downtrodden," whatever you want. Let me tell you, the poor people of this province are going to be more disadvantaged by this legislation than the affluent.

Why don't you have a system which ensures that there's true safety on our roads? The 85th percentile of people doing on average above the speed limit: Perhaps you should be looking at the speed limits and adjusting them accordingly and then having very strict regulation of those people who go beyond the 85th percentile speed. The thing that kills is not speed in absolute terms; it is inappropriate speed, speed which is much faster than the road speed. If the road speed is 115 kilometres an hour in a 100-kilometre-posted area and you have somebody who's doing 135 kilometres an hour, that is the danger; people who are making very rapid lane changes -- these are the causes of accidents and we must root them out. It's essential. I agree with the minister when he says that we should make Ontario the safest place in the world to drive, but this legislation is not doing it. It is a tax grab, you know quite well, and that's why you've ignored those challenges.

You've spoken to the fact that this is a pilot project. What a load of hooey. Anybody who cares to read through this legislation will see no sunset legislation and will see no clause requiring that this legislation be thoroughly reviewed after six months.

I tried in the committee, in those two short days that we had in the committee, to bring forward amendments which were constructive, and I brought forward a preamble to this legislation which would require that after a six-month test this should be referred back to the committee for review and public discussion. But no, you wouldn't accept that.

1620

These were constructive ways that we suggested that you could make this bad legislation better. But you haven't allowed that.

There was a certain humour, I must say, when I saw one of the government's own amendments ruled out of order. I'm not quite sure what they're going to do since there's no committee of the whole on this, because you used time allocation.

In the end, in third reading, the opposition parties are getting a total of less than one hour between the two of them to comment on this. This is bad legislation. The public want to speak out against it and you've gagged them.

The privacy commissioner has spoken to the fact that he has great troubles with this legislation. It has been called draconian; in fact, some people have suggested it's Orwellian, bringing in cameras, faceless cameras, to take pictures of people.

The minister pulls a face. Let me say, Minister, if this were truly a safety matter, you would have accepted my amendment that said that we would at least get the tickets out within 48 hours and we allow one week for delivery to be deemed on those tickets. There was a chance that the driver might have been able to remember where and who was driving that car at the time.

But like everything else that the opposition parties bring to this government, which said it was going to be an open government, it absolutely votes down every amendment that the opposition parties bring because you do not believe that there is one ounce of decency or consideration in the opposition parties. That is why you're going downhill so rapidly.

The time to turn tickets around is a very serious matter; also the question of the fact that there will undoubtedly be challenges under the charter. The Attorney General has admitted to the fact and this is going to cost the taxpayers big dollars to fight this. The suggestion is, "Well, in Alberta the courts have ruled them out of order."

Minister, let me tell you, it doesn't matter what happens in another administration; it's going to be challenged here. The fact that they haven't in Alberta so far taken them up to the high court doesn't mean it isn't going to happen, and it is a very expensive affair.

When your own privacy commissioner has concerns about it, I think you should at least have pause for concern on this. But no, you're barrelling ahead. Instead of saying, "Okay, we recognize that this is somewhat controversial and we will send it out to a committee where the public can have input on it," you're ashamed. You know what you're doing. That's why you don't want this to see the light of day. Well, Minister, we're tracking this.

I want to tell you what one of the constituents has to say. This gentleman is the manager of a business which will be affected by this.

"The proposed speeding-ticket system for Ontario highways by automated machines may force myself and other small car rental operators to discontinue business due to government legislation.

"Our firm would be fined without right to prove we drove the vehicle; also, without recourse to collect from our customer because of the length of time associated with the processing of the fines.

"As you could see our dilemma, we could very easily go out of business paying tickets of $100 when we can only charge $30 to $40 per day for car rentals.

"If we fail to collect from the customer and do not pay the fines, the province will not renew our yearly plates."

Because of time allocation on this bill, I would like to put an awful lot more on the record. But I am on the record in second reading and in clause-by-clause.

I am going to close by saying that, Minister, you have failed to respond to the challenges that I have made to you to improve this legislation. I would not like the legislation, but I would say it would be a lot more palatable. But you have absolutely studiously ignored those things. You have gagged the public from commenting on it.

You will be judged in the final court of appeal, and that is called the next election, because all of the people who are communicating with me are saying, "This is wrong."

Mr Conway: I'd like to take a few moments on third reading to reiterate once again my basic and profound objection to Bill 47, or at least those portions of it that concern themselves with photo-radar.

Let me say again what I've said before, and that is that I agree with all honourable members that there is a speeding problem on the highways of Ontario. I don't think there's anyone here who will take issue with that observation and I think we would all want to agree with the honourable minister that particularly on our major highways -- 401, 400, 403, 417 in my part of the province -- there is a speeding problem that is not helping the safety of motorists and bystanders across the province.

The question for me is, does this means -- Bill 47 and photo-radar in particular -- justify the end we want to reach in this connection, which is moderating and reducing the speeding on the highways of Ontario? My strongly held view is that this means, photo-radar, is an excessive means in terms of the policy objective that we all share.

There is too often in the debate today, particularly when there is a healthy dose of moralism injected into it, a tendency that if the end is meritorious, then any means can be justified in support of that end. When I heard my friend the minister going on about how he didn't want to have blood on his hands by not supporting photo-radar, he reminded me of the debates we've had on other subjects.

You know, it's about 100 years ago when we were debating in this Legislature Prohibition, of alcoholic beverages in particular, and how drink was the root of all evil. When I listened to my friend opposite, I asked one of the pages to go to the library and get a wonderful article written by Professor Decarie in the publication Oliver Mowat's Ontario, published about 15 years ago. There's a wonderful article in that collection called "Something Old, Something New: Aspects of Prohibitionism in Ontario in the 1890s."

When I listened to the minister go on with the moralistic reasons for supporting this -- that speeding was terrible, that it was killing all kinds of people on our highways and that photo-radar was absolutely essential in curbing this evil -- I was reminded of some of the literature of the Prohibition movement of decades ago. Professor Decarie has one item in this that came to mind as I listened to the minister's speech of a few moments ago. From the prohibitionist literature of an earlier time in Ontario, there was the following song, Father's a Drunkard and Mother is Dead. Let me just quote part of that literature:

We were so happy till father drank rum,

Then all our sorrow and trouble begun;

Mother grew paler and wept every day,

Baby and I were too hungry to play.

Slowly they faded, and one summer's night,

Found their dead faces all silent and white;

Then with big tears slowly dropping, I said,

"Father's a drunkard and Mother is dead!"

That's the kind of sentimentality and moralism that the minister was descending to a moment ago when he suggested that if we didn't endorse photo-radar as a means to the end of curbing speeding on our highways, we would somehow all have blood on our hands and he would have no part of that.

I want to say that I think the legacy of the honourable member from Lake Nipigon as Minister of Transportation for Ontario will be the legacy of photo-radar, and years from now, when all of the rest of his time in public life has faded away, he will be remembered as Polaroid Pouliot. That will be his legacy. I want to say to him and to the House that I don't think that is a legacy that will become him.

I have to say again that the minister advances this initiative as a safety initiative, and it is not in my view that, for a variety of reasons. I say to him that with the introduction of photo-radar we are going to have the bizarre situation where under the same Ontario Highway Traffic Act there will be differential penalties for the same offence.

1630

If one person in the province is tagged with photo-radar for a violation of, let's say, 25 kilometres over the legal speed limit, that person will pay the fine at 25 kilometres over the limit and there will be no other consequence. Another individual who is fined by a police officer for 25 kilometres over the speed limit will not only get the fine but will get demerit points and will undoubtedly have consequences down the line on his or her insurance.

I say to the Speaker and to the House, it is not a good situation for us as legislators to contemplate public policy where under the same statute in the same province for the exact same offence there are differential penalties or there are, rather, different penalties. I think that's not healthy.

I say to my friends opposite and to anybody watching that, as someone who drives about 85,000 to 90,000 kilometres a year, I know what it is that will change and has changed my behaviour on the highways of Ontario, and more than anything else it is the prospect of receiving demerit points. I believe that more than anything else is what causes the behaviour modification that we all want and we will need to bring speeding down. Photo-radar will not provide an opportunity for the minister or for the police officers to impose demerit points. Without demerit points, I don't believe there is going to be the kind of change in attitude that we will have to have to slow people down.

I want to say as well that in this climate where people are increasingly upset about taxation, about big government intruding into the private lives of individuals, and often intruding by virtue of means and mechanisms that are viewed as unfair and unreasonable, I think photo-radar is going to trigger a fire-storm of objection when it becomes the law of the land, as it apparently will in a few hours' time.

When individuals receive, weeks after an incident, an anonymous notice in the mail from Her Majesty in right of the province of Ontario requiring that they pay, as the owner of a car that was monitored with this electronic device known as photo-radar, when the owner of the car who may not have been driving the car receives a notice in the mail, weeks afterwards, that a fine of $150 or $240 is due and payable to the Treasurer of Ontario, I think there is going to be from Perth to Pembroke, from Timmins to Thunder Bay, a fire-storm of objection.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): There's no 400 series highways in that area.

Mr Conway: If you think for one minute that photo-radar is going to be kept to the 400 series, my friends, you are dreaming in Technicolor.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): And it hardly justifies the bill.

Mr Conway: I agree with the member for Willowdale, it hardly justifies the bill. When I look at the objections that have been raised by my constituents, and I have a pile of mail --

Interjection: You encouraged it.

Mr Conway: I did not encourage it. He's probably watching; you know, my father out there thinks --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Actually, my father --

Hon Mr Pouliot: He is going to bring the --

Mr Conway: No. If you'd just be quiet, let me just say my father happens to agree with the minister and not with me.

I just want to tell you that I haven't cooked these books. I have got a mittful of constituency mail from places like Deep River and Douglas and Pembroke and Killaloe which says that in the main, my constituents are not very supportive, because these people I represent see this as a revenue grab.

Now, the minister says, "Well, Conway drives a lot, and I hear that he has on occasion run afoul of the Highway Traffic Act," and he's right.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I have never said that.

Mr Conway: I admit that from time to time I have received a penalty under the Highway Traffic Act. I will admit, not happily, that I have been summoned on at least two occasions to appear at the driver test centre to give cause as to why I should keep my licence. I'm not happy about that and I'm not very proud about that, but I will tell you that when you drive 80,000 to 90,000 kilometres a year, it can happen. That doesn't justify it.

But let me say on the basis of my own experience -- I want to make this very clear as I conclude my remarks -- I live on the highways of Ontario. Nobody, I suspect, drives more than I do. I know something about what it is that concerns the minister and the department and the government, and they are right to have the concern.

But I'm telling you that I do not believe photo-radar is going to address that concern, nor do I think it is going to occasion the behaviour modification we must have to address the problem. I know from personal experience that what has changed my attitude, what has changed my behaviour more than anything else, was the assignment of demerit points and insurance rates that went up exponentially as a result of too many of those demerit points.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Money's no problem with you, so --

Mr Conway: Money is a problem for all taxpayers in Ontario today, particularly those of us who are seeing our disposable incomes going down, and I am one of the very well-off people in my constituency because I have a job. Many, many people I represent do not have a job or do not have a full-time job.

I say, in conclusion, there is a speeding problem, no doubt about that. Curbing the excessive speeding on the highways of Ontario is a justifiable concern and it is a worthwhile end to focus our collective attention upon. But this means, this photo-radar legislation, is an unwarranted and an excessive response in that connection. The end, namely, speeding, does not justify the means that are photo-radar, and it is primarily on that philosophical ground that I lodge my complaint and why later this afternoon I will be proudly voting against photo-radar.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The minister has indicated in his presentation that photo-radar is not a tax grab. He's not concerned about the money; he's only concerned about safety on the roads in the province of Ontario. Money is furthest from his mind.

Yet we have an official publication from the province of Ontario, published by Management Board Secretariat, dated November 19, 1993, a very recent publication, and there's a senior staff member from the Ministry of Natural Resources who says:

"In fact, in years past, when ministries came forward with ideas for producing fresh funds for government, they often 'got a cool reception....'

"'That's all changed. Treasury board has a new attitude -- it's very receptive to non-tax revenue products, any time of the year, day or night.'"

He goes on to say that a good example is the introduction of the photo-radar system, a tax grab -- the government's own publication.

So who do you believe? The minister says: "This is not an invasion of privacy. This is not Orwellian. Don't be concerned about this. This is no problem." Yet we have a publication from the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the province of Ontario. The privacy commissioner says,

"When the use of photo-radar infringes upon the privacy of those who are not subject of the law enforcement matter in question, we feel that this is entirely unjustified."

He has grave concerns about the use of photo-radar. He does not support it. So who do we believe? Do we believe the minister? Do we believe the commissioner for information and privacy?

The minister says, again, that photo-radar is introduced only for safety in the province of Ontario, yet photo-radar does not address drinking and driving, does not address accidents caused by lane-changing, accidents caused by following too closely and many other accidents.

1640

I quote another source. I quote from the Toronto Star, the automotive journalist, Jim Kenzie, November 6, 1993, and he says, "What has been proven time and again is that the only value in stopping speeders is that you occasionally nab drunks or licence-suspended drivers in the same net." The minister says one thing and the automotive journalist says another thing. Who do we believe?

The minister says that this photo-radar is only for the guilty, only for those speeders, those people who whiz by at 150 kilometres or 160 kilometres per hour. Those are the people it will catch. But yet at the committee meetings the superintendent for the Ontario Provincial Police says not so, that they will calibrate these machines and these machines will catch the top 15 percentile of those who are driving at any given time. The top 15 could be 110 kilometres per hour in a 100-kilometre zone or it could be 105 kilometres per hour. We don't know who it's going to catch. It's not just going to catch those who are driving 150 or 160, so who do we believe?

Finally, the minister says that if we do not support his legislation we'll have blood on our hands, that accidents will be out of control. Yet what does the OPP superintendent tell us at our committee meeting? He said that accidents are down in the province of Ontario. What does the annual report of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force say? It says that over the last five years, the accident rate is down 20% within Metropolitan Toronto alone, that over the last five years the number of persons injured in Metropolitan Toronto is down over 44%. So what is the purpose of this legislation? It is to generate revenue for the province of Ontario.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Since I have only a few minutes left, I will concentrate on an item that perhaps is the most important. I think that item is that while the minister may have good intentions, the public sees this initiative of photo-radar as way too intrusive, as not in relationship to the objectives the minister has set for himself.

If there were a clear indication that yes, this measure will save lives, that it will reduce accidents significantly, perhaps the public would be more convinced of it. But frankly, I have asked for something in writing at the two days of committee hearings that we've had. I must remind you that these were not public hearings; these were hearings only for the members of this Legislature. There was no opportunity for the public to question us, to make its views known to the Legislature.

At these two days that we've had for members of this Legislature to look in more detail at the bill, I said to the officials from the ministry -- because the minister himself was not present and we keep telling him that perhaps he should come to the committee himself one time; perhaps he'll listen to it -- that there were not facts and figures provided to us that showed that, according to the minister and the ministry and his officials in other jurisdictions, this measure clearly and obviously had a relationship between reducing accidents and taking your picture speeding. Frankly, that's the issue.

There was an excellent, outstanding editorial in Saturday's Globe and Mail, and the Globe and Mail surely is not known as being an overly liberal paper. The Globe and Mail said in a long article that this measure simply goes too far, that the state here is taking upon itself limitations and restrictions, and that putting them on individuals is not the role of the state.

I think that is really the issue here. People out there, and we as Liberals, are ready to accept some limitations, some restrictions on our individual freedoms. On the graduated licences, we are putting that same argument forward. We're supporting the minister, but with this measure, as the Globe and Mail says, the state, the government, has gone too far.

I think it's very worthwhile to quote at least a little bit from this article, because it spells out very well the public's mood on this. After all, we are in a democracy. We are in a free country where we try as much as possible to limit the powers of the state. Only where absolutely necessary will we let the state and the government and the police enforce limitations on ourselves. The Globe is arguing here, as many other people have argued who have written to me and to other members of the House, that there's no relationship between the limitations of this measure and what it's actually trying to achieve.

Here's what the Globe says:

"To say that even minor invasions of privacy are worth taking seriously is not to suggest their absolute rejection in all cases and in all places. We would locate them rather on a scale of repugnance, depending on how intrusive the surveillance."

Later on, the Globe says:

"Once accustomed to these indignities" -- such as photo-radar -- "a people begins to lose a sense of its rightful prerogatives against the state. And so it will be that much less vigilant when the next such incursion comes along. What we find outrageous, after all, is a function of the norm. When the norm is itself outrageous, how can outrage find expression?"

This is perhaps a little bit difficult, the way this is expressed, but I think when you take the time, Minister, and I hope you do take the time to take a look at this article, you will realize why, to your surprise, the public has become so concerned and so anxious and why we in the opposition are voicing the public's concern about this matter.

I'm sure when the minister first announced this initiative, he did not expect that there was going to be such objection to this bill, but the minister now realizes that he has touched a very raw nerve, because people are sick and tired, frankly, of the government always being after them, controlling their lives and intruding in their private business. Only under extreme circumstances are they willing to accept these limitations and are they willing to accept being photographed. People are very, very sensitive about their privacy and they're particularly sensitive about this photograph, because it isn't even necessarily the speeder but the owner of the car who's going to get the ticket. The picture is going to be taken of the licence plate. That only identifies the owner and not the driver.

That's the other concern people have. They said to me and they said to members of this Legislature: "Okay, if the speeder were the one who was going to get the ticket, perhaps fine, but there's no guarantee whatsoever that it goes to the speeder. The ticket and the very substantive fee and fine will go to the owner."

The insurance industry also has clearly indicated that while you may not get demerit points, because you can't identify the driver, it will record on the driving record and it will count towards your possibility of getting renewed insurance. I think that is a big concern. In fact, one of the constituents of one of my colleagues in Ottawa just called in to his office trying to find out how this is going to affect his trucking business, because he owns a truck and his wife also drives the truck. If she has a speeding ticket, is that going to influence his ability to get insurance? So some of these questions, all of them, are of extreme concern and I just again want to put them on the record.

1650

Mrs Marland: I stand in the House today to voice my absolute opposition to Bill 47, the photo-radar cash grab of Bob Rae's socialist government. Really what this is is simply legislation for speeding cars. It does absolutely nothing to improve safety on the highways.

In fact, I was very disappointed to hear the minister talk about the fact that speeding cars leave dead people in their trail. In fact, there are many incidents where that is true, but getting a ticket two months later in the mail is going to do nothing to remedy the death and the carnage on the highway. It is no deterrent to speeding; in fact, it is simply a system that gives an opportunity for people who can afford it to speed. It's really a law for the rich versus the poor, which I would suggest is completely in opposition to the usual ideology of this particular socialist government.

There are no points awarded against the owner or the driver of that vehicle. There is no penalty whatsoever. It is simply money. How can that prevent death? The fact is that the bloodletting will continue. It will be a bureaucratic nightmare to administer.

The minister mentioned Australia and New Zealand. Would that we could have the courage in this province to do what Australia and New Zealand do about drunk driving, where on their first convictions they lose their licence for life. Those are the kinds of things we should be talking about.

When the Solicitor General says we do not know anything about law and order, I say simply to the Solicitor General, we do know a lot about law and order. We know that simply taking a photograph of a speeding car will do nothing to deter those people who can afford to speed, be impaired and never get pulled off the highway because nobody will know they're drunk drivers.

I say again, this is strictly a cash grab of this government and it is totally ineffectual in terms of improving safety on the highway.

Mr Villeneuve: In the very few moments that are allowed under limited debate, I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that, first of all, my constituents are not at all, in any way, shape or form, happy with photo-radar and the encroachment on their privacy.

What I find most upsetting is that I had a school bus driver come to me and say: "A car passed me on the right as the flashing lights were on the bus. Had the door been opened half a second sooner, two students would've been killed." The school bus driver had the licence number and reported it to the police. What did the police do? The police simply told him that unless you have the driver of that car, the police can do nothing. Yet they're changing the law here to initiate a situation where the car will be guilty. That's an absolutely unbelievable situation.

Secondly, the minister talks about safety. Do you know what's happening in the way of safety out in rural eastern Ontario, particularly in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry? We're down to one inspector with the Ministry of Transportation to do the inspections on more than 400 school vehicles that used to be inspected, every one of them, annually. We're now doing maybe 50% and very few safety inspections done on the highway by the same ministry that tells us that, for safety's sake, it will take a photograph of your licence, mail you a ticket, a summons and say: "You happen to own this car; therefore you owe us X number of dollars. You were going over the limit," instead of looking at school vehicles, 400-plus of them in S-D-G with only one inspector by the Ministry of Transportation.

That would be safety. You're letting it slip away. Will some of this money that you recoup put some of your people back on the job? I don't think so. It's a money grab, with the only excuse being safety. We have many areas of safety, particularly in school vehicles; 20,000 school children travel on those buses in S-D-G an average of 107 kilometres a day. No one's inspecting them. That's where safety should begin.

Mr Harnick: If this bill is in the name of safety, I can't understand for the life of me how you're making highways safer if you're not stopping drivers who are speeding at the time that the speeding is being committed. I can't for the life of me understand how highways are safer when people are allowed to continue to speed and they might get the summons six weeks later. Nobody pulls them over. Nobody tells them to slow down. That's the first aspect of this bill.

The second aspect of this bill is, if it's all in the name of safety, why are the fines that are being collected not going into making our highways safer? Where is the money going? It's going into general revenue to be spent on a million and one other things but not on highway safety. That's the second aspect.

I don't think quite frankly that the protection of privacy is an issue that is going to destroy this bill. That, in many respects, is a canard, because it's all being done in the name of safety, except no one is stopping the driver who's speeding. That is the carnage that the minister who doesn't want to have blood on his hands is dealing with. No one is stopping the driver at the time the danger is occurring. The person is getting a ticket six or eight weeks later and won't even remember where it was that he was speeding.

The purpose of keeping cars going slow is to slow them down to avoid an accident at the time. That's why we have police cruisers out there. That's why we have radar. That's why police are visible on our highways, to keep traffic under control and to keep traffic moving slowly to prevent accidents.

The minister has not adequately answered the queries the people have. He continues to say: "It's only 400 series highways. Don't worry about it. It's only money. Don't worry about it." Well, Minister, lives are at stake, and this bill is a poor excuse to try to save them.

Mr Stockwell: Well said. This frustrates me to no end, this piece of legislation.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Everything frustrates you.

Mr Stockwell: Well, some things frustrate me but this really frustrates me. To sit across the floor from a minister crying about the lives that are lost on the highways when it's nothing but a ruse to collect more tax dollars from the beleaguered taxpayers of this province just leaves me cold. It's just so plain. The motive here is so transparent, it's a pane of glass.

If you were going to save lives, why was this money not earmarked back to roads, road safety and police? If you really wanted to save lives, if you wanted to get drunk drivers off the road, if you wanted to slow speeders down, why did you not make the ticket applicable to who was driving? Why would you not do that? Then you could apply the point system to the person who was driving the car, to ensure that these people would have the most painful experience of all, not just paying the fine but getting points, having points lost on their licence, thereby potentially losing their licence.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Or going to court.

Mr Stockwell: Or going to court, for that matter. It's so transparent and hollow and clear that this government is so pained to find sources of revenue, it uses this. They dupe this minister to stand up in public and talk about blood on his hands if you don't support this piece of legislation. The blood is not on your hands if you don't support it, Minister; the blood is on your hands because you're not spending money on cops: cops in Metropolitan Toronto who are down by 350 police; in rural Ontario across this province, fewer police officers; stations that were operating for years and years are now being closed down, where police used to be.

Those are the kinds of things that stop the carnage on the roads of this province, not some $80,000 camera that you set up on some highway, snapping pictures of people going by, potentially doing 92 in an 80-kilometre zone. Are these the criminals we're trying to catch? Are these the people whom we are trying to throw in jail and claim they're speeding?

Interjection: Calm down.

Mr Stockwell: The members across say, "Calm down." I can't calm down. The people don't have the money to pay these stupid tax grabs. They're broke. When you get somebody who is doing 90 kilometres in 80, who wasn't speeding, wasn't causing any problems, and you send him or her a ticket, think to yourself, that money comes out of the money they use to buy food, to pay their mortgage, to buy shoes for their kids, so that you can prop up your dollars and not save one life.

Yes, I'm mad. There's going to be a lot of people mad when they get these tickets in the mail from this government. They're going to be ripped off for more money, all in the name of public safety. What a bunch of bunk, public safety, money to be put into general revenue, and I'm not going to stand for it.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I say to the member opposite who used to be in cabinet, don't tell me to calm down. I can't stay calm. The taxpayers can't stay calm. The drivers of this province can't stay calm. I would beg this government, rather than introduce more of this crazy legislation, call an election and let the people decide.

The Deputy Speaker: I will now apply the instructions published in the proceedings of November 16.

Mr Pouliot has moved third reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1701 to 1706.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Order. Would members please take their seats.

Mr Pouliot has moved third reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Mackenzie;

Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: Order. All those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 59, the nays being 41, I declare this motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Report continues in volume B.

13 décembre 1993