Journal des débats 1997-sept-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Bill 154 An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences / Projet de loi 154., Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les suspensions de permis de conduire.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It's a pleasure for me to open debate on Bill 154, my private member's bill. The bill has been fairly heavily circulated and most of the members will know this, but I don't think it's a problem for me to repeat what the bill tries to do.

Currently, if people are convicted of impaired boating they lose their privilege to operate a boat for a period of time, but there is no sanction against their driver's licence. This act would, upon conviction either of impaired boating or blowing over 80 on a breathalyser or refusing to blow, remove the privileges of the convicted person to drive their automobile for a minimum one-year period.

Before I embark on an argument to persuade all the members to support the bill, I'd like to give some thanks to people who have helped me in my preparation and research, including Susan Swift of the legislative research service, who provided me with a great deal of background information on this issue, and from the Attorney General's ministry, Caroline Pinto, Michael Wood and Sheilagh Stewart, who helped with the drafting of the bill. Also, officials with the Ministry of Transportation and the Solicitor General and the Ontario Provincial Police have been very helpful in helping me put this bill together.

I thought I would speak for a moment about my own experience as a boater. I've been quite surprised at the bad boating habits of people in the vicinity of my riding in Muskoka-Georgian Bay. As a person who occasionally boats with my family, I find it quite alarming that when the Canadian Coast Guard did a survey of boaters across Canada recently they found that 37% of those people who boat indicated they drink alcoholic beverages every time they go boating, and about 66% of people who boat in Canada occasionally or regularly drink alcoholic beverages while they are boating.

I think this is an indication of lack of sensitivity by boaters to the issue of alcohol and boating and how they don't mix well. I also feel that there is in my riding a strong sense of dissatisfaction with the judicial system and the way it deals with impaired boaters, particularly with some of the high-profile accidents that have occurred on the water in recent years in Muskoka-Georgian Bay, where unfortunately the boat operators who were in the wrong received little or no sanction after the act, although there were some very serious victims in many of these incidents.

I don't know whether I can say that the number of bad accidents on the water in Ontario is increasing, but they seem to happen with regularity. I think it's time that we sent out a message to all people who boat in Ontario that there will be a very significant penalty if they choose to mix alcohol with their boating.

The statistics kept by the Ontario Provincial Police indicate that about 40% of all fatal boating accidents are alcohol-related, and that's a similar ratio to what occurs in automobile accidents. Currently we focus a good deal of attention on impaired motorists and I think it's time we levelled the playing field so that people who choose to drink alcohol and put others at risk while they're operating a boat be given similar attention. I think it's noteworthy that in Ontario currently if you're convicted of being impaired while operating a snowmobile, you lose your driver's licence.

I know from talking to the police that on most occasions when they find the operator of a boat has been drinking excessively and they indicate they will be charging them with impaired operation, the first question that's asked is, "I'm not going to lose my driver's licence, am I?" It is a tool the police want to have. They feel it's a tool that will help to discourage people from engaging in this kind of activity.

The other thing the bill would do is give police officers the ability to suspend for a 12-hour period the driver's licence of anyone involved in this kind of offence, even if they blow only a warning on the roadside breathalyser test. I think this is something the public would support strongly because it would take away the possibility of the person in the boat driving a car for a 12-hour period. I think in many cases the police would find it to be an adequate remedy, rather than going through the lengthy and sometimes frustrating process of an impaired charge.

The bill I am presenting today has provisions in it that have already been enacted in three other provinces. Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have been suspending the driver's licence of persons convicted of impaired operation of a vessel for some time, and several states have enacted this kind of legislation.

At present, an individual convicted of operating a vessel while impaired is prohibited from operating a vessel for a minimum of three months for the first offence, six months for the second and one year for the third offence. The maximum prohibition from operating a vessel under the Criminal Code is three years. Under the current system, if you're convicted of impaired operation of a water vessel you can leave the courthouse, jump in your car and drive away.

I think the tougher sentences that have been imposed on impaired operators of motor vehicles have had some effect. I know that in the 24 years I've had a driver's licence in Ontario, I have noted among my friends and in the communities in which I've lived an increased awareness of the perils of drinking and driving. You will know, from talking to people who operate restaurants and bars, that people who are driving have a tendency either to have a designated driver or they don't consume as much alcohol. This is the kind of the thing that we have to impress upon the boating community and I think this bill would do that.

The effects of alcohol on operating a vessel are worthy of note, and this has been studied by the Canadian Coast Guard and many experts in the field. If a person has been consuming alcohol when they're going boating, they're going to have to deal with the problems that alcohol creates in their body. One is that it affects the balance. When you're in a boat your balance is already going to be more unstable than it is in a car, and if you've been drinking, your balance is not going to be as good.

1010

It affects your judgement. It reduces your inhibitions and it can cause normally cautious people to take more risks. Given that 37% of boaters have admitted that they drink and operate boats, it's a scary thought to think, when you're out in a boat with your family, that the judgement of a third of the boaters out there is affected by alcohol.

Studies have also indicated that when you're drinking alcohol, your vision is impaired. It has an effect not only on your peripheral vision but also on your ability to see certain colours. Two of the colours that have been identified are red and green, and of course, as people who boat will know, those are used as running lights on boats and they're also the colour of navigation markers out there. So it is quite a matter of concern that boaters would have their vision affected by their drinking.

Another effect is the reaction time. You will not have the ability to react quickly if you need to, as you often do in a boat.

I've been quite encouraged by the support I've received on this bill. The Ontario Provincial Police has been in touch with me on a constant basis. I've also had a voice mail message from the father of a victim of a boating accident all the way from Massachusetts, and today in the members' gallery we have with us many members of the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, including Mr John Bates, who himself was a victim of a boating accident involving alcohol. Also in the gallery is Mr David Stewart, the president of the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, who is supporting the bill, and his executive assistant, Ann Leonard.

I've also heard supporting encouragement from the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons, the Georgian Bay community policing group and many individuals, both in my riding and in other parts of the province.

Personally, I feel this is a tool that the police have long asked for. They expect that this will have an impact on the attitudes people have when they are embarking on a boating voyage. I was myself out in a boat doing a cable TV show with our local MP and the police in Gravenhurst Bay in the spring of this year. It was a lovely day. The police pulled three boats over, and the third boat was full of beer and the people had been drinking at 11 o'clock in the morning. So it's a very common practice and it's something we need to do something about. Send a message to those people out there that they cannot drink and operate a boat.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'm pleased to speak in favour of this private member's legislation which would considerably tighten the rules for those who recklessly abuse their boating privilege -- and it is a privilege we're talking about. When one abuses their privilege by consuming alcohol, there ought to be penalties that follow because we must never forget that this is not a right but a privilege.

It's important to remember that while police enforcement is less stringent on water, boaters still have a responsibility for their own safety and recreation must be combined with responsibility.

Bill 154 represents an effort by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to respond to the concerns of his constituents. He points out, quite wisely, that there is a linkage between the irresponsible use of a boat and of a motor vehicle. Those who consume alcohol on a boat may well have consumed alcohol in advance of being on the vessel and therefore that is something that needs to be considered.

The proposed legislation addresses the problem in two ways. There's a short-term and a long-term issue. In the first instance, if a person's breathalyser reaches a warning or a charge were to be laid, enforcement officers would have the ability to suspend a boater's driver's licence for a 12-hour period. It would also suspend a person's driver's licence if convicted under the Criminal Code for impaired boating.

The major purpose of Bill 154, of course, is to act as a deterrent. The member has pointed out that there are three other provinces and six states that have enacted legislation similar to this. It's not clear, though, whether there has been any assessment of whether it has proven to be a deterrent, but one can imagine that it might have. I think it would useful at some other time to see what the impact of that legislation has been in those states.

I commend the member as well for being very thorough in providing excellent statistics that he has culled from marine statistics. It's obvious that there is a need to do something in this area which has been left unattended for a very long time. There are about 150 people a year charged with the impaired operation of vessels as it is. I'd say this seems a rather low number.

In looking at the figures I have, page 2 of the member's question-and-answer handout which he was very kind to give to us, he mentions statistics from the Canadian Coast Guard which found that 37% of Canadian boaters report that they consume alcohol always before boating and that 66% consume alcohol always or sometimes. This is before boating. Those are pretty shocking statistics and so it strikes me as odd that only 150 people would be charged, given the statistics which have been presented from the Canadian Coast Guard.

The figure may well be low because there was a difficulty with enforcement of provisions that currently exist, and this is really the heart of the matter. I'm very much in favour of this legislation because these cause such tremendous damage: 40% of those who were killed in boating accidents are found to have had a great deal of alcohol in their bloodstream. There is clearly a relationship between accidents and alcohol, so I'm surprised that only 150 people would be charged in any one year. The answer of course is that we do not have the enforcement mechanisms in this province, and that has only been made worse in the last couple of years.

The Ontario Provincial Police have been diminished so that you do not have the kind of enforcement you would like. You might say, "Maybe you could expand the enforcement activities to allow employees with the Ministry of Natural Resources who have charge of parks and provincial lakes and campgrounds" -- and there too we find that there have been tremendous cuts in staffing. There is no capacity to enforce legislation which currently exists. That's the problem.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay has an excellent piece of legislation, but if it remains just a piece of paper, it will look wonderful on the member's résumé, it will look wonderful in the annals of this Legislature, but it will do nothing to change the statistics we have; it will do absolutely nothing to change the deaths that are occurring with great alarm. That's really the issue.

I say to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, I'm prepared to support your legislation, but I would like to see a commitment from this government to enforcement of the legislation. I'd like to make sure that we have fewer accidents and that we have fewer deaths as a result of your well-meaning piece of legislation. It has to have some teeth, and the teeth come from enforcement.

1020

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm going to speak to this, obviously in support of it and with the intention of voting for it.

Of course, the sponsor of the bill made reference to the Criminal Code and the fact that prohibitions can be imposed by a sentencing judge. Interestingly, though, the Criminal Code only permits a prohibition of operating a vessel upon a conviction for operating a vessel. It doesn't permit the cross-prohibitions.

The Criminal Code prohibitions carry with them far more significant sanctions than the province, I suspect, is entitled to impose by virtue of its limited jurisdiction. I would invite the member to encourage federal counterparts to consider an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit the cross-prohibitions. I have no doubt there are going to be lawyers who argue the appropriateness of the Highway Traffic Act imposing a suspension of a driver's licence when the offence was one that wasn't related to highway traffic. God bless, they'll argue that and they'll litigate it and the judges will decide.

The rationale is that if somebody cannot exercise sufficient good judgement to not operate a motorized vehicle, be it a water vehicle, a vessel, an airplane, a skidoo, a snowmobile or a motor vehicle, in one context, can they be trusted to exercise better judgement in another context? If they have poor judgement on the waterways, can they be expected to exercise good judgement on the roadways? That's the obvious rationale and perhaps one of the arguments that would be offered in the case of any challenge to the legality of this particular amendment.

I also have, though, concerns about not the enforceability but the capacity to enforce. We've witnessed increasing penalties for drunk drivers, yet we witness annually numbers of apprehensions. One has to shake one's head because you wonder, how much stricter does the penalty have to get before people, or at least certain people or a certain segment of our community, get the message? I suspect that you reach a point of marginal return where you can no longer address the matter of penalty but you've got to start thinking about the fact that the likelihood of detection becomes the major deterrent.

The fact is that every drunk driver who does get caught didn't expect to run into an ALERT machine or a roadside breath-testing operation. The fact is that most drunks operating motor boats or Sea-Doos, those types of things, don't expect -- quite frankly, most of them know there's little likelihood of detection, because if they're familiar with certain areas of their cottage country or recreational country, they know whether or not the police are out there patrolling.

I have some concerns -- and I invite the member to speak to this -- because I know down in Niagara region where Niagara Regional Police have to police two lakes and share the policing of one waterway, the Niagara River, they've expressed to me great concern about their capacity to do effective policing on those waterways -- on Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the Niagara River.

There's clearly got to be a need to enhance the enforcement, to increase the likelihood of detection. At some point that's where more attention has to be diverted because you've maximized or at least optimized the penalties and the deterrent impact the penalties alone could have.

We've still got to address attitudes and public education. Clearly this is a bill that isn't solely related to cottage country but has significant impact on cottage country. Let's understand that, at the same time as we're standing here condemning drunk driving on waterways, drunk operation of motor boats and speedboats and Sea-Doos, we're struggling with incredibly powerful and effective advertising and mindset campaigns, in no small part by the beer industry itself, campaigns that in my view and in the view of a whole lot of other people are directed primarily at young, and younger, people.

Watch your television, the nature of summertime beer ads and the length that these operators, Molson, Labatt, the whole gang of them, want to make between cottage life and drinking beer. Of course, they're very careful. They've become oh so cautious about making sure they don't show somebody sitting on a speedboat -- I guess your steering wheel's on the right-hand side -- holding a beer in their left hand, but the case or keg of beer is sitting there on the dock. You can't escape the inference that they want people to draw, and that is that a cold beer is part and parcel of enjoying your weekend at the cottage.

Let's go one further. Molson, Labatt, the whole gang of them will argue, very much as cigarette manufacturers argue, "We don't force people to overconsume." You've heard the defences in some of the litigation that's arisen in the States: "We don't tell people because if you only smoke five cigarettes a day" -- and I suppose the statistics demonstrate this -- "your likelihood of getting lung cancer or other diseases is far less than the two- and three-pack-a-day smoker."

Let's be honest. The beer industry doesn't make money off people who drink two or three beers a week, any more than the tobacco industry makes money off people who only smoke two, three, four or five cigarettes a day. It's absolute hogwash. The industry would be devastated if all Ontarians were but even one-case-a-month beer drinkers. The industry would be finished. It couldn't maintain the economies it has to maintain to carry on its business. The industry is selling an addictive substance and it's selling and marketing it in such a way that notwithstanding their hogwash about drinking responsibly -- and I've seen the blood ads that they've engaged in where they've tried to placate the criticism of that industry.

The fact is, that industry very much wants to expand its already large market. It looks to young people as a means of doing that. I mentioned the cottage ads, the lifestyle ads. Witness again the attempt to lure young people into the perception that drinking, and I suppose what young people might call party drinking, you know, the two-fisted kind of drinking -- witness the rock-and-roll-themed ads that are associated very much with the beer industry, very sophisticated, very slick, very expensive ads, and I have no doubt all with actors, persons playing roles in these ads who are of age. You take a look and you can't help but think that some of them were actually selected to appear perhaps even younger than their actual age. They're appealing very much to a very vulnerable market and one which continues to succumb.

We have to look at the whole issue of drinking and driving, in the sense that I don't care whether it's a motor boat, a car, a motorcycle, a Sea-Doo or an airplane, what have you. Obviously one of the problems that a whole lot of people have is trying to calculate the numbers: "Let's see. I've had two beers in the course of two hours. Am I over 80 or under 80?" You've encountered that, I'm sure, that argument and that effort to try analyse exactly where you stand, to try to slide in under the wire.

Quite frankly, I think John Bates and MADD and his colleagues have had a whole lot to do with changing perception. You, Mr Grimmett, made reference to an earlier time when the phenomenon of drunk driving was regarded as often as not the next day with a chuckle and an elbow in the ribs about how you managed to make it home, albeit one-eyed and albeit on the wrong side of the road. I think those attitudes have changed a great deal, in that it's no longer a subject of mirth or joviality. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's not something people are inclined to brag about to their colleagues or co-workers or friends the next morning or the next evening. That was the result of some significant education going on in the public and a change of attitudes, but I don't think that same level of education and change in attitude has taken place with respect to boating and the boating community. They're somehow regarded as distinct.

I refer to lakes more than rivers because of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario down where I live. Lakes are huge, massive places and it seems as if you could weave and curve and sway all you wanted without hitting any victims. The fact is that drinking while operating a vessel is a highly dangerous activity, dangerous of course to the persons in the boat itself and dangerous to other persons who have every right to use those waterways. It's important that the alcohol industry -- the beer industry in particular, because the spirits industry has been far less successful at making its product attractive to new, ingenue drinkers, to the tyros, the neophytes of the drinking community -- take some real heat. They've got to be required to accept some real responsibility and to acknowledge that whatever percentage of their revenues they invest in anti-drunk-driving campaigns doesn't begin to arrest the impact of very powerful advertising campaigns which are undeniably focused on a very vulnerable group; to wit, young people.

1030

If we're going to have laws like this, and if they are laws that are going to be held in some regard by the public -- I go back to the issue of enforcement -- we've got to give cops in our communities the tools to enforce this. Police forces across this province find themselves increasingly stressed in terms of person-power and the capacity to put people out there on the street, and also stressed in the capacity to acquire the types of equipment, in this case motorboats, that you need to be out there on the lakes and rivers and so on policing the activities of boaters.

You can pass all the laws you want, but if the law is understood -- and the public is increasingly conscious of the absence of police officers out there. If the bad guys only knew how few cops there are out on the road in any given numbers of communities at any given point in time, the consequences would be scary. I mentioned that to police officers and they assured me that the bad guys indeed do know and are incredibly sophisticated at avoiding detection because they're well aware of police forces increasingly underresourced here in Ontario.

Quite frankly, it's not a matter of doing more with less. Policing is a labour-intensive activity. Police officers deserve to be paid decent wages in view of the types of work and the tasks that they undertake, the risks that they undertake on a daily basis and the high level of professionalism that exists among policing here in Ontario.

We can reduce policing costs even more by simply reducing the number of police officers that are out there. We've already witnessed incredible and tragic increases in response time by police forces, through no fault of their own, across the province. I'm most familiar of course with the consequences of the destaffing, the defunding, in Niagara region. I speak with police officers there on a regular basis and I hear the stories as frequently.

If people want, and I think Ontarians do, to be protected from that outlaw element of our community -- and yes, I put drunk drivers in the same boat, if you will. If people want to be protected from those, and I believe they do, people have got to be prepared to invest in the resources that are going to enable them to be protected. That means this government has got to be prepared to invest in policing. This government talks a big game about law and order, but it fails to deliver in terms of getting right down to the real issues.

We support the bill. I applaud it. But I ask you please to consider the issues we've raised in relationship to it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Today I have the honour of standing in support of Bill Grimmett's -- the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's -- amendment to the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences of individuals convicted under the Criminal Code of impaired operation of a vessel. Anything to do with boater safety, I can tell you, I support.

We don't have to be told that drinking and then driving a car is a deadly combination. Statistics show us grim numbers every year and we see the devastating results on the 6 o'clock news.

Ministry of Transportation statistics show that, on average, 60 people die every year in boating accidents in this province. That is not acceptable to me, it's not acceptable to the people of Ontario, and I'm sure it's not acceptable to any member in this Legislature.

Our Minister of Transportation has made it clear he expects firm action when a driver is found to be over the legal limit. If a driver of an automobile or a motorized snowmobile is found guilty and penalized with a licence suspension, the person's right to operate a water vehicle should also be denied.

Drinking and driving don't mix; drinking and boating don't mix. Alcohol and the operation of any motorized vehicle are a deadly combination. The penalty for breaking this law should be the same: vehicle licence suspension.

Currently, when someone is found guilty of operating a water vessel while impaired, they pay a fine, leave the courtroom and drive their car home. By the same token, a person found guilty of impaired operation of an automobile will have their licence suspended, will leave the courtroom, take a bus home, and will still be able to drive their boat on Ontario's lakes and waters. This is an irresponsible motor vehicle and water vessel operator. They should not be allowed to operate any type of motorized vehicle until their penalty has been served and they have proven themselves a responsible operator.

Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, as well as several American states, have enacted legislation suspending a person's driver's licence on conviction of the impaired operation of a vessel. This bill is supported by the OPP, who feel there will be no additional workload on front-line policing, since they already have the equipment and training needed to deal with impaired boaters. It was just two years ago that I was stopped by the OPP on the water. Just this past summer I was stopped by the Ministry of Natural Resources people on the water. So they are out there and I appreciated their visit.

I've worked for most of my term as an MPP to have all water craft operators take a vehicle safety course before venturing out on to Ontario's lakes and rivers. However, all the safety courses in existence cannot create a safe boater out of an impaired boater. Tragedies and fatalities on the waterways are no more acceptable than tragedies and fatalities on our highways. We must act, and act now, to educate boaters and enact tough penalties for impaired operators. I agree with the quote from the marine operator in a Peterborough newspaper when she said, "We've got idiots behind the wheels of cars and we've got idiots driving boats."

The marine industry promotes boater safety; distillers promote boater safety; the municipalities, law enforcement, public health and safety groups also promote boater safety. As an example, this summer, Labatt's, in partnership with the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons, launched a WaterWise Boat Pro education campaign in Ontario. They worked together to heighten awareness of boating safety and responsible alcohol use. In July, Labatt's was joined by the OPP and the Ontario Marina Operators Association to remind boaters never to operate a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, along with promoting many other boating rules of the waterway.

We have regulations. We need to add education and tough penalties, like the suspension of drivers' licences, for persons convicted of dangerous operation of motorboats, including personal watercraft, while under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

For some time, some nine years now, I've been promoting boater safety and education. Two weeks ago I had a resolution hoping that we could get the amendment to the small vessels regulations to have certificates issued to boaters. It was raised in the House with regard to who's going to issue the certificates and how it is going to operate. It's a federal law, but I would be happy if the province took the responsibility to issue the certificates to make sure that people operating a water vessel have had a test.

Really, what I'm looking at is the same as individuals who would get a driver's licence: They go and write an exam. That's what I would like to see, that boaters who are operating on our waterways today have that certificate. I would certainly be happy to grandfather that for three years, which my resolution spoke on, to allow those boat operators to have three years to get their certificate.

We need overall boating safety in this province. We have manuals, we have the boating manual, the pro boat manual, we have a booklet on boating essentials which is taught in Georgian College in Orillia, we have the tools, we have the power squadrons. We need to educate the voters in this province. I commend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for bringing Bill 154 forward so that the police will have more authority on our waterways.

1040

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me first of all say that I concur with the last speaker when he said we certainly need to do a lot more by way of education. I think it's a lot like the impaired driving situation or the drinking and driving situation. I can recall 30 or 40 years ago it was certainly much more acceptable for a person to drink and then to get behind the wheel of a car. I'm not saying they were necessarily all impaired, but it was an acceptable way for society to deal with those situations.

Now it's no longer acceptable. It's no longer acceptable to drink and drive. I think, particularly with young people, it has become quite acceptable to have a designated driver so that when they go out partying that individual doesn't drink at all. I would commend the young people on that. I think this is as a result of an education process that has taken many years to develop, but it has become part of the social conscience of a lot of the young people in our society. We need to do the same sort of thing with boating safety, because it is just as unacceptable to get in the boat and start driving it -- you don't drive a boat, but start riding it or whatever -- as it is to do so behind the wheel of a car.

The statistic the member for Muskoka has brought forward that almost 37% of the people who get behind the wheel of a boat always drink before doing so is surely totally unacceptable. I think a lot of the advertising, as the member for Welland talked about, is almost predicated on the fact that it's an acceptable thing. You get behind the wheel of a boat, you start drinking and everybody's having a grand old time. I'm sure that is simply not the right way to go about it. We have to spend a lot more time on education, on making sure that it becomes just as unacceptable, particularly for young people but also for older people, to get behind the wheel of a boat as it is to get behind the wheel of a car when you've been drinking.

I would like to turn to one other issue, though, which I think is very closely related to this. We can pass all the laws we want in this chamber and if we don't enforce them properly or correctly, then really we may have done something from a symbolic viewpoint that, yes, we are against drinking and driving whether it's in a boat or whether it's behind the wheel of a car, but if the government of the day doesn't set aside the proper resources to actually make it happen, then all the good intentions of the laws that are passed simply are totally wasted.

I would urge the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to start taking a look at the OPP budget. When you see that budget has actually been cut over the number of years, specifically when it comes to the aspect of enforcement, then I would ask him to talk to the Solicitor General and say that once this bill is passed, if we want to give it some meaningful enforcement mechanism, let's make sure that the officers are out there on the water doing that sort of thing.

I think it's a lot tougher to catch an impaired driver in a boat than it is in a car. It's much tougher to have RIDE programs and things along those lines to have spot checks. It just doesn't work that way. It doesn't totally surprise me that most of the people who are charged have alcohol in their system, because they're normally charged only after something happens. That happens much more frequently with respect to a boat than it does with a car because you don't have the kind of RIDE programs that you do in driving situations.

I commend the member for bringing this bill forward. I think it makes eminent good sense. An impaired driver behind the wheel of a car or behind the wheel of a boat is just as dangerous to the general public. They have, in effect, a powerful tool in their hands with which they can maim and kill, and I think the same sanctions should apply. But I would urge the member to talk to the Solicitor General to make sure that sufficient resources are available so that the laws we pass in this chamber can be effectively enforced.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very proud this morning to stand and speak in support of Bill 154. This member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, in my opinion, is one of our new bright lights in our government and this bill manifests his superb intellect and ability. It also demonstrates his compassion not only for the people who die as a result of alcohol-related boating accidents but also for those whose lives are changed forever as a result of permanent injury.

Sixty people died on average in each of the past five years in alcohol-related boating accidents. It is also significant that three other Canadian provinces and several states in the United States have already passed this progressive and very necessary legislation.

Times have changed. As a recreational boater myself for the past 40 years, I've changed my own boating habits. I don't go out any more after dark on the lakes. I'm very nervous about coming on a boat without lights. You can say it's floating -- it's not parked but it's not running -- it's drifting in the dark, because of course they're sitting in the boat in the dark, with their lights off, drinking. I just don't go out any more after dark because of that.

The other aspect of boating is, for the most part it is recreational; it's not usually for transportation, except to and from island locations. When you're dealing with recreational boating it usually means it's in combination with visiting and entertaining friends. Quite frankly, alcohol makes a refreshing drink and is far more likely to be served than milk, because obviously the refrigeration requirement isn't the same and it's very easy to keep beer cold on a boat. It's also very easy to have in that kind of environment a lot to drink before people go out boating.

Obviously the penalty for drunk boating is not a deterrent. In fact if you look at the penalty, it's absolutely absurd. The first offence for drunk boating is three months, the second is six months and the third is a year. Isn't that just great. It means that they probably would miss one boating season, so obviously the deterrent is not there at the moment. This private member's bill is a realistic penalty.

Isn't it ironic. I was listening to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay on the radio this morning, on Metro Morning, and he gave the example of the irony that you can drive a snowmobile on a frozen lake and be charged for impaired driving and lose your driver's licence, yet a few months later when that lake is unfrozen and you're on the same body of water with an individual watercraft or an ordinary boat, you cannot receive the same penalty for drunk driving.

The other point I want to make is that there isn't a question about whether it really makes sense to suspend an individual's motor licence for violations unrelated to the operation of an automobile. The answer to that is very clear in law, and that is that a precedent has already been established in this area in that a motor vehicle licence can be suspended under the Highway Traffic Act for impaired operation of a motorized snow vehicle, although it is not considered a motor vehicle by provincial law. So the precedent is there.

I believe we've made huge progress in this House in the last 12 months in passing legislation to fight drunk driving. Naturally, I had a personal interest in the government legislation because it addressed the concerns that I had brought to this House in my two private member's bills about drunk driving. This morning, the passage of this bill will work as an addition to combat drunk driving on the water as well as on our roads. I sincerely congratulate Bill Grimmett, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

1050

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Of course I will be, as everybody would be, supporting these bills this morning. I can't think of anybody who is going to oppose them. They are both laudable in terms of the goals they set.

I simply want to set out one of the problems that I see with all this legislation that sounds good, looks good on paper, gets a good headline, and that is that we have to have the resources to carry it out. It is one thing to have a bill on the books. It is another to have the necessary resources to enforce the law. I'm sure that the member who has brought this forward, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, will be working hard on his cabinet colleagues to ensure that there is adequate provision made in terms of the resources available to enforce it and, if there are more convictions, that the courts will have the resources to proceed with these cases so that those who are in violation are punished in the appropriate fashion.

Right now we've had three Supreme Court justices in Ontario say that the court system is "woefully inadequate" in terms of the financial resources it has to carry out its responsibilities. We are supposed to have, with the addition of some crowns on contract, some 535 crown attorneys to deal with 250,000 charges in the province. I suspect what's going to happen is that we're going to see more plea bargaining taking place and therefore a reduction in the kind of penalties that the member would like to see and I would like to see for violations of the law. Clearly, there is a problem on the water, as there is a problem on highways or across land with snowmobiles, and that problem has to be addressed.

It's the same thing with the victims' rights bill which will be dealt with later. Everybody is on the side of the victims, I'm sure. I have seen personally in my riding some very high-profile cases where victims and their families have been very saddened by what has happened and annoyed with the justice system. I welcomed the initiative by the member for Downsview, Annamarie Castrilli of the Liberal Party, bringing in her bill for victims' rights and then the government essentially adopting that bill and implementing it. What's happened, however, is the resources haven't been there to carry out the provisions of that bill.

While we applaud in this House, while there is a good headline, while there is some nice coverage and some newsletters, what happens down the line is that we start to find out from the victims themselves that it isn't all it's cracked up to be, that the resources aren't there, that the supports aren't there, that the participation they were looking for will not take place. That's what's important. That's what I urge members of the House to be working on: providing those resources.

It's very difficult to give an income tax cut which will cost the treasury $5 billion in lost revenue and most benefit the wealthiest people in our society, to make severe cuts in other areas and still be able to carry out the provisions of this legislation. I'm sure there will be unanimous support for both bills today. I simply urge the members to try hard to get the resources to carry out the bills.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's really a tremendous delight to join in this morning's debate in private members' hour, particularly to focus this Legislature's attention on Bill 154, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's bill dealing with drunk driving on our waterways.

At the outset I want to say that both the Ministry of Transportation and I personally would like to congratulate the member for bringing this important bill to our attention and commend him for the hard work he has put in on this issue. His riding has the essential recreational water routes to the north and to the south, and I know from speaking with him that he has seen many of these accidents and fatalities impact on his own constituents. I think to a great extent that is what impels him in bringing this bill forward, and for that he needs to be commended.

When I first examined this particular issue, I was absolutely shocked by the statistics of deaths and injuries due to drunk boating on our waterways. As of July this year we've had nearly 44 alcohol-related charges made against boaters. In the same period, seven people unfortunately lost their lives needlessly because of not taking the proper precautions and having this dangerous mix of boating, speeding and drinking. It's an extremely lethal combination. The OPP has estimated that there have been approximately 150 people charged this year with drinking and boating.

Unfortunately, many Canadians associate alcohol and boating as a pleasurable exercise and forget about the statistics. Even the Canadian Coast Guard has noted that an alarming 66% of Canadian boaters report always or nearly always consuming alcohol when boating. Clearly the need to reduce the amount of drinking and boating on Ontario's waterways is an important issue and priority to this government and to the Ministry of Transportation.

As the member for Mississauga South has noted, the effective deterrents aren't there. I think this particular bill is going to pave a very influential way in moving this government towards making a public policy decision on drinking and driving, as we have in the comprehensive road safety bill. Over time we are going to see the inevitability of this kind of bill becoming law in Ontario dealing with drunk driving and boating. The member's efforts in this area are going to prove to be a bold step along that public policy process, in making this particular bill eventually a fruition.

I'd finally like to comment that this government has already dealt with drunk driving on our road system. We have brought in the toughest legislation, under Bill 138, the comprehensive road safety bill, passed in June by this Legislature. The provisions, the philosophy and intent set out in that new bill address when a vehicle driver decides that he or she is going to combine alcohol and driving on our roadways. We're going to have a similar intent follow on the roadways our water system. I'd like to congratulate the member again for bringing forth this bill at this time.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, you have two minutes.

Mr Grimmett: I'll be brief. I would like to thank the members for Downsview, Welland-Thorold, Simcoe East, Mississauga South, Kingston and The Islands, St Catharines and Etobicoke-Rexdale for their supportive comments. I'm encouraged by the fact that they share my concern for safety on the water, which this bill is trying to address. I'd say to those people who raised issues about enforcement that it would be interesting to them to review the statistics available from the Ontario Provincial Police about enforcement on the waterways in recent years. If they look at them closely they'll see that there's been a dramatic increase in the number of charges laid on waterways in Ontario in the seasons of 1996 and 1997 respectively.

Part of this has arisen I think from the passage at the federal level of the Contraventions Act, which was a matter the police had asked for to make it simpler for them to lay minor charges against boating offenders without having to deal through federal legislation.

The police have been asking for the kinds of penalties that are in this bill. They asked for the changes that are in the Contraventions Act, and now that they have got the changes in the Contraventions Act, they have acted on that and there has been a dramatic increase in the number of charges laid. I'm confident that if this bill is able to pass through the Legislature, it will provide the police with the tool they need, and they will be able to carry out the enforcement that's required.

I certainly encourage all members to help ensure that we have safe waterways in Ontario. I think it's essential for our tourism industry that we are able to say to people our waterways are safe, and I think this bill will be one step closer to making sure that we can say to everybody, "Ontario's waterways are safe, and we're doing what we can to prevent bad boating habits."

1100

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SEMAINE DE COMMÉMORATION DES VICTIMES DE CRIMES DE VIOLENCE

Mr Baird moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 155, An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week / Projet de loi 155, Loi proclamant la Semaine de commémoration des victimes de crimes de violence.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): The people of Ontario desire to live, work and raise their families in communities free from violent crime. Until that vision becomes a reality, violence against any one member of a society diminishes us all. All victims of violent crime, whether surviving or deceased, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The people of Ontario should always remember the lives of those taken by violent crime. We should always reflect on the suffering and hardship that the survivors of violent crime and their families and friends of all victims of violent crime, whether or not the victim survived, endure with such courage.

Twenty years ago, there wasn't a place in our justice system for victims. Some even openly advocated the position that there shouldn't be a place for them. But over the last 20 years we have seen a good number of Canadians stand up and demand to be heard and demand a place in our justice system. Many sought to directly influence the outcome of a case in which they had a personal interest. These actions led this Legislature to pass the Victims' Bill of Rights. It was an important step in our efforts to acknowledge and respond to the needs of victims of crime.

The Victims' Bill of Rights legislated a set of principles to support victims of crime with timely, respectful and courteous treatment throughout the criminal justice system. It also simplified the process for victims to sue their assailants in civil actions for damages and provided better support for children who must testify in court. We are all committed to creating a justice system that does not allow victims of crime to suffer twice, first at the hand of the criminal and, second under a justice system that does not respond and does not respect their needs.

A good number of victims have gone far beyond dealing with their own cases. A large number of them got involved in collective action to work to change our laws and the whole criminal justice system. I'd like to relate a very personal story of how I became involved with some of these remarkable people. More than 18 months ago, a drunk driver took the lives of two constituents of mine in Nepean, Linda LeBreton Holmes and her young son Brian. I was able to see at first hand how important the role of their family was in the justice system in this case.

While they made a tremendous contribution to their own case, ensuring that the perpetrator of that crime received one of the longest sentences imposed in the country, they also did something else. They got involved with others, particularly with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, with people like Colleen MacKenzie and Susan McNabb, and worked to change our laws. Their efforts paid off and played a tremendously important role in lobbying this government and this Legislature to eventually pass what is the toughest drunk driving law in North America. Simply put, decision-makers on all sides of the House could not look them in the eye and explain why we couldn't or why we shouldn't, and the remarkable thing was that this law was supported by members on all sides of the House.

I had a large town hall meeting on that issue in support of a private member's bill put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga South. At that meeting I asked everyone in attendance, if they weren't from my riding, to call their member of provincial Parliament and indicate their support for tougher drunk driving laws and Mrs Marland's bill.

A few days later the member for Ottawa South, now the Leader of the Opposition, approached me and said he got a call from an Evalyn Collins, an Ottawa South resident who was at my town hall meeting, and she had asked him to support those efforts. That morning the member for Ottawa South told me, "John, I told your grandmother that I would support it." So these efforts don't have to be political and they can cross party lines.

A Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week would also serve to commemorate the contribution and the lost potential of those lives that were taken by violent crime. It would foster awareness of the suffering and hardship endured by the survivors of violent crime and their families and friends, an awareness of the courage with which they endure the suffering and hardship.

Most important though, it would encourage reflection on the treatment of victims in our justice system. It would make clear to governments, elected officials and police authorities the need for constant vigilance to ensure that victims of violent crime are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. It would invite accountability to the government of the day, regardless of its political stripe, to reflect on its own performance with respect to victims' issues and broader justice issues, and it would provide a forum for victims' groups and the general public to hold their government accountable for its own performance. Once a year it would provide the many diverse victims advocacy groups an opportunity to focus their energies on government and to come together to share their concerns and resources and to focus public attention on the importance of dealing with violence in our society.

A number of representatives from these groups are here today with us in the gallery: Sharon Rosenfeldt, one of the founders of Victims of Violence, and Debbie Mahaffy, director of Action for Victims, have made a remarkable contribution to our province and our country, not just for their advocacy of victims' rights but for their work in pushing for important changes in our justice system. I'm also pleased that Steve Sullivan, the executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Violence, John Bates and a contingent from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Paul Walters, the president of the Metro Toronto Police Association, could be with us today, because they have made a remarkable contribution to victims' issues throughout their organizations' long careers. Some of them have pushed for a special week of commemoration for quite some time.

Bill 155 proposes to designate the third week of April as Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week. This would coincide with the same practice in the United States, which has taken place for many years south of the border. It is hoped that Ontario could provide the national leadership to see such a week recognized across the country in provinces from British Columbia to Newfoundland and by the federal government and serve as an important symbolic move to push the federal government to bring in a national victims' bill of rights. It is our hope that the Attorney General could take that message to the federal-provincial justice conference taking place later this year. In fact, the federal government celebrates a week for prisoners, Restorative Justice Week. This event professes to include victims on one day of the week, but regrettably, few victims feel a part of it.

The third week of April is also a date with some meaning for two constituents of mine in Nepean. Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt's son Daryn went missing during the third week of April 1991. Since that tragedy, Sharon and Gary have made a remarkable contribution to working with other victims and have been a strong and effective voice for reforming our justice system. Our country, our province and my community of Nepean in recent years are so much richer for that contribution. Gary Rosenfeldt now serves as the executive director of Victims of Violence and the Canadian Centre for Missing Children. In a letter to MPPs, he writes:

"In 1983 a federal-provincial task force on justice for victims of crime concluded that victims of crime had been `forgotten' in the justice system. Since then, some major improvements have been made, allowing crime victims more active participation in the system. As an organization dedicated to the improvement of the situation of crime victims, we are constantly faced with the difficult task of bringing attention to the needs of victims. A week once a year dedicated to victims would serve as a focal point for our efforts to educate the community, governments and the justice system on these needs. An increased awareness of victim needs will inevitably result in better services for crime victims in the province of Ontario."

As I said at the outset of my remarks, all of us deserve to live, work and raise our families in communities free from violence, but until that goal becomes a reality, I believe collectively we all have a responsibility, because an act of violence against one member of our society indeed diminishes the safety and security of us all. This bill would not only commemorate the victims of violent crime; it would also serve as a vehicle to hold the government of the day accountable for how it deals with victims -- that is an accountability which I believe the government would welcome -- and cause the government to reflect on its performance in the area of criminal justice. I believe there's is a tremendously important symbolic message in the bill that I'm presenting this morning, and I respectfully ask for the support of my colleagues on all sides of the House. Thank you.

1110

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): We will of course all be supporting this bill and respect its intent, but I do want to say in the very few moments that each of us will have to speak to this bill that I for one will be very concerned if all we do is, and I quote the bill, reflect "on treatment of victims in our judicial system." I'll be very concerned if our reflection does not lead to action.

I'll be further concerned if we continue to be more concerned with simply commemorating victims, as important as that is, and less concerned with doing everything we possibly can to ensure that there are fewer victims. In this regard, I believe there is much more that we have to do.

I refer back to a study that was released in the spring of this year, and I want, because we have such a few minutes, to address my comments specifically to my concern about the continued victimization of women in their homes. The study that was released last spring deals specifically with women who continue to be murdered by their partners. The study indicates that greater awareness of violence against women and harsher penalties from the justice system have not reduced the risk of death at the hands of husbands and boyfriends for Ontario women. At least 159 women were shot, stabbed, bludgeoned or choked to death by current or former partners in the four years from 1991 to 1994; an average of 40 a year, compared with 32 a year from 1974 to 1990.

It was just this week that I had a phone call from a women who lives in southern Ontario whose husband is currently in jail for having abused her in very violent ways. He was in jail because he was not able to make his initial bail payments but he is now coming up for bail review and the information this woman has is that he has the resources now to be able to meet the bail. She is obviously fearful that when he is released from jail on bail, her life is going to be at risk.

She has made contact with every available resource in her community. She has been told basically that her only option is to keep a suitcase packed for herself and for her children so that when her husband is released she can flee. I don't know what to tell this woman, other than to say that this Legislature must be absolutely committed to doing more to ensure that women and children can be safe in their homes.

When this report was released last spring detailing how many women continue to be killed by intimate partners, the fact that 70% of all female homicide victims are killed by intimate partners, they said that the 1992 recommendations of a previous report on how to prevent such killings had not yet been acted on. They said we need to give police more tools to prevent men from harassing their partners immediately after separation; we need to keep better records on men with a history of violence against women. I believe we must have much stronger bail provisions for any who have broken peace bonds or restraining orders.

I believe too that we have to take steps beyond that to make sure women have the ability to leave abusive situations and to find a safe and supportive haven and, to go beyond that, to have an opportunity to establish independent, secure lives for themselves and their children.

It is important that we commemorate victims. It is important, as the member for Nepean has said, that we ensure that our justice system provides every possible support for victims and for their families. I believe some steps have been taken in that regard with the establishment of the domestic violence courts, but I believe we must take further steps to prevent victimization and to stop the violence.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just want to say at the outset that of course I'll be supporting this bill. It almost goes without saying. If one just has a look at the preamble for the bill, it says, "The people of Ontario desire to live, work and raise their families in communities free from violent crime." It would be hard for me to imagine anyone in Ontario who wouldn't agree and support a statement like that.

It goes on to say as well that "all victims of violent crime...deserve to be treated with dignity and respect." Once again, that's something that's very difficult for any of us to disagree with. It also goes on to say that it would make clear to governments and elected officials the need for "constant vigilance to ensure that victims of violent crime are treated with dignity and respect." I'm wondering whether the member for Nepean is suggesting that we need a week to commemorate the victims of violent crime so that his own government will pay attention to their plight and take action for them.

This bill, I'm concerned, is really almost trivializing the pain that's suffered by victims of violent crime by dedicating only one week to their suffering. This is something that needs to be paid attention to 52 weeks of the year. Anyone who has come in contact with victims of violent crime -- and I can tell you that I have on numerous occasions, as a former assistant crown attorney, dealt with victims of crime, in my private practice as a lawyer and working in the criminal courts as well -- knows the suffering they go through. Anyone who has had a family member who is a victim of violent crime knows the suffering they have to endure.

Victims of violent crime don't need just a week to commemorate the suffering they are experiencing as a result of criminal activity. What victims need are things like psychological counselling, and we've seen cuts in health care and in psychological counselling availability since this government was elected in 1995. We need increases in those types of services.

We know that victims of violent crime are very often spouses, oftentimes women, oftentimes children, who find that trying to obtain residential treatment after they become victims of violent crime is becoming increasingly difficult. We've seen diminished resources for residential programs as well for women who are victims of violent crime. In my own community we have a very well-respected residential home for women. It's called Hiatus House. That was an institution that had been established by volunteers several years ago and has been finding that it has become increasingly more reliant on volunteer and fund-raising activities as the support from the government is decreasing.

We also need to see simpler ways to ensure that victims of violent crime are able to obtain restitution. The member for Nepean mentioned some of the steps that have been taken with respect to legislation to ensure that easier civil actions are able to be brought to try and recover restitution for victims of crime. However, we know that oftentimes people who are involved in criminal activity don't have the resources to make restitution or satisfy civil judgements, and that's something we really need to address our minds to as well.

Of course, we need further resources. That was a similar suggestion that was made with respect to the previous bill about penalties for persons who are in involved in impaired boating. We need to take steps to try and prevent violent crime and not have to deal so often with victims of violent crime, but try to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place. Police are under continuous pressure to try to do more with fewer resources. If police were receiving further support or more resources to try to prevent the incidence of violent crime, that would go a long way to prevention.

Crown attorneys are under increasing pressure as well to try to deal expeditiously with full dockets of criminal cases in our criminal courts and are under pressure to try to resolve cases by plea bargaining. Oftentimes it's difficult to try to obtain remedies or penalties that are in the best interests of victims of violent crime as a result of trying to plea-bargain because the court space just isn't available to prosecute as many cases as the police are laying charges. So further resources for crown attorneys are needed as well.

Of course, if there's an increase in the number of investigations and charges that are laid by the police, further courtroom space is required as well. In Windsor, we've been working on a court building replacement in our city. That's a project that's been going on for a number of years. I would urge this government -- I see the Attorney General here -- to take steps to try and expedite the construction of that new court building as quickly as possible so that cases are heard on a speedier basis and the victims of crime don't go through the suffering that comes from the fact that cases take so long to get through the court system. I would ask him to try and speed up that project.

To summarize, I just want to reiterate that I will be supporting this bill. I would hope that all of us consider the interests of the victims of crime not just one week per year, but every week per year.

1120

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today on behalf of the government to speak in support of the member for Nepean's private member's bill, Bill 155, the Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week Act.

Bill 155, which was authored by my colleague John Baird, proposes making the third week of April an annual week of commemoration for victims of violent crime. This annual commemoration will foster awareness among all people in Ontario of the suffering, hardship and, above all, the great courage exhibited by victims of violent crime, their families and their friends. Just as importantly, this week will also highlight the great potential that is forfeited every time a life is lost to the actions of a violent criminal.

Mr Baird tells me that should Bill 155, and similar bills which may be introduced in the legislatures of other provinces and territories, be passed, this would provide most of North America with a concurrent week of commemoration for the victims of violent crime. I support such an initiative. Our government is wholeheartedly committed to correcting a grievous imbalance that has developed in our justice system where the rights of the accused take centre stage and the needs of victims are pushed off to the wings. We refuse to tolerate a system that allows victims of crime to be victimized twice: first at the hands of the criminal and then again at the hands of a legal system that does not respect, understand or respond to the needs of victims.

In our government's first year, we took immediate steps to introduce a Victim's Bill of Rights, which was proclaimed into law on June 11 one year ago. This legislation, among the most comprehensive in Canada, brings about long-overdue changes to the way victims of crime are treated by the justice system.

I listened a moment ago with interest to the comments by the NDP member for Windsor-Riverside about restitution being appropriate in the matter of victims' rights. I invite the member to read the Victim's Bill of Rights that became law a year ago in Ontario, which sets out not only restitution rights but a simplified method of accomplishing restitution for victims of crime in the province.

With respect to the courthouse in Windsor, I might also add that our government is providing five more courtrooms in that courthouse than the original plans even called for and that the building is being built as quickly as it can be built. The city of Windsor is well advantaged in that regard, since there are many areas in the province that are looking for new courthouses and don't have a courthouse under construction. The city of Windsor does, as a result of the efforts of our government and our Attorney General.

Among its various provisions, the bill of rights enshrines the victim's justice fund to ensure that money collected from fines imposed on offenders will be used strictly for services to victims. During the first two years of its term, our government allocated more than $10.2 million from the fund to improve and expand services to victims across Ontario. We will continue to invest additional funds for victims' services in the future. We have dedicated funds to double the number of victim/witness assistance programs available to assist victims of crime as their cases proceed through the courts and to enhance the services provided in existing sites.

Victims in 26 communities will soon have the support of their own local program. These programs help people through the court process so they won't be traumatized again. In 1996-97, approximately 20,000 victims of crime were served by this program. These programs focus on the most vulnerable. More than 80% of the people receiving this support are victims of spousal assault, sexual assault or child abuse, while families of homicide victims and families of people killed by impaired drivers make up the remainder of those who are helped by this program.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services will also be expanding its programs which provide immediate, onsite services to victims of crime. We will be adding eight new victim crisis assistance and referral service centres across Ontario, bringing the total number of sites to 20. This includes the addition of eight new sites across Ontario. This further guarantees that services will be available when needed to victims in their local communities.

Our government established domestic violence court projects at Toronto's old city hall and in North York. Launched in cooperation with judges, police, crown attorneys and the victim/witness assistance program, these new court projects are designed to do a better job of both supporting victims and holding abusers accountable for their crimes.

We are looking for solutions to the problem of domestic violence by trying different approaches. In North York, the focus is on breaking the cycle of violence. In assault cases that do not involve serious injury or use of a weapon, first-time offenders undergo intensive batterer's counselling. The downtown Toronto court at old city hall focuses on prosecution, employing improved investigation techniques such as the use of 911 tapes to obtain better evidence and improve the chances of obtaining a conviction.

Both projects are supported by increased victims' services and are gaining recognition as creative responses to the crime of domestic assault. In July, the government announced that these innovative projects were being expanded to six new locations across Ontario. Victims of domestic abuse in Ottawa, London, Hamilton, North York, the regional municipality of Durham at Oshawa, and Brampton will soon have access to these creative new approaches to dealing with the difficult and long-standing problem of domestic violence.

I would be remiss at this point not to acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, the member for London North and the minister responsible for women's issues, who this summer announced the spending of an additional $27 million to deal specifically with violence prevention issues. She has shown incredible leadership in coordinating nine ministries in their plans to reduce violence against women in Ontario.

This government will not stop here. We will continue to expand victims' services, to seek policy solutions and to make the real changes necessary to ensure the rights of victims are protected in Ontario's justice system. An annual week of commemoration for victims of violent crime represents another step on the journey towards an Ontario in which the needs of all crime victims are considered. I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting Bill 155 and reaffirming the commitment of this government to rebalancing the scales of justice by offering victims of crime the respect they so richly deserve.

Our government has done more to assist victims of crime than any other government. For those who may not agree, including perhaps some members opposite, I invite them to speak to those present in the galleries today who have experienced loss as victims of crime.

May I commend the member for Nepean for bringing forward this important piece of legislation to be debated in this House. I urge all members to support it.

1130

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I rise to speak on Bill 155, the Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Act, which, as members have said, is an act which seeks to designate the third week in April as Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week.

In reading the documentation provided by the honourable member opposite who's sponsoring the bill, I note that the purpose of the bill -- he says in the backgrounder, "Victims of violence are represented by a wide range of diverse advocacy groups." I want to spend just a little moment acknowledging the hard work of those groups. In my own experience as a civil servant back at the Department of National Health and Welfare, I've seen the efforts of these groups and I want to commend them for their efforts and their successes to date.

To quote again from the backgrounder: "A commemorative week would provide an opportunity for these individuals to focus their attention and resources in an effort to educate the public, elected officials and police on the issues facing victims and their treatment within our justice system. During the commemorative week, the government of the day will be forced to assess its performance with respect to the needs and rights of victims. In addition, the week provides a forum within which the public can hold its government accountable on its treatment and response to victims."

This is further accentuated by some of the letters we have received from some of the groups. Victims of Violence has written to speak about the need for a Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week, not only to recognize the pain and anguish suffered by those who have fallen victim to senseless acts of violence, but also to educate the public and government officials about the physical, emotional and financial hardships many victims are forced to endure as a result of crimes committed against them.

In another letter of endorsement from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: "It not only provides us with an opportunity to remember victims of crime and hardships they endure, but it will also be an opportunity to educate the public about what the impact of crime can be on people and what they face in the criminal justice system."

While we debate this bill, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to review what the government has done to help victims of violent crime, particularly steps to ensure that there are no victims of violent crime, because surely that is our ultimate goal. As the honourable member opposite said so well, we all ought to have the right to live, work and raise our families in communities free from violent crime.

We then turn to the government's performance here. I of course have to turn to the document that became famous two years ago, the Common Sense Revolution. In this document we find the wording under "Law Enforcement": "The people of Ontario are rightly concerned about community safety in our province, particularly the increasing incidence of violent crime. That is why funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed."

Unfortunately, the rhetoric in the Common Sense Revolution falls a bit short of reality. In my own community of Ottawa-Carleton, we are faced with cuts in the government's grants to support policing in our community. With a budget of some $99 million in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, when the provincial grant falls from $7.8 million in 1995 to zero in 1998 -- we find the community struggling to deal with the incidence of violent crime, and losing resources in our effort to deal with this important social problem does not help. It certainly doesn't help the victims of violent crime. It does not help the honourable member's laudable goal of ensuring that we can live, work and raise our families in communities free from violent crime.

Yesterday a colleague of mine raised in the House the cuts the government has made to community policing and prevention, some $3 million. Again, the intent falls far short of reality within our own communities here in Ontario.

We also have to look towards what the government has done to support communities in their effort to reduce crime, setting aside issues of law enforcement. I can only draw on my own experience with the children's aid society in Ottawa-Carleton, which found itself losing government funding at the very time when stress was being placed on families -- domestic violence being an important contributor to violent crime -- to the point where the children's aid society had to bring in Harris days. They literally closed down the operation of the children's aid society, except for emergency intake, to respond to the government cuts.

What does this mean? This means that families who require counselling, who need help to go over some of the crises they are facing, particularly the 21.6% cut in welfare rates, were without that 12 times within the year. They were called "Harris days," unfortunately.

All I can say is that it is important that we have an evenhanded approach. While it is important to support this bill -- and no one can deny the symbolic importance -- it is also necessary to ensure that there is sufficient concrete action to reduce the incidence of violent crime. That ultimately is our goal, to reduce the incidence of violent crime. It is the government's responsibility to ensure there are sufficient resources to do that. I call upon the government to follow through on the intent of this bill by ensuring that there are sufficient resources.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I suppose -- no, I'm simply not going to. There are going to be plenty of opportunities for me to criticize this or any other government for what it has or hasn't done. I find some of the comments, particularly those of the member for Durham Centre, regrettable in that they were part of a discussion and debate around this particular bill, which I indicate, as has my colleague from Windsor-Riverside, complete support for.

I come from a part of the province which understands all too painfully that victims of violent crime are victims, and yes, the families, the survivors, but communities also are scarred and mutilated as a result of the wanton violence, the simply unspeakable violence that has been imposed and that we run the risk of having imposed in our communities or upon any of us at any time.

I want to speak very specifically about violence and how we have to develop a zero tolerance. We know all too well that far too many victims of violence are children; they're our nieces and nephews or our neighbours' kids. We know the tragedy of a parent burying a child, the abnormality of it. It's simply not natural, and it's surely not the way God designed the human order that parents should have to bury children. We also know that violence against children begets violence against children, as we begin to understand how that nurtures among those victims a propensity to be violent in their own right as adults towards their own children or perhaps towards the children of others.

I'm confident the bill is going to pass. One of the ways by which we have to give effect to the bill is to enunciate very clearly zero tolerance towards violence. We have to express a repugnance for violence towards others. We've gone through a process over the last generation or two where there's been increased intolerance towards violence that in the course of even some our lifetimes was disregarded or turned away from.

We have to express as a provincial community, as families within our cities and regions, this total repugnance for acts of violence. We've got to talk about guarding ourselves and our children from it, but also guarding those whose lives are so beleaguered, so distorted, so maligned, hoping that we can detect as youngsters those people who otherwise would become the perpetrators of violence, detect them and prevent yet more of the crimes we've been witnesses to and all of us victims of, it seems far too often during the course of our lifetime.

1140

I support the bill. I applaud the comments of the member for Windsor-Riverside. I don't think anybody has any dispute about the fact, although one can select a particular time frame in which our minds address the issue of violent crime, that it's something we should be conscious of and concerned about on a daily basis.

I do want to recognize that one of our institutional safeguards is the police in our communities. I suppose anybody who's pulled over for a speeding ticket or a seatbelt ticket finds themselves hard done by by the cop who did it, singled out unfairly. Yet at those points in our lives when we become victims or when our neighbours become victims or our family become victims, we want the biggest, toughest cops in the world to arrive as promptly as possible on the scene -- we do -- and as many as possible, and we want them to do everything that the law would enable them to do to either interrupt the attack or catch the perpetrators and make sure that perpetrators are dealt with in our courts and that the community is protected.

Once again, we support it. Once again, with no great pride -- I don't take any pride in coming from a part of the country, a part of the province, that has collectively suffered, as have other regions -- we're not unique -- but the impact of incredible, inhuman and unspeakable violence against members of our own community.

I say that this impacts and, as I've indicated before, leaves an indelible mark on that community, one that I'm not sure can be erased or relieved promptly. Quite frankly, in the Niagara region it is going to be a considerable period of time, perhaps generations, before the impact of violence in our community and the memory of it and the effect of it has been appropriately erased.

I hope that during weeks of commemoration there's also reflection on the need to act in very practical and meaningful ways, a need to ensure that victims of crime and their families and the survivors of victims of crime have access to growing resources, have access to compensation, as has been said. I understand that with the civil procedures that were simplified in the Victims' Bill of Rights, the sad reality is most criminals can't be called upon to compensate their victims. That means that we, collectively, as a community have to be prepared to compensate victims, monetarily and in every other possible way.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm pleased to be able to rise today and express my views in support of Bill 155 and in support of the member for Nepean, who is another very bright light in our government.

In most crimes there is at least one victim. In most crimes the entire family is affected, and the family victims are too often the ones who are left drowning in the wake of the rush that we as a society have created in trying to provide assistance to the criminals or to guarantee rights to the criminals, criminals whose crimes have often destroyed the lives of the victims and their families.

Our courts often hear sob story after sob story, rationalization after rationalization, about how violent criminals are not responsible for their actions. It's always somebody else. Somebody else is to blame, whether it's their parents or their teachers or their doctors or their chiropractors or their psychiatrists or the devil, and the bleeding hearts in our society buy this nonsense.

In their desperate rush to defend their criminal defendants, defence lawyers often attempt to convince us that the violent criminal isn't really a violent criminal; they're misunderstood victims. How often do we read in the media of an event, and of course we can quickly forget that event. The media, in their attempt to increase sales or to increase hype, whatever, highlight every minuscule detail of a crime. Again, the families have to go through this over and over again.

I say this because a number of years ago a friend of mine committed suicide. I tortured myself for about two or three years after that, thinking, "What could I have done to prevent that suicide?" I was one of the last people to whom he talked. I realized after a number of years that I couldn't have done anything. These families also go through that. They say, "What could we have done?" and of course they are tortured day after day through the media.

We can't do anything about the media, but we can heighten public awareness. We do have the ability to heighten public awareness, and Bill 155 is a step in that direction. Establishing a week of recognition would be perhaps one of a series of initiatives that we could enact which would heighten public awareness.

One of the things I would like to see is a school curriculum to target some of the root causes of crime, to help young people understand that committing a crime against someone else also scars them, because it reflects on who they are and who they will become as a member of society. We could establish a specific goal in our educational system to help youth understand themselves, understand the type of person they want to become. An important component in that strategy would be to help youth establish for themselves the type of person they do not want to become.

In the primary grades, we could give consideration to children learning about themselves in relation to violence, ie: "What is a good person? What type of a person do I want to become? What are the important similarities between people, what are the important differences between people, and how do our differences benefit each one of us? Why is a violent person violent?" What image do we want to implant in the minds of our youth about violent people? This is all part and parcel of having a week to commemorate the families and the victims of violent crime. It's an educational process.

At the secondary school level we could reinforce what they have learned at the primary school level. "What should I do when I become angry?" That is something we could have at both the primary school and the secondary school levels. "Is there a way that a violent person can be taught to overcome being violent? Why are people violent towards others?" Let's do some analysis on this in the school system part of this week. "What do I think about being violent? How do people overcome being violent?" Students could do essays on this, five- or 10-page essays, in high school. Of course, they can always be taught how to think about how they want other people to treat them.

I want to thank my colleague Mr Baird, the member for Nepean, for his efforts in bringing forth this bill. I believe it's a very positive initiative and I will support it.

1150

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm proud and happy to be able to rise and speak to the bill presented by the member for Nepean. Let me say from the very outset that I will certainly be endorsing and supporting this bill because I think it fills the purposes for which it was introduced, and I think they're important purposes.

Let me, though, just outline a little more what I believe a bill such as this should also incorporate. There should be a celebration within the bill, a celebration of the lives of the people who have been taken away from us. Let me relate the Sudbury experience to the members in the House and to the families who are in the gallery today.

In October 1993, a very, very good police officer by the name of Constable Joe MacDonald was gunned down tragically by two hooligans. Joe devoted his life to youth in the Sudbury area. He was a coach at Lasalle and later of the New Sudbury Wildcats. He loved football and he loved children.

Sudbury wanted to know what it could do to celebrate Joe, to remember Joe but to celebrate Joe. Sid Forrester, the long-time coach of the Sudbury Spartans, thought we should start a football league called the Joe MacDonald Youth Football League. A group of football enthusiasts and coaches -- Frank Pagnucco, Mike Staffen, Al Lekun, Mike Fabilli, Marty Rupnick, John Larsen and my brother, Chris Bartolucci -- came together and worked very closely with the then deputy chief of the regional municipality of Sudbury police force, Dennis O'Neil, worked well with city council, and we ended up with this wonderful league that now has two divisions, for children aged 10 to 15. Every Labour Day we kick off the Joe MacDonald Youth Football League. We celebrate Joe MacDonald, his life and his contribution from Labour Day until the first week in November when we hold the championship game.

Part of the coaching is to remind the kids who are playing football what Joe MacDonald was all about and why this youth football league was created. Indeed, we don't only commemorate but we celebrate his life. I would suggest to you that 145 kids remembering why they're playing football every Saturday and Sunday, remembering why their parents come out with them, remembering why the camaraderie is found at Lily Creek in the football games is education in itself to remember that the families of victims of violence deserve some form of recognition.

I commemorate with the MacDonald family, with Nancy MacDonald. I remember being a former police commissioner and hiring these young, wonderful people to enforce the law. It is important that this bill passes. It is important that we remember that these victims of violence possess the opportunities for profound, positive influences on the people they impacted upon.

Indeed it's important that we remember the families. It's important that we remember the Rosenfelds, the Mahaffys, all the family members in the gallery today and all those family members who are victims of violence. If that happens, then some day as we continue to strive for what we believe to be a better society, that will come about.

This type of bill is not paying lip-service to it. The member for Nepean and I don't always agree, but on this one we agree. If this week has even a fraction of the impact that the Joe MacDonald Youth Football League has on the community of Sudbury, this bill is very worthwhile, this bill is very necessary and in fact this bill will help in the healing or grieving the families go through. The grieving doesn't stop a week, a year or two years after the violent crime. The grieving continues. As long as these family members realize that we remember with them and we celebrate the lives that were taken from us, then, ladies and gentlemen who are gathered here this morning, this bill will accomplish the goals that the member for Nepean has set out in presenting Bill 155.

The Acting Speaker: The government has but nine seconds left, so I'm assuming we'll move to the member for Nepean and his reply.

Mr Baird: I want to thank the other members of the House who took the opportunity to speak today and particularly thank for their thoughtful remarks the member for Fort William, who mentioned the importance of anti-violence measures with respect to domestic violence; the member for Durham Centre, who spoke on the bill; the member for Welland-Thorold, who spoke about a zero tolerance for violence, and I certainly share his views in that regard; and particularly the member for Sudbury. I can think of few tragedies which match the tragedy of a community losing a police officer, someone there to protect the community. We all owe a special debt of gratitude to those victims of violence who serve in the community to protect us all.

I have a quote from a prepared text, some remarks from Debbie Mahaffy this morning which I might add to the record: "A week designated Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week will create an opportunity for specific sharing of information and techniques in assisting victims of crime. There is no one better qualified to teach professionals, citizens of the community than victims themselves. Elevating the status of victims in the community, in the media and the justice system to a level of equal importance to that of the offender would guarantee that the system itself would be held more accountable to those most affected by crime." That accountability is one that is welcomed by this government.

One of the members opposite mentioned that perhaps a week was insufficient and that we need a week to get the attention of the government. I would simply indicate that we've been privileged to have with us this morning -- normally the cabinet don't show up for private members' hour as a symbol that this is a genuine private members' hour -- the Attorney General, who has been here for the complete hour. I do note and appreciate his attendance this morning. It is our hope that this will be the beginning of a campaign to launch a national victims' bill of rights, a national week of commemoration. I'm pleased that the Attorney General will take that message.

We can go back and forth and talk about what we're doing, but the reality is, we can all do more.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1997

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): I want to thank the members for their cooperation in consideration of having a neophyte in the chair this morning.

Mr Grimmett moved second reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences.

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All opposed, say "nay."

I declare the motion carried.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'd ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Baird moved second reading of Bill 155, An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week.

All those in favour, say "aye."

Opposed?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour? It shall be done.

It being near 12 of the clock and private members' business being finished, this House is adjourned until 1:30.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to use this opportunity to invite all members of the Legislature to TVOntario's sixth annual open house this Saturday, September 20, an event that will allow them to understand just how important TVO is to the people of Ontario.

This is truly a fun event, but it must be said that this year's open house is also being held under a bit of a shadow, the shadow being the government's decision to put TVO under review by the Office of Privatization.

We acknowledge that the government, with its majority, can force this review process to take place. The Ontario Liberal caucus, though, believes that review is wrong and that TVO should remain publicly owned and operated.

But what bothers us, what truly concerns us now, is that Privatization Minister Sampson and Culture Minister Mushinski promised full public consultation before any decision would be made. Yet here we are three months into the process, there has been no consultation done, and as far as we can tell, no consultation is planned.

TVOntario belongs to the people of Ontario and they have a right to a say in its future. The people won't be shut out of the process. A massive petition campaign is now under way, and last week the Wawatay radio network, which uses TVO's signal to provide native-language radio service across northern Ontario, went silent for two days in a moving display of support to draw attention to the concerns about possible privatization.

Minister, the public must have a say. Let the people of Sioux Lookout, Kenora, Fort Frances, Thunder Bay, Geraldton, Sudbury, Schreiber, Terrace Bay, London, Ottawa, Windsor and Toronto tell the people how they feel.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaker, you're going to be as pleased as I am to learn that Welland city council has passed a resolution opposing this government's Bill 136. Welland city council understands that Bill l36 is a direct attack on collective bargaining and the rights of workers across this province, including workers in the community of Welland and across regional Niagara.

Public sector workers and their friends in the private sector understand full well that this government's real agenda is to attack collective bargaining, in fact to destroy collective bargaining here in the province of Ontario, to set workers back 40 and 50 years, to lower wages, and in the course of all that to create yet more unemployment while picking the pockets of the sick, the elderly, youth, students, low-income workers and workers across the board, paying for a phoney tax break, two thirds of which is going to the top 10% of income earners.

As I join CUPE members this evening in previously unheard-of numbers, we'll discover how angry and how resolved these workers are to resist this government, to oppose this government and to send this government into the exile it deserves. People across Niagara, across this province, are not going to tolerate the viciousness of this government's attacks on working people.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I am proud to be able to rise to salute the hundreds of veterans in my community as they join in marking Legion Week next week, September 21 to 27.

The Royal Canadian Legion holds a prominent and special place in the hearts of Canadians, particularly for those whose families have been called on to make personal sacrifices for our country and for our freedom. Yet the work of the members of local Legions has gone far beyond the defence of our country in times of conflict. Over its 72-year history, the Legion has served hundreds of thousands of Canadians through its veterans' and community services. Its ongoing efforts in educating young people about the history of the Legion and its contribution to making Canada what it is today make all of us proud and help in a most meaningful way to pave the road for the Legion's future service.

Throughout its history the Legion has had to cope with changes in its membership, as well as in society at large. The Legion has been breaking new ground in its membership among the children and grandchildren of Canadian veterans.

The record of the Royal Canadian Legion speaks for itself. I know all members of this House join me in wishing all members of the Legion the very best as they mark this Legion Week and set their course of service for the future. They have earned our respect and our sincere thanks.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Grave concerns are being raised in Ottawa-Carleton concerning the ability of the government to honour its commitment that community health services are in place prior to hospital closures. The hospital restructuring commission, in issuing its August 13 report on hospital closures for Ottawa-Carleton, stated explicitly, "Reinvestment in alternative community-based services such as home care and long-term care is essential before hospital restructuring can occur."

It is apparent that the restructuring commission can close hospitals. It is up to the government to make the necessary reinvestments. To date, not all of the $100 million in savings from closing the Grace, Riverside and Elisabeth Bruyère Health Centre have been reinvested in health care in Ottawa-Carleton. Now the Ottawa-Carleton district health council is fearful that what is being reinvested will be too little and too late. For example, the Grace hospital is to stop admitting patients on May 15, 1998, Riverside on May 31, 1998, and the Montfort emergency is to close by March 1998.

The concern expressed by the Ottawa-Carleton district health council, which I share, is that the closure of these services and others will be implemented before the necessary renovations at the General and Queensway-Carleton hospitals are completed, renovations necessary to offset the impact of the planned closures. Further, the reinvestment the government is proposing to make, according to the Ottawa-Carleton district health council, falls far short of providing what the current hospital system now provides.

I would therefore urge the government to rethink its unrealistic time lines and inadequate investment in order to ensure that people's health in Ottawa-Carleton is not endangered during this difficult time of transition.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We're at a very grave moment in the history of Ontario. We have seen for the first time a government that is prepared to provoke public sector workers to the brink of illegal strikes, chaos in our province, services that people won't be able to access, and a government that made a commitment to this Legislature, to the people of the province, to those public sector workers that they would have democratic input into this legislation that will affect their very lives. In fact, the minister stood in this House and said, "We will have public hearings and we will travel this province." As you know, the minister has completely gone back on her word, the word she provided to this House.

I can't tell you how saddened and angered I am to see a government that would force people to the brink of such precipitous action, people who just want to do their job, provide for their families, who want to provide services. It's a very grave day and it's hard to find anything of humour, but there are some resourceful people out there who can bring humour even to these very difficult situations.

As you know, on September 26 and 27 in North Bay the Days of Action will be taking place, in the Premier's home riding. I want you to know that there's an entrepreneur, a deli up there, Today's Lunch Co of Phil White, who's got a new addition to the menu. It is the Sink Harris Sub. We'll all be there to eat it in North Bay.

1340

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise to address the House today regarding Durham region's fifth annual Take Back the Night walk. Take Back the Night was initiated in 1978 in San Francisco when some 5,000 participants from across the United States marched in San Francisco's pornography district. Since then, Take Back the Night has grown into an annual event in many communities across Ontario and North America.

Take Back the Night is an opportunity to educate people and to raise awareness of the issues around violence in our communities. Tonight the Durham region's Take Back the Night walk, organized by the Oshawa-Durham Rape Crisis Centre, will take place in Oshawa beginning at 5:30 at Oshawa city hall and the walk starting at 7 pm. Following the walk, guest speakers, one a young girl, will speak on the impact of violence in their lives.

Take Back the Night is a statement of the commitment towards ending violence against women and children. The recent announcements of a domestic violence court and a victims' crisis assistance referral service being located in Oshawa and other locations in Ontario should assist in the challenge towards ending these crimes, along with my colleague Mr Baird's Bill 155, passing second reading today, the Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week Act.

But we must do more. We must all seek new ways to end violent crime and to support those who have been victimized by crime. I urge all Ontarians to hear the message against violence that Take Back the Night sends out and to apply that message not to just one night but to every night.

MEDIA REPORTING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Not satisfied with the reduction by the media giants in the number of reporters and columnists covering events and issues at Queen's Park and the results of millions of dollars of self-serving, blatantly partisan advertising by the Conservative government, paid for by the taxpayers of this province, the Mike Harris government has reached for a weapon in its arsenal that it has employed with some success in other situations and with other people and organizations -- the act of intimidation.

Members of the news media who dare to present an issue in anything other than glowing terms for the Harris crowd are chastised, criticized or called to account by the taxpayer-paid flacks for the ministers in the right-wing regime of Mike of North Bay.

Such bullying intimidation tactics may work with some health councils, hospitals, boards of education, municipalities or other agencies that rely upon the Mike Harris government for funding and favours, but flacks be warned: It's unlikely to work on the Queen's Park press gallery, who pride themselves on their independence, their objectivity, their persistence and their sense of fair play.

Control of the media and the message may be the goal of the backroom boys in the Harris regime, but no matter how big the bat they wield, they are likely to strike out. You see, you simply cannot intimidate the news media at the Ontario Legislature with whining or whimpering. As the old saying goes in the hallowed halls of the main Legislative Building, "Don't poke the badger."

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On August 16, 1996, a cataclysmic event occurred in the province. It was an event that some people did not hear about, that some people were excited about, that some people were angry about and, unbelievable as it may seem, that some people ignored.

It is not often that we can be precise about what constitutes a defining moment in the history of a province, but I believe that August 16, 1996, was such a moment. Bay Street was ecstatic, Main Street was apprehensive and Wall Street was orgasmic. Finally the Ontario Tories were going to deliver to their friends exactly what their friends wanted.

That defining moment, as I say, was August 16, 1996. But wait a minute. That was over a year ago. How is it that a defining moment that occurred so long ago is still not appreciated by all those Tory supporters out there? Believe me, those sycophants are getting restless. "Where's the meat?" they're asking. If the big event occurred on August 16, 1996, how is it that nothing tangible has resulted from that cataclysmic event? Am I wrong? Was August 16, 1996, not a defining moment in Ontario?

Well, it is time to end the suspense. It's time to remind all the Tory members exactly what happened on that magic day. That was the day Rob Sampson, MPP for Mississauga West, was appointed by Premier Harris as the minister responsible for privatization. While I don't support privatization, I do have to ask you, what does Mr Sampson do for his extravagant salary?

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): York County Hospital joins an impressive list of hospitals in Ontario that now offer magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, services.

MRI is a non-invasive diagnostic technology that provides cross-sectional or three-dimensional images of structures and organs within the body. It provides scans of the head, central nervous system and spine, as well as detailed images of the heart, major blood vessels, blood flow, joints and soft tissues. MRIs can detect brain and spinal diseases, several forms of cancer, musculoskeletal disorders and several cardiovascular conditions.

Canada's first three MRI machines were installed in late 1982 and 1983 at St Joseph's Health Centre in London, University of British Columbia Hospital and Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. In the past, only teaching hospitals could operate MRIs, but several years ago the Ministry of Health changed its policy to allow hospitals to apply for the MRI diagnostic service.

The best way to keep Ontarians healthy is to detect signs of illness early, to act quickly and to prevent problems before they arise. Expansion of MRI services by Ontario's Ministry of Health will ensure residents will not have to endure a long wait to receive vital diagnostic services.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that yesterday the Clerk received the 44th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 150, An Act proclaiming United Empire Loyalists' Day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise today to respond to some of the rhetoric I've heard in the past 24 hours from the union bosses.

In this morning's paper Gord Wilson, the president of the OFL, is quoted as saying, "We consider it a war room exercise." Earl Manners, the head of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation said, "There is a mood in the room that extraordinary actions are going to become necessary." Sid Ryan said, "We have moved people to a war footing and issued a red alert."

This is very strong rhetoric and not, in my opinion, constructive or productive. While I do not agree with these tactics, I understand that Mr Manners and Mr Ryan must get elected and that they believe they must engage in this type of rhetoric to appeal to their constituency. But I'd like to remind this House, and through this House, the taxpayers of this province of some facts. After 10 years of high-taxing and big-spending governments, Ontarians called for change: lower taxes, less government, quality services. They called for change because high taxes, big deficits and big government were not giving them quality services.

To achieve these goals, our government and the broader public sector must engage in new thinking and new approaches to quality service delivery. In the spring of this year, prior to the introduction of Bill 136, we heard from the union movement that they would strongly oppose any legislation that removed successor rights or overrode freely bargained contracting-out restrictions. Despite the specific request for these provisions from the municipal and hospital employer groups, we listened to the workers and agreed to the union request.

After the introduction of the bill by the Minister of Labour, the union bosses insisted on a meeting with the government to discuss further changes beyond the concessions we already gave on successor rights in particular. Minister Witmer offered repeatedly to meet with Gord Wilson, but he refused. In a meeting between Minister Witmer and myself and several union leaders on September 2, we undertook to engage in serious discussions about further amendments to our labour proposal.

On the education front, prior to the introduction of legislation, the Minister of Education's staff engaged in extensive, around-the-clock discussions. Officials in my office also indicated a willingness to talk with representatives from various teachers' federations. The Ontario Teachers' Federation walked away from the table at 9:30 pm, Tuesday, September 9, after three days of around-the-clock discussions with the government.

1350

We have indicated a willingness to continue to talk to both the OFL with respect to Bill 136 and the Ontario Teachers' Federation with respect to the education reform legislation. For political reasons, the union leadership has decided to walk away from these discussions and engage in a war of rhetoric. This is an old-style tactic. They engage in fearmongering and hyperbole to whip up their membership. I think we have demonstrated in the past that that approach with this government is unproductive.

We are engaged in a difficult agenda of change. We are managing this period of change for the long-term benefit of all Ontarians, including those workers and their families in the public sector unions. I do not need to remind this House that it is our commitment to eliminate the job-killing deficit we inherited. We are determined not to leave our children with a crippling debt.

We are determined to deliver quality education for our children. We are introducing province-wide tests, standard report cards, and increasing emphasis on the basics. We will limit class sizes and implement a comprehensive plan to ensure our children can compete with anybody in the world. Next week, the Minister of Education will be introducing a bill to implement the necessary changes to ensure our tax money is spent in the classroom, where it is needed.

By managing this difficult period of change, our goal is to maintain the services taxpayers expect and to enhance the overall quality of life in our health care system, in our education system and in every municipality of this great province. As we have repeatedly indicated, and here I'm quoting from page 20 of the Common Sense Revolution, "We are unconditionally committed to reaching our goals, but we are very open to discussing how we get there."

We were willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the teachers' federations and with the OFL. In fact, that's what we were engaged in, and we are prepared today to continue. However, the union bosses have chosen to leave the negotiating tables and engage in a war of rhetoric. We will not engage in this old-style exercise.

We as a government would have preferred to work with the union leadership to develop alternative approaches to achieving our goals. They have chosen to take another course. That does not change the fact that we have some difficult challenges before us. We want to continue to work with them and with all workers to ensure that all Ontarians continue to receive the quality service they deserve.

The changes that we were prepared to deliver at the negotiating table should not be jeopardized as a result of this most recent flight of rhetoric. Therefore, today the Minister of Labour will announce to the House the changes we were prepared to make at the table. We will remain committed to working with all public service providers in the interest of providing quality service at a reasonable price.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): In the months since the introduction of Bill 136, we have continued to meet with labour unions, municipalities, hospitals and other employers and employees to discuss the best way of ensuring smooth, stable and fair public sector restructuring. Our objectives are simple but firm: providing the necessary tools for restructuring, ensuring a smooth transition, and to be able to deal fairly with employees, both union and non-union, while providing better quality services at less cost to taxpayers. However, as we said on page 20 of the Common Sense Revolution, "We are unconditionally committed to reaching our goals, but we are very open to discussion as to how we get there."

In the case of Bill 136, public sector employers have shared this government's flexible approach to meeting these objections. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has indicated that it is critical that the two levels of government continually dialogue with each other on where we agree and where further work needs to be done. We are doing this.

Last week, the Ontario Hospital Association wrote saying it would support changes to Bill 136 that respond to union concerns, provided those changes "do not dilute the intent of the bill."

Individual unions as well as the Ontario Federation of Labour have suggested alternative ways of meeting our goals. Mindful that public sector employers have encouraged us to be open to change that addresses union concerns without compromising our objectives, the government intends to introduce a series of amendments to Bill 136. These amendments are the product of our dialogue with the trade union movement. The dialogue has been frank yet fruitful. It has produced a series of amendments that, if adopted by the House, would respond completely to concerns raised by the trade union movement about the contents of Bill 136.

The OFL has told us, "The right to strike is essential to free collective bargaining," and they have assured us that the retention of the right to strike would not jeopardize public service or create instability. Based on our discussion with the union movement, our amendments to Bill 136 would remove proposed restrictions on the right to strike.

Trade unions said that, upon restructuring, they want free collective bargaining for a first collective agreement. Our amendments would provide for this. The first-contract provisions of the Labour Relations Act would apply.

I would remind members that the existing first-contract provisions of the Labour Relations Act were introduced at the request of the trade union movement. They formed part of the Peterson-Rae accord, and in 1986 were passed by the minority Liberal government with NDP support.

During committee we will be seeking views as to whether a temporary public interest test should be applied during the first-contract negotiations.

The OFL said there is "no need or justification for the proposed Dispute Resolution Commission." Our amendments would eliminate the DRC.

The union movement has requested a return to the current legislative provision governing the appointment of arbitrators. Our amendments would do that.

The OFL has said there is no need for a Labour Relations Transition Commission, and they have said that the Ontario Labour Relations Board should assume the responsibilities and functions proposed for the LRTC. In fact, the OFL indicated that "the Ontario Labour Relations Board has a long and trusted history of independent and impartial adjudication." We agree. Our amendments would replace the proposed LRTC with the OLRB.

The OFL supports making provisions for expedited arbitration and for the use of other forms of arbitration. As they suggest, our amendments would apply these procedural reforms to the current arbitration system.

The OFL has asked that bargaining agent issues be resolved by continuing "to respect the democratic right of all employees." We agree. Our amendments would ensure that, following a restructuring, employees' choice of union representation be determined by a democratic, secret ballot vote.

During the last few months, we have also had separate, ongoing and very productive discussions with the Police Association of Ontario. These discussions have led us to propose a series of amendments to Bill 136 which we shall also introduce. We agree with the PAO on the retention of a separate and distinct arbitration regime for police. At the association's request, the existing Ontario Police Arbitration Commission, with a chair appointed by the government, would be retained.

We heard concerns from other associations such as the Ontario Nurses' Association regarding the important of continuing specialized bargaining units for professional staff. We will be addressing these concerns.

Our dialogue has also included the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. OPSEU is concerned that in the restructuring that involves employees currently represented by OPSEU, that union's name must appear on the ballot when employees in a new workplace vote on representation rights. We agree. Our amendments would address this very legitimate OPSEU concern.

It is with a sense of pride that I report on the outcome of our discussions on Bill 136. Our proposed amendments addressed completely the union's concerns about Bill 136 without adversely affecting the employers' objectives and without sacrificing and compromising a single one of our objectives. I would urge all members in this House to work cooperatively together, to support these amendments when they are tabled before the committee and to ensure prompt passage of this very important piece of legislation.

1400

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to begin by thanking both the Premier and the Minister of Labour for their wonderful performances. They give every impression that they are bargaining in earnest, that they have a genuine interest in bringing about a settlement and that they have the public interest at heart. This is nothing more than a very cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion, and I ask that our public keep their eye on the ball in this matter.

Let's begin with the record of a government which has as its hallmark, as its signature product, confrontation. These people thrive on confrontation. It is their very oxygen. Let's look at it from the beginning. Just a few months after this government sat we were faced with a labour strike and unrest outside on the very steps of this Legislature, something unheard of in the history of this province. Only a short while after that we had Bill 26, when we were forced to bring the Legislature to a halt because this government was trying to sneak in powers of an unprecedented nature in order to grab hold and bring about change in this government, which we are continuing to experience, notwithstanding.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I think in all fairness, the statements were allowed to be given with a minimum of heckling. I just ask the government to offer the same to the opposition.

Interjection: They've been told. The truth hurts.

Mr McGuinty: The truth hurts, Speaker.

In the fall of 1996 we had physicians throughout the province, specialists in many regions, forced to withdraw services and stop seeing new patients. We've also had hospital closures in small towns throughout this province force some of the largest public gatherings we've ever seen in the history of those small towns.

In March of this very year we had the megacity referendums where over 400,000 people came out and voted against this government's proposals. So when this government tells us that it is interested in listening and interested in learning and interested in bringing about change as a result of what they have heard, they are not telling us the truth. It's as simple as that.

Let's look at --

The Speaker: You can't charge them with that. You must withdraw.

Mr McGuinty: I withdraw that, Speaker.

Let's take a look at the specifics. The Premier would have us believe that once again they are bargaining in good faith when it comes to Bill 136. Let's understand that at the outset, before they drafted the bill they refused to consult our workers. Furthermore, they have now invoked a closure motion, limiting debate on this important bill in this Legislature. Furthermore, they have now told us that there will be four days of committee hearings only. Furthermore, there will be no travel of any kind whatsoever for those committee hearings.

I don't know if the Minister of Labour or the Premier has taken the time, but I was asked that they do this. They should talk to nurses. They should talk to our police. They should talk to our firefighters. They should talk to our bus drivers. Do you know what nurses want to do? They want to nurse patients. Do you know what teachers want to do? They want to teach our students. Do you know what our police want to do? They want to police our streets. Do you know what our firefighters want to do? They want to fight our fires. Do you know what our bus drivers want to do? They want to drive our buses. That's what they want to do. They don't want to go on strike, they don't want to be driven to the wall, they don't want to be taken to the precipice, and for some reason that is all this government wants to do. They are leaving them with no choice. They are hoping, they are praying that they will go out on strike, and this obviously is contrary to the public interest.

If they took the time, if they left this precinct and went into classrooms and went into hospitals and went into the occasional fire stations and talked to those men and women who serve us throughout this province, they would quickly understand that those people do not want to go out on strike.

This government, notwithstanding what the Premier told us today and notwithstanding the kind utterances of the Minister of Labour, has as its very intention to drive these people to the wall, to drive them out and to force us, the public, to experience the kind of pain that is going to come about. There's no doubt about it, and this government should not be mistaken in that regard.

People should keep their eye on the ball. Once again, this is a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion. This government is not bargaining in good faith. This government has not taken the time, this government has not shown any genuine interest whatsoever, because if it were really interested in doing that, if it were really interested in doing the right thing, it would withdraw Bill l36. If it refuses to withdraw Bill 136, then at a minimum it would give us more committee days.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Let me start off by saying that there is nothing in the Premier's speech today that surprises me, absolutely nothing. This government has wanted to have a conflict, this government has wanted to engage in rhetoric, this government has wanted to provoke a fight with public sector workers in this province for a long period of time. This government has from day one manipulated the agenda, manipulated their rhetoric so that they can be certain of having that fight.

Let's just reflect on how we got here. I remember that firefighters were here in the gallery when I asked the question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Is it true that the government is bringing forth legislation which is essentially going to wipe out many of the rights that public sector workers have fought for over the last 40 years? He had to admit that without any consultation with those public sector workers, firefighters, police officers, ambulance attendants, yes, that is what this government was going to do.

That is how we got here. You didn't talk to people in the first place. You just rammed ahead, determined to steamroller over people. When people said, "This is wrong, this is going to lead to a conflict, a provocation," you then engaged in a strategy to ensure that there was a fight. But you're going to play the public relations game on the way to that fight, and that is exactly what you're doing here today.

But people who work in the broader public sector are not going to be fooled. They know you have taken over $1 billion out of hospital budgets. They know what that means for patient care in our hospitals. They know what that means in terms of waiting lists. They know what that means in terms of people who are not able to get the quality of patient care they have had in the past. They know that you now intend to take some of that billion dollars out of the pockets of the very people who are working so hard in our hospitals and in our health care system to provide those services; now through Bill 136 and the other legislation, you're going to take the money out of their pockets. They know that.

Let's take a look at education. Talk about rhetoric, Premier. Your Minster of Education has been the chief of rhetoric from the very beginning, a Minister of Education who says he is going to create a crisis in education in order that he can wreak havoc on the education system.

You people have engaged in the rhetoric so that you can get to where you are going to go now: to provoke a fight with public sector workers, provoke a fight with teachers. But those people out there know that you've already taken, on an annualized basis, $1 billion out of education. They know that you plan to take another $1 billion, and they know what that's going to do to the quality of education in our classrooms. They know. They care about education. They care about teaching. They care about teaching kids. They know what you're up to, and they know that this is all a strategy to provoke that fight so that it can be the smokescreen while you pull the money out from underneath. That's what this is all about: You want to have a fight and you want the media who are here to focus on that fight. Meanwhile, you take another $1 billion out of education, and meanwhile you download $1.4 billion in new costs on to municipalities.

1410

The people who work in municipalities, the people who are the ambulance attendants, the people who give care to our children in day care centres, the people who look after seniors' apartments and seniors' housing, know what your agenda means. They know what it means in terms of a lowering of quality in ambulance services. They know what it means in terms of policing services out there in rural Ontario and small-town Ontario. They know what it means in terms of the quality of fire services when you take out this much money.

You want to provoke a fight with those people to cover up that ugly part of your agenda. While the fight is going on, while you've pushed all those public sector workers into that fight, you're going to use that as a smokescreen to take out the money.

I say to you, it's not going to go that easily. It's not going to go that easily out there. People don't want to have this fight. Those people who engage in teaching, those people who look after the elderly and the sick, those people who look after our children, don't want to have this fight. If you force them into it --

The Speaker: Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. As people woke up this morning, they picked up their papers to learn that there is the distinct possibility that hundreds of thousands of public sector workers would be going out in a massive strike some time beginning as early as next week. Maybe the saddest aspect of all of this was the gentle resignation with which so many people accepted that fact. There is a sense that we have seen this all too often before, a sense that, as I said just a few moments ago, this is what this government is all about. They're into confrontation, big-time. They're looking for crises. They love showdowns.

Premier, you didn't consult our workers before. You've invoked closure. You've restricted us to four days of hearings. You're not allowing the committee to travel. I'm going to ask you, Premier, why should we believe now, at the final hour, that you are genuinely interested in looking out for the interests --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me share a little bit, and agree with the member, that there seemed to be a resignation. That kind of call, you would have thought, might have been the headline instead of story four or five in the major dailies. The public reaction -- our phones have not been extraordinarily busy one way or the other. The talk shows have been overwhelmingly in favour of the government.

What we've found, I think, is that there perhaps wasn't the same concern among the public, since they've heard that old game and that old rhetoric before. The fact of the matter is, we have been listening at the negotiating table with the OFL. We turned down not one of their requests. Not one single one of their requests was refused by the Minister of Labour at the table. We were actually quite surprised ourselves that they walked away from the negotiating table.

Mr McGuinty: The reason, Premier, that your phone isn't ringing on this issue is because people have given up on your government. They refuse to get their hopes up any longer.

Interjections.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The line of the year is, "We have vision." Coming from you guys, it's a line

Interjection.

The Speaker: I think she said "line."

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I've spent a lot of time lately travelling around the province and I can tell you one of the questions I get time and time again --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): We know you haven't been here.

Mr McGuinty: By the way, I've been in your ridings, just in case you want to know where I've been, talking to your constituents, and I'll tell you what people are saying. They were asking me: "What can we do? Because it seems to me that we just can't get the government of the day to listen. Tell us, what can we do?" There is an incredible amount of despair out there when it comes to our public and this government. They can't understand why you simply refuse to listen.

The reason we find ourselves on the brink of a disaster here in this province when it comes to labour relations is because you have stick-handled this all the way to the edge of the precipice. This has been very deliberate; there's no doubt about that whatsoever. You thrive on confrontation.

Premier, once again, why should we believe you now? Why should we believe that you are genuinely interested in settling this matter in the greater public interest?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know who it is you're talking to as you travel this province. Every survey, every poll, every group is talking about enthusiasm, optimism, "optimistic about the future." Jobs are up, record job creation in the province of Ontario; interest rates down, unemployment down. Even the city of North Bay --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, I'm not going to warn you again to come to order. Member for Hamilton East, I'm not going to warn you again to come to order either. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: All I can say to you is, I don't know who you're talking to, but I can tell you this: We had one union member I think in North Bay who talked about public sector job losses. What he forgot to tell you was that most of them occurred under the NDP. Second, he forgot to tell you that there has been significantly more private sector job creation in the city of North Bay, unemployment rate below 10%, for the first time in a long time, certainly since this government has been in power.

Is it good enough? Of course not. But there is a spirit of optimism and enthusiasm and hope for the future that were not there when you guys --

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

1420

Mr McGuinty: Do you know what they are starting to talk about out there? They are starting to talk about two lost years in Ontario. They're talking about a government that has lost sight of the needs of the people of Ontario. Go out there and spend a little time and, for example, talk to those who make a living on our behalf looking after the needs of children and ask them whether or not they think you are on their side. Go out there and talk to our teachers who, despite $533 million of cuts, of late --

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Your cuts.

Mr McGuinty: -- your cuts, imposed by your government -- are doing their best to educate our students and ask them if they think they have your support. You go out there and talk to nurses, who are doing their damnedest to look after our patients in hospital wards, what few hospitals are left in this province, and ask them if they think you are on their side. Talk to our workers right across the province and ask them if they think you understand their needs, that you are with them when they want to do their very best for us. Ask them that, Premier, and you go ahead and tell me what you think their answers are going to be.

Hon Mr Harris: I have been. This morning I was at the Donwood clinic, where we have reinvested over $800,000, creating 14 new jobs in the last period of time. The employees, the nurses, the workers, the management and the volunteers there were excited about the new building, about the new commitment. They commented that this was a building that was planned under Premier Davis, under Premier Miller, under Premier Peterson, under Premier Rae, and finally after all that time Premier Harris opened it, delivered it and gave them the funding and the new jobs and the new programs that went along with it. That is what they are telling me.

That is in the public sector. In the private sector, 201,000 net new private sector jobs in the last six months alone -- over 200,000 net new private sector jobs in the last six months alone. Those families are telling me, "We got a phone call that said, `You got the job.' Thank you." They are now productive members of society. That is what I'm hearing.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is for the Minister of Education and Training. You insist on telling us that your cuts are not hurting our students and that the $533 million you have stolen from the education system has had no adverse effect on education in Ontario.

I want to tell you about Victoria Eccles, who is a four-year-old student starting school for the first time this year, and she's enrolled in kindergarten. She was very excited about starting school with her friends in her home town of Wyevale and she was delighted by the fact that she lived eight houses away from her school. But at the last minute, Victoria's mom got a phone call saying Victoria couldn't start kindergarten with her friends, that she was going to be put on a bus, and she is going to be bused to Midland, an adjoining community, at least half an hour away from her home town, all of this because the board cannot afford to hire another kindergarten teacher to accommodate Victoria and five of her friends. She lives eight houses away from the school. Her school board cannot afford to hire the necessary teacher. She is going to be shipped via bus to the adjoining community to go to school there.

You tell me what to tell Victoria.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I don't think there is any question in anyone's mind that the general legislative grant program that has been funding education in this province for many, many years and all of the patchwork of regulations that go along with those grants doesn't serve the needs of our students. That is why this government announced many months ago that we were going to get rid of that system of funding that didn't meet our students' needs, didn't meet the needs of students in kindergarten, doesn't meet the needs of students in grades 10, 11 and 12 in Ontario, and replace that with a funding system designed to meet the needs of those individual systems. We are working very hard right now with experts in the field, with teachers, with students and with parents to make sure we get that funding formula right because we need to make those changes to have a quality education in Ontario. That is what I'd tell that student and the other students of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I understand that you can find comfort in academic discussions of programs and policies and substantial savings, but I want to bring you back to Victoria Eccles. She is four years old. She lives eight doors away from the school. Her plan and the plan of her parents was to send her to that school, and they were very much looking forward to it. Now the school board tells them they are going to have to ship their daughter, via bus, to the adjoining community. It's going to take at least a half-hour to get there by bus. She could walk to her school in two minutes. The school board is saying the reason they have to do this is because of cuts made by your government to their funding. They cannot provide education eight houses away to a four-year-old girl. I want you to tell me why this is a good thing for Victoria Eccles.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think all of us regret that your government, when it was in power, didn't make the changes to a funding system that clearly doesn't meet the needs of students. It is regrettable that for whatever -- a failing of imagination or courage, I'm not sure what kind of failing it was -- you didn't address this issue.

We are addressing this issue. We don't believe the right choices are made in education. We have made that very clear. You have criticized me for criticizing a system that allows that kind of situation. We are taking action. We have asked the tough questions, we have listened to people and we are building a better funding system right now.

Mr McGuinty: As painful as it may be for the minister to accept, your cuts are hurting education, they are hurting our students and they are hurting our future. You have so far stolen $533 million out of our education system. You have told us you are going to get another $1 billion out of our education system.

So far your cuts have resulted in the closure of 25 junior kindergarten programs throughout Ontario. You know that experts have been telling us for a long time that the single best and most reliable indicator of academic success is readiness to learn in kindergarten. That is why junior kindergarten is such a valuable and wise investment. You have got to stop seeing it as purely an expense.

I'm going to ask you this and make it pure and simple. People of Ontario, students and parents, want to know when we are going to have a Minister of Education who stands up for education, who stops attacking education and who believes that students have got to come first.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition of this one thing, and you can count on this: As long as this government is in power, you won't see a Minister of Education defend a status quo that doesn't fund the individual needs of students across the province, you won't see a Minister of Education who defends mediocre student results, you won't see a Minister of Education who is happy until Ontario students have the best performance of any students in Canada. That is our objective and that is why we are willing to ask the tough questions, that is why we're willing to spend hours and hours listening to people on how to build that better education system and that is why we are acting on that now.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. Your Minister of Labour spoke glowingly today. We trust that she will table the amendments she is referring to because we want to see these amendments.

While I am talking about that, Premier, do you understand why all those people who work out there providing public services are angry? You brought in Bill 136 without notice. When a majority of the delegates at AMO voted to see Bill 136 withdrawn because they didn't want it, you ignored them. Now your government is going to steamroller it through by means of time allocation and you are only going to allow very limited hearings here in Toronto. You are going to shut out all those people across Ontario who work so hard teaching our children, who look after our children, who look after public safety, who staff the ambulances. You're going to shut them out of the process. Do you understand why they are so angry? Do you understand why they are so hurt by what your government has done?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The unions had significant notice before the introduction of Bill 136. In fact, we accommodated a number of the requests as a result of about six months of meetings leading up to the introduction of Bill 136.

The problem with your question is, you premise it with a bunch of statements that don't come anywhere close to the reality of the situation. So you want me to answer questions and the questions have no basis in fact. That is the difficulty I have in responding to you.

We have consulted extensively with the union representatives. That, I think, has even been acknowledged privately to you. I know the public posturing is, you know, "We've got a convention this fall and we've all got to re-elected." I don't expect the union leaders to say, "Hey, this government's so good, stop paying your dues; you don't need us." I understand that. We don't expect it to ever go that far.

On the other hand, for the leader of a party that stripped away their bargaining rights, you have the gall to stand in this place when we have restored free collective bargaining and all the rights that go with it, something you took away during three years of your term.

1430

Mr Hampton: We know the Premier has his own interpretation of history. While the United Nations talks about Canada being one of the best places in the world to live, he refers to it as 10 lost years. I'd prefer to believe the United Nations.

But not to let the Premier get off the topic: Workers across this province who work in our hospitals, who work in our homes for the aged, who drive the ambulances, who look after child care, who make sure that our highways and our streets are safe, who provide us with fire protection, were very angry when you introduced Bill 136 in the way you did. What they then sought was the opportunity to have public hearings. They wanted public hearings across this province so they'd be able to tell their stories.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Hampton: Your Minister of Labour said on June 4: "Yes, I commit to you that there will be full public hearings. We will travel the province, we will be in Toronto and we will listen."

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Harris: Let's set the record straight. Their anger was nothing compared to the anger when you and Bob Rae at the time stripped away their right to negotiate. Their anger was nothing compared to when you imposed the social contract without one hearing anywhere in the province, including here in Toronto. Their anger was nothing compared to that they expressed to you in the last election when the majority of card-carrying union members voted for the kind of change that would balance the books, give their kids a job, give them hope, bring this kind of change.

Your five-year record was net 10,000 fewer jobs in the province at the end of five years. That's your five-year record. They voted for the kind of change that has brought over 200,000 net new private sector jobs to this province in the last six months alone. That is the record, if you like, or the memory or the thoughts of the card-carrying union members we are providing hope and opportunity to, including their children.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know how you have the gall, when you stripped away their bargaining rights and gave them not one minute of public hearings, to criticize --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Mr Hampton: My question was a very simple question. On June 4 in this Legislature the Minister of Labour was asked, would there be public hearings across the province on Bill 136. She said, "Yes, I commit to you that there will be full public hearings. We will travel the province, we will be in Toronto and we will listen."

What's happening here is this: All those people who want to provide health care services, who want to look after our elderly, who want to look after public security, who want to look after our children, who wanted this opportunity to have those public hearings, are now finding out that your government lied again, that this is simply a lie. That's why they're so angry. That is why they are so angry.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Premier, are you going to do what you said you are going to do? Are you going to --

The Speaker: Order. I'm sorry, I was preoccupied and I didn't hear it, but now it's been clarified. You must withdraw that statement. You can't make that comment.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, I can't withdraw that. It's clear. It's on the record of the House.

The Speaker: Then I will name the member for Rainy River, Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I think we were all notified this morning that he wanted to be thrown out, and he was successful in that, one of the first things since being leader that he's been successful at.

Let just say to as many people as I can, I have here three pages of communities that will be accessible to hearings on Bill 136: Atikokan, Aurora, Aylmer, Bancroft, Blind River, Espanola, Fort Frances, Kenora, Manitouwadge, Mississauga, Moosonee, Nepean, Nipigon, even North Bay, Ottawa, Owen Sound, Parry Sound, Pembroke, Perth, Toronto; you won't let me read them all, but I'll be happy to share them with the members of the committee and they can pick which communities -- I think with video conferencing they can go to them all.

That's the commitment of this Minister of Labour, as opposed to the New Democratic Party that took away and stripped away bargaining rights with a piece of legislation that allowed absolutely no hearings. That's the difference between this government and this consultative Minister of Labour that we're so proud of.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Since July 21, I've been calling for a public inquiry, joined by my colleague the member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino, to bring to your attention the fact that we need and desire and deserve a public inquiry in Hamilton. You have dodged and weaved and tried to avoid the fact that you have a responsibility under the law. Never mind changing the rules of why there ought to be one; the only threshold is a matter of public concern.

Let me say to you, here's who's on side with this so far. We've got local residents, firefighters, OPSEU, nurses, environmentalists, Oshawa city council, Ajax council, Burlington city council, Halton, Niagara, Toronto, Hamilton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Cambridge, the medical officer of health and the fourth editorial from the Hamilton Spectator. We've got firefighters and residents here in the gallery. I want you to stand in your place and tell them why they don't deserve and why they cannot have the public inquiry that you owe them.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I've said in this Legislature before that if there are any unanswered questions, we are willing to answer those questions. I've invited that member and the other member from Hamilton to forward to me the hundreds of questions which they've alleged are there. They have not forwarded those questions to me. I await their questions. I will answer their questions. We have answered the residents' questions. We have answered the medical officer of health's questions. We have answered the fire department's questions. We will provide all of the information necessary to anybody who asks.

Mr Christopherson: Since you refuse to show any respect to any elected official in our community regardless of what level of government they may be at because you believe it's politics at play, I guess, let me read to you from third parties who have an interest in this. How about the Hamilton Spectator again for the fourth time, and I'm quoting:

"To date, no one has offered a convincing reason why the province can't arrange for a concise but detailed independent examination of the circumstances prior to the fire. The air needs to be cleared on key issues: the supervision of the plant and the track record of its owners in meeting the fire code and hazardous materials storage requirements, the effectiveness of existing laws and regulations for companies that handle them," and on and on and on.

Hazardous Materials Management magazine -- this is an industry magazine -- raises questions about: Why wasn't the fire declared a hazardous material incident? Why wasn't a decontamination unit made available to the firefighters? They state that it's standard procedure that you overprotect, then downgrade in the case of an emergency. You turned back federal aid when it was offered and on the road to our community. Police didn't have adequate respiratory equipment.

There are lots of reasons to hold this inquiry, Minister. Stop holding out. Say that you'll do the right thing and hold a public inquiry.

1440

Hon Mr Sterling: The problem of course is that the member continues to put forward rhetoric, incorrect facts on which he is basing his rhetoric. Until he gets his facts straight, no rational decision can be made with regard to holding an inquiry. I believe I know the facts. I've invited him to present evidence to me that there is some kind of coverup or whatever. Nobody has at this point in time presented evidence to me that an inquiry is necessary.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you just don't seem to get it; you don't seem to be listening. The law says the threshold for calling a public inquiry is "a matter of public concern." My community's been concerned since the first flame. The firefighters and residents who are here today have been concerned about this every day of their lives since this happened. There are unanswered questions. We have the most toxic hot spot in the nation.

We have over 200 firefighters who are now ill as a result of exposure. We had a hospital that never was evacuated; somebody was standing on the roof, and when they saw the smoke coming, pulled up the ventilation system. If for no other reason, other than to make sure that we can do the best job possible, you owe it to my community and my citizens and every other community where this might happen to find out all the details, put it on the public record and make sure it doesn't happen again. That can only happen with a public inquiry. Do the right thing and call it.

Hon Mr Sterling: The member mentions two issues. He mentions the health of the firefighters; he mentions the evacuation orders that were under the jurisdiction of the medical officer of health. I would remind the member that under the Municipal Act and the regional municipality act, the municipality can hold an inquiry into matters relating to their own firefighters and those matters.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I've warned you a number of times, member for Hamilton East, and I'm going to have to name you.

Mr Agostino was escorted from the chamber.

Hon Mr Sterling: Second, I might add that the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth can hold their own inquiry with relation to the medical officer of health if they feel there are questions relating to the decisions made by her. They have the opportunity to hold their own inquiries. If they decide to do that, I wish them well.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I want to bring to your attention once again the case of young Gordie Kirwan. I have raised his case in this House on two earlier occasions. On both occasions you promised that at the commencement of this school year Gordie would be able to enrol and continue with his education notwithstanding the fact that he is 22 years of age and has special learning needs. It is now September 18; school has been ongoing for a few weeks. The only reason that Gordie is enrolled in school today is because his parents had to fork out the money. You promised to look after Gordie and all others like him. I want you to stand up in this House right now and tell us why you have broken that promise.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thought that the Leader of the Opposition would know that my office has been in contact with the Kirwans -- and I have been personally -- to work through this. We are all concerned with making sure that those students who are over 21 can access programs that allow them to develop as much as they possibly can, not just Gordie but also people in the same circumstances in Ontario. I think we've made some substantial headway on this over the course of the last few months.

We've assured the Kirwans -- and I think you'll find they have been surprised by the amount of time we've spent on the file, the amount of response that we've had. I've worked with my colleagues to try to find the right solution, the right balance, for the needs of those students. We're working hard on that. I don't have any legislation I'm going to bring forward on it immediately, but I think you'll find that the Kirwans believe they have been well served in this regard.

Mr McGuinty: I can tell you without any reservation whatsoever that they do not believe they have been well served. They have been surprised by the amount of time that has been devoted to this, and surprised equally by the fact that nothing has come of it.

You said that at the beginning of the school year Gordie Kirwan and others like him, special needs students over the age of 21 in Ontario, could go to school and that our province would invest in them by paying for their education in those cases where they can continue to learn. He's there today only because his parents could afford to pay for him.

What about all those others throughout the province who are over the age of 21 and who have learning problems and who can't go to school as of this September? You promised that he would be there, and the Premier promised two and a half years ago when he happened to run into Gordie's dad and Gordie's dad bought him a cup of coffee and said, "Would you help me?" The then leader of the third party said, "Yes, I will." It is now September 18 and the only reason he is in school is because his parents have paid. Minister, when are you going to fix it as you promised?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Day in and day out we hear comments from the Leader of the Opposition that are simply not factual. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that Gordie is in school this year and that his tuition is being paid for by the Ministry of Education and Training, as we promised the Kirwans.

The Kirwans are not interested in just their son; they're interested in all the children who have that difficulty, all the young adults who have that difficulty. Our bigger quest now is to make sure we meet the needs of all of those students.

Let's be very clear, because that is simply not factual: Gordie is in school this year, his tuition is being paid by the Ministry of Education and Training, and we intend to make sure that all of the young adults who are in that circumstance are well treated.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of information, Mr Speaker: I want to allow the minister the opportunity to correct the record.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): No. No such thing as a point of information.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Health. A couple of weeks ago I talked to you personally about repeated reports I'd had that patients and staff at St Thomas and London psychiatric hospitals were experiencing dislocation, that wards were being closed or combined, that critically ill patients were being kept on waiting lists, sometimes --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Fort William, you must withdraw that heckle. It's out of order.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): What the minister said is contrary to the fact. I'll withdraw the statement, "Untrue."

The Speaker: No, you get one chance. You must simply withdraw.

Mrs McLeod: I'll withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. Member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: As I was saying, Minister, we spoke personally about the changes that were happening at the St Thomas and London psychiatric hospitals, contrary to the advice that was given you by the restructuring commission. The restructuring commission asked that no changes be made until there was some certainty about reinvestment.

I assumed you'd intervened, frankly, because there was an article in the London Free Press a couple of days later saying that there would be a moratorium on any of those changes, that layoffs wouldn't happen, that wards wouldn't close until you had made your announcement. But now I'm getting similar reports about changes that are exactly the same from the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

I guess what we need from you, Minister, is for you to clarify what your position really is with respect to the final recommendations of the restructuring commission as they affect St Thomas, London and Brockville psychiatric hospitals.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It's a little early yet. We're still undergoing analysis of the Health Services Restructuring Commission's final directives with respect to those areas.

I do appreciate that the honourable member has brought concerns to my attention, and each time I've looked into those. The last time we looked into it, there had been premature layoff notices sent out by management, which I think was highly inappropriate. We've put a moratorium on the closure of beds over the last two years so that the mistakes of the past, which all parties admit were mistakes, in the 1970s and 1980s won't be repeated with respect to people who are suffering with mental illnesses in this province. I appreciate the honourable member continuing to bring concerns forward, and I will look into them as she continues to do that.

1450

Mrs Boyd: Well, Minister, the time is getting short. These hospitals are to close by December 30, 1999. In the case of the London and St Thomas psychiatric hospitals, the commission recommended that they be transferred to St Joseph's Health Centre as of December 31 this year. So the time is getting short.

You own and operate, as Minister of Health, these psychiatric facilities. The commission can't order you to close them; they've advised you. We have patients, we have staff, we have families, we have affected communities, all wondering what is going to happen in very short order.

Quite frankly, it is inconceivable to me that you have delayed so long in announcing, first of all, whether you are going to accept the recommendation that you close the facilities for which you are responsible and, second, that you're going to accept the advice to reinvest the savings from those closures into the community so those services are there.

This is causing enormous anxiety not just in the London-St Thomas community but in Brockville as well. I want you to know that as the restructuring commission goes on, there are other cities that are going to be facing the same uncertainty. When are you going to make this decision? When are you going to announce what you are going to do about these patients, who are very vulnerable?

Hon Mr Wilson: I say with all respect to the honourable member that it's because the patients are vulnerable and because no party in this House has a good record with respect to treating these patients over the years that we are taking our time to get it right. We will not be pressured by media stories, we will not be pressured by various people who may or may not have other agendas.

I think our agenda is the same as the honourable member's agenda. That is to make sure that for these people who are in our psychiatric institutions and the mentally ill people in our province, of which there are many -- and with the growing and aging population unfortunately there will be more people afflicted with mental illness -- we take our time to do it right. We have a moral obligation to do that. That's what we're doing. We're doing an extremely careful analysis of what the commission has handed to the government in terms of its advice and directives, and we are working very hard to make sure we fully live up to our commitment to have community services in place before there are any major changes to the psychiatric hospitals in the province.

So we are taking our time to get it right. I would ask everyone in the process to just be patient, to continue to bring their concerns forward but be patient, because we do want to get it right.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Last winter we received a report from the mandated advisory board about the voluntary sector. It was called Sustaining a Civic Society: Voluntary Action in Ontario. The report contained a large number of recommendations designed to support and enhance volunteers and their organizations in the province. Volunteers and the work they do are tremendously important to our respective communities, and people in my riding are asking what progress your ministry has been making since the report was released. What is your ministry doing to carry out the recommendations in that report?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member for Northumberland for his question. I know his ongoing interest to support the work of volunteers in this province is greatly appreciated.

During Volunteer Week in April, I was pleased to announce the first of our initiatives to help strengthen and revitalize the voluntary sector. The voluntary linkages initiatives is a program that is designed to help voluntary organizations link with each other through technology networks.

My ministry is also working on the creation of a special achievement award which recognizes the efforts of youth volunteers. A public awareness campaign will be launched in concert with and after consultation with the voluntary sector, and plans for the Premier's round table on voluntarism and the role it plays in our society will also be announced shortly. Volunteer organizations will have the ability to access up to $180 million through our new charitable gaming initiatives. This is up from the current $10 million that charities currently receive.

Mr Galt: Volunteers are particularly concerned about personal liability, particularly when they're working for charitable organizations. Volunteer boards of directors are particularly concerned about the cost of liability insurance. I know that Bill 79, the Courts Improvement Act, when we get it passed, will provide some protection for volunteers on boards of directors. However, my constituents who are front-line volunteers are particularly vulnerable and they're concerned about their position.

You may recall that last December I presented a resolution to this House in private members' time, which was passed, to give some protection to volunteers in connection with liability. What are your thoughts and what can we do to protect our volunteers from liability?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Although there is some confusion on this subject, the directors of charities have in fact legal power to use charitable moneys to purchase liability insurance for their volunteers. The directors, however, do not have the legal power to use charitable moneys to purchase liability insurance for themselves.

Under Bill 79, provisions have been made which will allow the government to permit directors of charitable organizations to purchase liability coverage for themselves. My government believes that the greater availability of liability insurance for all persons working for charities will address the issue of legal risk and encourage and promote people to offer their services as volunteers.

I know that this issue of liability coverage will be one of many which will be raised and discussed at the round table discussions held by the Premier later this year, and its importance to strengthening voluntarism as a whole.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to talk to you about MRI machines. We learned last week how you have created a two-tier system in this province, where some people are having to rent out through private insurance companies after hours because you won't fund enough of the cost of running MRIs in this province. Hospitals in local communities -- not you, Minister -- are paying large sums of money to put in place MRIs, but you're only paying one third of the cost. That's what we heard last week.

This week we learned that you are putting money into MRIs. The problem is they're in the United States. Last year you spent more than $1 million paying for MRIs in American hospitals, and you're going to spend $1.3 million this year at the rate you're going. There are applications even on the Internet to get MRIs funded by OHIP in the United States.

Minister, will you stand in the House today and tell us that you will fully fund the operation of MRIs in this province and stop the backlogs and stop the trips to the United States?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The Health Services Restructuring Commission has directed the government to pay $1 million in operating costs for each of the MRIs to be installed in Metro Toronto. We've already done that, so proof is in the pudding. I don't know why you keep bringing this particular point up. Thunder Bay is getting $1 million in operating costs -- unprecedented.

Your government paid nothing, because you wouldn't even bring in MRIs in the province. The NDP paid $150,000 a year, which was the policy up until the commission came in and said, "Government, you've got to pay more of the operating costs," and we agree. We've done that in Thunder Bay, we're doing that in Sudbury. We'll do that as we bring in the 23 new MRIs across this province, to bring the total to 35, more MRIs than the rest of Canada combined, so that people will not have to go to the United States.

Yes, in emergency cases where the MRI is not available nearby because of the failure of previous governments to bring in this new technology, we do send people and we do pay for people to go to the States. We will be able to end that with 35 MRIs in the province.

Mr Kennedy: This minister hasn't got a grip at all on what he's doing. Not one MRI in this province has received $1 million. It might be interesting for the minister to know the facts. He is still paying less than one third of the operating costs. He is still forcing hospitals to rent them out to private insurance companies so people can jump the queue, and even Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, every province pays more of the operating costs than you do today. People are interested in your actions, because they've heard your words and they don't fit. We've got the longest waiting list in Canada for MRIs, Minister, and you have not even named the sites of those MRIs you talk about and the places that you're going to go. You won't put the money into it.

Again, instead of funding MRIs in the United States, which you're doing to an increasing degree -- and people are just getting doctors' signatures and going down there -- Minister, will you tell us today --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Kennedy: Some people think that you're stripping the health care system on purpose. Prove them wrong. Tell them you'll fully fund MRIs in this province and in this country. Tell us today.

1500

Hon Mr Wilson: Again the honourable member is in error. There were 12 when we came into office; there are 24 today, because we have opened 12 more. I don't really have anything else to say. I can name off the top of my head almost 11 of them. I'll give you a list of the 12, which I would be happy to send over to the honourable member.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: I don't think it's a figment of my imagination when last weekend we opened the new MRI in Barrie; it's a machine that's there, and patients are going through it. It wasn't a figment of our imagination when honourable members and I opened the MRI in Oshawa, or the one in Sudbury where the magnet was put in the ground about six weeks ago and it will be fully operation; Mississauga, St Catharines, Burlington to come on line, Brampton, Sault Ste Marie, Timmins, Thunder Bay and soon Windsor, and five more coming for Metro Toronto.

We are doing better than any other government in Canada. We'll have more MRIs than the rest of Canada combined. We're going to have modern hospitals with the newest technologies. Get out of our way. Let us move on with restructuring and increase the technology in our health care system, which yes, patients have waited very patiently for through your government and the NDP. We're moving.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Yesterday you told reporters that your government would not force charitable casinos on unwilling municipalities but that the municipalities would have to be accountable to the charities for that decision. Minister Leach actually took it a step further and said that if a municipality rejected charity casinos and video slot machines, the charities in that municipality may have to forgo the revenues. You won't force the communities, but it looks an awful lot like you're willing to coerce the communities.

You must clarify this. If Barrie, Burlington, Belleville or Brantford, who have all said they are opposed to this, say no to your permanent charitable casinos, will the charities in those communities be treated any differently with respect to gaming revenues from the charities outside of those municipalities?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): To clarify things a little bit more -- I thought I was quite clear the other day -- what we're doing here is replacing an old system that didn't work. I've said this ad infinitum, constantly, in terms of what we're trying to do here.

Charities are participating right now in terms of the roving casinos, as they were under your government, as they were introduced under the Peterson government. We all know that part of the rationale for the charities to participate is that they need to participate to really gain something out of this gaming initiative. That was the whole idea that you had and certainly espoused when you were in government. The Liberals did as well. The idea is that for charities to benefit they must participate.

Clearly we're trying to provide an opportunity right now, with the new permanent charity gaming clubs, for these initiatives to be more accountable to the charities. This is what the problem has been over the years.

I can only share with you perhaps -- here is something that was in the Sarnia Observer. This is an indication that --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, I'll finish the thought next round. What I want to say to you is that it is going to be far more accountable to the charities. That's the whole idea here. We're trying to help the charities.

Ms Lankin: Minister, you have got to answer this question. You seem to be suggesting that if there isn't a charity gaming casino in a municipality, then those charities cannot participate and therefore would not get the revenues. That's not what you said the other day. You said, for example, that Durham, which wouldn't have one of these, would participate in the Scarborough one. You've said before that there are other willing hosts in a 40-kilometre zone, that it doesn't have to be in a community. Make it clear. Otherwise, you're just being like a schoolyard bully: "It's my bat and it's my ball. If you don't play the game by my rules, I'm going to go home and take them with me so no one gets to play the game." Grow up, Minister.

There are communities that don't want video slot machines in their communities. There are others that you say are willing hosts. If you had started this process by going out and asking communities where they want to have these instead of handpicking them and forcing them and now coercing them, you wouldn't be in this mess. Start again and ask communities if they want these. Go from that premise. Respect local decision-making. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I've been very clear. We have been consistent in saying we will not force communities to take any type of gambling initiative. We are talking about catchment areas here. I did not say that if you had a place in Durham, you could go in with Scarborough. I did not say that. I said we have catchment areas, that the catchment areas are to provide this opportunity, and it is an opportunity for charities to participate. It is an opportunity for charities to receive more in the way of revenue, what they didn't have before.

I will finish the thought I had before. This is from the Sarnia Observer and it says, "`This is good news for groups like the Blue Water Blades precision skating team,' said president Pat Kelly. She is optimistic Sarnia's charity casino will generate more money for her group and less commitment in volunteer time." They made about $8,000 before, but they're saying now that they are getting very little money for the effort they are putting into them. They believe that this new initiative, the permanent charity gaming clubs, is an opportunity for charities. They are an opportunity for more accountability to charities and they will benefit, and the charities know this. That is why in many communities we have willing hosts, areas such as Thunder Bay, for example, who understand --

The Speaker: New question.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Many of my constituents reside in social housing. They have invited me to several town hall meetings to express their concern over shifting the costs of social housing to the municipalities.

Yesterday the Advisory Council on Social Housing Reform released its report on non-profit and co-op housing. Minister, is this report a workable plan? Can the minister assure the House and my constituents that the quality of social housing will be maintained and that people in need will continue to have access to social housing?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Scarborough West for the question. I would be pleased to provide the House with further information on the advisory council's recommendation on social housing. The advisory council's report is extremely promising. They were excellent people and they produced an excellent report. It is a promising framework for the reform of social housing in Ontario.

We had asked the council to look at the current administration of social housing and they proposed a number of ideas that will aid with the transfer of housing to the municipal sector. My staff is currently reviewing these recommendations. However, it is important to remember the financial commitment this government has already made to improve social housing stock. Over the last couple of years, we've spent $500 million on repairing social housing, this year alone $100 million. Of course, the reasons for these upgrades and repairs is that the two previous governments let them go in rack and despair over the last 10 years.

Mr Jim Brown: There are some newer social housing units with relatively higher mortgage costs. How are municipalities going to pay these relatively high mortgage costs, and can you assure the tenants that they are not going to be forced to pay more?

Hon Mr Leach: I would like to respond to the member by reminding both him and the House of the efforts this government has made and already taken to ensure that funds are there for non-profit and co-op housing in the future. Our government this year reinvested $173 million into capital reserve funds for co-op housing. These are reserve funds, by the way, which the former NDP government dried up and drained as part of the cost-cutting measures while they were in government. Our government restored this money in order to ensure that co-ops and non-profit housing stock in Ontario becomes financially viable, not just for today, but for many years to come. We did this, before any transfer to municipalities, to put these co-ops and non-profits on a better financial footing.

Municipalities have been involved in co-ops and non-profit housing for many years. We feel confident that they will continue to manage social housing responsibly.

1510

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I have a copy of a receipt which I'm going to ask the page to provide to the Minister of Education and Training. A few moments ago in this House the minister stood up and said that his ministry had paid for the tuition fees of Gordie Kirwan. I am providing him with a copy of a receipt issued by the Ottawa Board of Education. It is marked "Receipt for tuition fees" from individuals. It's dated September 3, 1997. It says "Total sum received" for that month $1,036.80, fees for Gordie Kirwan attending Clifford Bowey for September 1997. The receipt was issued to his mother, Deborah Kirwan. Minister, may I have your explanation, please.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Absolutely and certainly; I'm pleased to provide it, because the Leader of the Opposition is the master of half of the story. Yes, in fact the Kirwans had sent payment to the Ottawa Board of Education, so the Ministry of Education and Training has agreed to compensate the Kirwans for this tuition. The tuition will be paid for by the Ministry of Education and Training, just as I said. I don't know whether the Leader of the Opposition only has half the story or only wants to tell half the story. But I'm tired of that sort of question in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Durham East, I'm not even certain where you sit any more, but I don't think it's there.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you can't wriggle off this hook. A few moments ago you stood up in this House and said that your ministry had paid the tuition fees of Gordie Kirwan. I got on the phone with his mother, who couldn't believe that you had made that statement in this Legislature. She faxed to me immediately a copy of the receipt which she received as a result of her payment in the amount $1,036.80 for this month's tuition fees. You told me that your ministry had paid those fees. The fact of the matter is she paid for those fees. Will you stand up and just tell us the truth?

Hon Mr Snobelen: What angers me today is this. I think we've established very clearly that the Kirwans sent the cheque in; the ministry has agreed to compensate them, not just for this month's tuition but for the full year's tuition for Gordie. What disturbs me is this. There is a serious issue here and that is how to make sure that young adults over 21 who have developmental difficulties can get to the programs that they need to get to. That's the issue. That's what we've been working night and day on, to make sure, with my colleagues, that we get the right answer to that question, not just for Gordie but for all the young adults who have those circumstances in the province of Ontario.

To stand here in the House and twist this and make it a political issue over a young adult --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You are the one who is twisting.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think that's just deplorable, because we need to address those issues for and on behalf of people with developmental disabilities across Ontario. That's what we're doing, not just for Gordie, but for all those young adults.

FISH HABITAT

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Today your staff, on your order, will no longer protect fish habitat in the province of Ontario on behalf of the federal Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans. Specifically, your staff will no longer review projects proposed in and around water to determine the impact on fish habitat; your staff will no longer investigate or lay charges under federal law against those who destroy fish habitat. We know that as of today, the federal government has no staff on the ground in Ontario to do this. They have seven biologists who work in Burlington who deal with fish management but who do not have the power to lay charges under the act.

You're the minister responsible for protecting resources in the province, including the fishery. Why are you not protecting the Ontario fishery as of today?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member of the third party for the question. It's the same question she asked in the estimates process, and we went through in some detail explaining to her that this is federal jurisdiction under the Constitution.

In 1989 the federal government entered into an interim arrangement with Ontario. We've asked that it be a permanent arrangement like they have with some other provinces. Quite clearly, after being told 11 months ago that this would be resolved in six months, and after a series of unreturned phone calls and declined meetings, the federal government obviously wants to maintain their jurisdiction over this area. I know that they care about fish habitat and the environment, and we're quite willing to let them carry on their mandated jurisdiction under the Constitution.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to present to the Legislature this afternoon a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents living in the townships of Murchison, Lyell, Sabine and Dickens in the district of Nipissing. These several hundred citizens are extremely upset at what they consider to have been the arbitrary, highhanded and unfair manner in which a vote was taken in the village of Whitney on or about August 16, 1997, having to do with plans for a municipal reorganization in that part of eastern, midnorthern Ontario.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 35 residents, mainly from the Toronto area. The petitioners are wishing to ensure that the public is informed of bills with enough time to ensure that there will be public hearings so there can be amendments to the bills and they can be properly informed of what's going on in the House before bills are passed.

I support the petition and I affix my signature to it.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of Ontario want to have consultation for TVO before any privatization measure goes forward. I have a petition sent to me from residents of Schreiber, Ontario. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario/TFO is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVO as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to hold open and honest public consultation with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVO/TFO."

I thank the people from Schreiber for sending this petition in and sign my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only about 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to teaching, research and care dedicated to women;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as its first collaborating centre for women's health in both North and South America;

"Without a self-governing Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and the world will lose a health resource that is not duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the comprehensive model of women's health pioneered by Women's College Hospital through ensuring self-governance of the one hospital in Ontario dedicated to women's health."

This is signed by more than 250 residents of the city of Metropolitan Toronto, and I am pleased to affix my signature.

1520

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition from a large number of citizens from Fort Erie, Ontario, that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal or pet is a responsibility, not a right;

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their pet with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished and sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse and neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

I affix my signature to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition on behalf of those fighting for good health care in Windsor, and we certainly appreciate the support we've had from our constituents on this issue.

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"We, the Windsor taxpayers, petition to keep our hospital rooms open and not to close entire floors due to a lack of funds from our government. With a population of 200,000 people and a new casino and other industries on the way, we as Windsor residents have a right to the same health care for our tax dollars as other large cities in Ontario. Our city is growing and we feel very strongly to keep our hospital rooms open.

"We ask the ministry to take this matter seriously and respond by reopening all the closed floors of the hospitals and designate adequate funding for the nurses so that we may be taken care of as taxpayers. Allowing hundreds of empty beds to stay closed while people are put in hallways for numerous days is a disgrace.

"As you will see by the amount of signatures, this issue will not be forgotten, nor will it disappear. We want our hospital rooms to be open and ready to care for the sick."

We have a significant number of names, Pam Gibb, Rose Lyncher, Vicky Warins, from all over Essex county.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from my home town of Hamilton regarding the Plastimet fire and demand for a public inquiry.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins and furans, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, request that the Ministry of Environment and the government of Ontario take responsibility for the immediate cleanup of the fire site."

I would point out that they finally had to do that because the money wasn't there and we told them to take over the cleanup of that site right from the beginning. I add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I am presenting some petitions on behalf of the member for Carleton from a Susen Shaver in Greely, Ontario. They read as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas at this time in the province of Ontario it is not illegal for a woman to appear topless in public, and due to the fact that this lack of restriction offends a large percentage of Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to appear topless in any public place, except in clearly marked designated beach areas."

There are over 600 signatures with that and 600 additional signatures without the last line, "except in clearly marked designated beach areas."

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 156 has been introduced as a private member's bill which is entitled the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, 1997; and

"Whereas this bill provides for the direct election of the chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury by a vote of the electors of the area municipalities; and

"Whereas the election of the regional chair will be held concurrently with the regular election in the area municipalities; and

"Whereas we, the electorate of the regional municipality of Sudbury, want to be part of the electoral process in electing a regional chair; and

"Whereas we, the electorate, believe that as residents of the area municipalities composing the regional municipality of Sudbury we have a right to decide who is elected to the office of regional chair; and

"Whereas we, the electorate, support Rick Bartolucci's private member's bill which lets the people decide;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the private member's bill enacting the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, which will provide the taxpayers of the regional municipality of Sudbury with a voice in electing a regional chair, and urge the assembly to deal with this private member's bill immediately."

I've signed my name to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has issued directions calling for the closure of the Wellesley Central Hospital; and

"Whereas the Wellesley Central Hospital has played an integral role in the health care needs of the people of Toronto's downtown core; and

"Whereas the Wellesley Central Hospital has become well known for its focus on urban health, minimally invasive surgery and expertise with diseases of the immune system; and

"Whereas the Wellesley Central Hospital's busy emergency department sees 33,000 visits per year; and

"Whereas the Wellesley Central Hospital is Ontario's premier HIV/AIDS hospital and is located in an area populated with a high number of people affected by this illness;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to stand by its responsibilities for hospitals in the province and overturn the directions of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, thereby allowing the Wellesley Central Hospital to continue to serve its communities with excellence."

I am proud to affix my signature to this petition, with which I agree.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition from a large number of citizens of the Fort Erie area, like Ken Jones of Fort Erie, and Elaine Berger of Stevensville. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal or pet is a responsibility, not a right; and

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their domestic animals with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished and sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse or neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

In agreement, I affix my signature.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario with respect to protection for workers.

"Whereas the Harris government has enacted a variety of policies which will negatively affect the rights of workers in Ontario; and

"Whereas the proposed elimination of protections contained within the Employment Standards Act will further erode the basic protection afforded to working people in this province;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario reverse the unfair practices that have resulted in reduced protection and support for workers in this province and, in particular, that the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act be withdrawn."

It is signed by a number of petitioners in my area. I concur and I will add my name to it.

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the rock group Marilyn Manson was permitted to play a concert at the Ottawa Congress Centre on Friday, August 1, 1997; and

"Whereas Marilyn Manson's wilful promotion of hatred, violence, immorality and obscenity has been linked to teen suicide and adolescent crimes across North America; and

"Whereas by allowing Marilyn Manson to perform at the Ottawa Congress Centre, a crown agency with a public mandate, helps legitimize the band and its unethical messages; and

"Whereas the Ontario Court (General Division) has ruled that Marilyn Manson's music does not meet the definitions of `obscenity' or `hate literature' in the Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Liberal government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code in order to ensure that Marilyn Manson and other people directing messages of hate and derision towards vulnerable children and youth are not permitted to perform in Canada and to ensure that the messages which offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of Ontarians are not given a voice at venues financed by the taxpayers of Ontario, including the Ottawa Congress Centre."

This is submitted by Chuck and Betty Speakman of Nepean, Ontario, and I've affixed my own signature thereto.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to present a petition signed by 105 constituents from North Renfrew which reads:

"Whereas Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, imposes a new system of dispute settlement upon public sector labour relations which violates basic democratic principles by revoking the right to strike and denying the right to fair and impartial arbitration; and

"Whereas neither the Labour Relations Transition Commission nor the Dispute Resolution Commission can be considered independent or impartial, nor do they have the confidence of the workplace parties, and so fail to meet the internationally recognized standard for civilized labour relations practice as set out by the United Nations International Labour Organization, to which Canada subscribes;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned public sector workers and concerned citizens of Renfrew county, urge the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136 and strengthen the resources of the Ontario Labour Relations Board so that the existing collective bargaining practices and procedures can continue without political interference."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'm very pleased to see that the government House leader is present. He can listen to this petition and no doubt will be able to do something about it so he can actually satisfy the people who have signed this petition. It deals with the so-called standing orders reform.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. There's no provision for proselytizing in the presentation of petitions.

Mr Gerretsen: I apologize for that, Mr Speaker. I was just trying to explain to you the nature of the petition. I will simply read it for you and for the House leader.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care and quality education; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now reduced the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its rule changes, has diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead has chosen to concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I have signed the petition as I am in full agreement with it, and I hope the House leader will be able to do something about it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 136, An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi prévoyant le règlement rapide des différends lors des négociations collectives dans certains secteurs, facilitant les négociations collectives à la suite de la restructuration dans le secteur public et apportant certaines modifications à la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et à la Loi sur l'équité salariale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 17, I will now put the question.

Mrs Witmer has moved second reading of Bill 136. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1533 to 1538.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

Patten, Richard

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53; the nays are 25.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 17, 1997, the bill is referred to the standing committee on resources development.

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 152, An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à améliorer les services, à accroître l'efficience et à procurer des avantages aux contribuables en éliminant le double emploi et en redistribuant les responsabilités entre le gouvernement provincial et les municipalités dans divers secteurs et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme «Qui fait quoi» du gouvernement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 16, 1997, I will now put the question.

Mrs Ecker has moved second reading of Bill 152. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The division bells rang from 1543 to 1547.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please stand one at a time and be recognized.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please stand one at a time and be recognized.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Curling, Alvin

Gerretsen, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 25.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 16, 1997, the bill is referred to the standing committee on general government.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's our party's understanding that Bill 156, An Act to amend certain statutes with respect to The Regional Municipality of Sudbury, which would allow for direct election of the regional chair, may be called today. Our party is ready to have the bill called for second and third reading today. To the Chair of Management Board, is it the intention of the government to call Bill 156 for second and third reading today?

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, this isn't question period. That is not a point of order. Orders of the day.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I'll hold that for a moment. I recognize the minister.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, the 50th order.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The 50th order: Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for changes to the membership of the standing committees.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Nickel Belt on a point of order.

Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason I rose when I did, before the House leader called the next order of business, was that it was my understanding that we were to proceed with the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act. We had given our assurances, along with the official opposition, that we would ensure a speedy debate and passage of that bill, and that's what we'd like to do.

The Acting Speaker: I think I covered that particular order, but let me rephrase it. It's the understanding of this Chair that those sorts of things are determined by your House leaders, have been in the past and will be in the future.

Hon David Johnson: If the request is for unanimous consent that would involve five minutes for the Liberals and five minutes for the NDP --

Interjection: Ten.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Each Sudbury member.

Hon David Johnson: I'll buy 10 -- five minutes for each member, 10 minutes, then the government would be prepared to give that unanimous consent.

The Acting Speaker: If you'll give me a minute, I'd like to have that in writing from the table.

I want to be sure of what you are requesting unanimous consent on and what the House is giving unanimous consent to: Unanimous consent for 10 minutes' debate by the official opposition and the third party on Bill 156, and to call that order now.

Would you like that repeated?

Hon David Johnson: Sorry, Mr Speaker. If I can just clarify, that's for second and third reading, the whole thing. That would be agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Are you ready now? Is there unanimous consent? It is agreed.

Hon David Johnson: Then, Mr Speaker, I believe the proper wording is that I seek unanimous consent to call the 82nd order, second reading of a private member's bill, Bill 156, An Act to amend certain statutes with respect to The Regional Municipality of Sudbury, which stands in the name of Mr Bartolucci.

The Acting Speaker: There's unanimous consent to call that order: Agreed? Agreed.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE SUDBURY

Mr Bartolucci moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 156, An Act to amend certain statutes with respect to The Regional Municipality of Sudbury / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne la municipalité régionale de Sudbury.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Certainly it's good news for the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury to have this bill called before the Legislature today for second and third reading. Let's outline a few of the reasons why this is not only timely but extremely important for the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury.

We all know, because we made a statement in the House earlier, that the chair, Tom Davies, will no longer seek the position, the honour, of chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury due to ill health. We bid him good luck in the future, and we're all with him.

While Tom was the chair, this region, the region of Sudbury, felt very secure in the direction it was going. The chair led us through some very difficult times. Being the experienced politician he is, he was able to work with all levels of government and all different governments.

There is now a time of change at the regional municipality of Sudbury. It's now important for the people to have their voice so that they can decide who will be elected as the chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury.

This is a decision that wasn't arrived at easily. There were extensive public meetings, extensive debate by a committee of regional council. At the time, it was decided by that council to not have direct elections of the regional chair because of the sensitivity which presents itself to the region and also to every other municipality in Ontario, and that of course is the bill we just finished passing, Bill 152, the downloading exercise of this government.

It was decided that Tom, the present chair, was needed to lead us and to direct us. But the rules of the game have changed, not because Tom wanted them to change, not because this region wanted them to change; they changed because Tom has an illness that will not allow him to continue on as the chair after this mandate is over.

1600

The region was quick to act. They held a special meeting and they decided that now is the time to allow for direct elections. So a special motion was presented to regional council and it was overwhelmingly passed. The vast majority of regional councillors decided that the people they represented wanted a direct election of the chair of the regional municipality in Sudbury.

At that time, they decided to send down a delegation to meet with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. That meeting took place with representation from all three local MPPs as well as a delegation of three. At the urging of Councillor John Fera, my private member's bill was introduced to help expedite this event happening, to help expedite the fact that the people deciding is the purest form of democracy and should be incorporated into the next municipal election.

It was a very good meeting. There was an excellent exchange of ideas from all the people who were a part of that meeting. It was decided at that time that clearly it was the direction we should be taking, that an amendment should be made to ensure the direct election took place.

But there were some concerns on the part of the government, and I would say legitimate concerns. They wanted not only the perception of fairness but the reality of fairness. It was a concern that was debated by all the people at the meeting. The consensus was that if we acted on this bill quickly, the perception and the reality of fairness would be there.

Second, there was a concern that this might have an undue advantage to the person who won this election for the 2000 election, and that was debated extensively around the table. It was decided that if this happened now there would in fact be the opportunity for fairness throughout the system, because it would allow for anyone interested in running for regional chair to put his or her team together; it would allow for a fair nomination period; it would allow for a fair campaign period; it would allow for a fair exchange of ideas, so that in fact and without question everything would be aboveboard and considered to be in order. This would lead to the changes that may take place in the year 2000 but would not be a part of the changes that may take place in the year 2000.

It was imperative and I think it was a consensus -- the member for Nickel Belt may want to address it later -- that we should move very quickly, that this should be a standalone item, that it shouldn't be one that we use as a bargaining chip, that the people of Sudbury, the residents of the regional municipality of Sudbury deserve the respect from all three parties to deal with this as a standalone issue and not to be used as a tool for further negotiations. I believe that has taken place today.

The government has called this for second and third readings. If it passes, and I hope it does, then royal assent can be given and we can get on with the process of campaigning for the first time for the chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury.

It also does something else. It allows for the opportunity for an individual or individuals who may have partisan politics as their foundation for running to become a part of the process at the municipal level, at the regional level. I don't see anything wrong with that. I believe that's healthy. I believe that in a direct election the people get who they want because the majority speaks.

I'm also very happy and proud of this House today for calling this for second and third readings, because it clearly sends the message to the people across Ontario that, first, a private member's bill that has substance and importance will be dealt with and, second, that an opposition private member's bill, if it has merit, will be accepted by the government and by another party. If passed, it will be record time indeed for first, second and third readings with royal assent. I think that sends a very good message, to not only the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury but also the people of Ontario, that indeed a bill can be introduced on September 8 and passed on September 18 because everyone in this House believes democracy at its fullest is indeed the direction that we as provincial politicians want Ontarians to believe is our goal.

I hope that when it comes time for the vote this is carried unanimously, because democracy at its purest is always the example that we as politicians, whether we be at the federal, provincial or municipal level, want to set. I commend the Chair of Management Board for bringing this forward, I commend him for listening and I only hope that this bill is supported by everyone in the chamber today. It clearly sends the message that when in Ontario we allow for direct election we are allowing the people to decide what and who should represent them.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I rise in support of this bill to provide for the direct election of the regional chair in the municipality of Sudbury.

There has been a lot of behind-the-scenes work done to make sure that we arrived at this point here today, and I would like to extend a note of gratitude to the parliamentary assistant to the minister, Mr Ernie Hardeman, the MPP for Oxford. Mr Hardeman agreed to a meeting in Toronto last week at which there were in attendance myself; somebody from the office of the member for Sudbury East; Mr Bartolucci; Mr Fera from the town of Nickel Centre; Mr Jim Gordon, the mayor of Sudbury; and most important, Mr Lionel Lalonde, the mayor of the town of Rayside-Balfour in my own constituency.

At that meeting, the case was put most eloquently by the people from the Sudbury area as to why they wanted direct election of their chair. They put it most eloquently and received what I thought was a very fair hearing from Mr Hardeman. Mr Hardeman then took the matter to the minister, who obviously agreed to proceed in this manner.

It was important that we proceed with despatch because it would be unfair to leave it too late because that really would give an advantage to one of the people on the regional council in case someone else wanted to challenge for that position as well. It's important that the government recognized that and agreed to proceed with it today. I'm sure there were temptations to hold this back and use it as a bargaining chip to get something else through. But that was not the case and we are now proceeding with it.

This is a popular move, not just among the regional council itself, but among the people of the Sudbury community. This will be well received in the regional municipality of Sudbury. It's probably overdue that there be a direct election for the regional chair. It's not an easy job riding herd on a number of municipal councils. We were well served in the regional municipality of Sudbury by the person who chaired the region for the last I guess 10 years, Mr Tom Davies, and many of the members here will know Tom Davies.

1610

Mr Bartolucci: Fifteen years.

Mr Laughren: It's 15 years, I'm reminded, that he chaired. He did a very good job and he had a unique ability to put others out front while he himself did the job of chairing without seeking the limelight. It's very unfortunate that Mr Davies is ill and will not be able to carry on his duties or to stand again for regional chair. The people in Sudbury owe him a very large vote of thanks for the work he has done these many years.

I will sit down and allow my colleague from Sudbury East to make a few remarks, because she too represents part of the regional municipality of Sudbury. Once again I express my appreciation to all those who have made this possible today.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'm pleased to participate in the debate. I will speak only very briefly because there are other issues we need to deal with. I appreciate that the government House leader has asked for and pushed for unanimous consent that we might deal with second and third reading of this bill today.

As has been mentioned already, the purpose of the bill is to allow for the direct election of the regional chair so that that individual be elected at large by the citizens within the regional municipality. In many ways that is a very historic change in our community. It is true that since the inception of regional government in our community, which would have been in and around 1973, the regional chair has always been selected by his or her peers and that practice has continued right from the inception of regional government to this point.

I think it's fair to say that process was strengthened over the last 15 years based very much on the individual who was regional chair, Tom Davies. It was a measure of both his personality and his strength and his very hard work on behalf of the people of the region that that process remained intact, that regional councillors agreed with that process and I think that the population at large in the regional municipality of Sudbury agreed with continuing that particular way of doing business, which was to select from among one's peers.

But it is a time of change. It is clear that the regional chair, who has been very popular, who has held this process together, is now not in a position to continue. He is ill and we all very much regret that, but both regional council and I think the population in general in the area we come from believes that the time for change is now. That time for change means very specifically that we move to a process of direct election of the regional chair from among the population at large.

I support that process. I very strongly believe that it is a fundamental principle of democracy. I think that process, direct election by the public, will strengthen accountability of the regional chair to the citizens in the region that he or she will serve. I'm very supportive of the mechanism that will now be in place once this legislation passes. I just think it will be a much better process from here on in. That's not to undermine the work that has been done or the decisions that have been made in the past to maintain the structure we have operated under since 1973, but I believe as a fundamental tenet of the democratic process in this province that we will be as well served or better served by a direct election by the population at large.

I would like to thank the three representatives from the regional municipality of Sudbury who came to Toronto last week to meet with the parliamentary assistant. That meeting was attended by the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Sudbury. I myself on that particular day was in court with my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, dealing with another matter that this House has an interest in, so I was unable to attend. My constituents have a great interest in the family support plan and the reason for us being in court that day. But I had a representative there. I would like to have been involved but could not. I know that a great deal of discussion went on. A number of issues were raised, it seems they have been successfully dealt with and we are pleased to be here today to deal with this private member's bill to move this issue forward.

Once again I'd like to thank all those who were involved. I would like to commend Chair Tom Davies for the valuable work he contributed while he was in office. I am certain that his successor, who will have a difficult row to hoe, will do the very best job he or she possibly can. I think the citizens at large very much agree with the move we are making today, to move to direct election, and they will be supportive of that process when they go out to vote.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Bartolucci has moved second reading of Bill 156. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bartolucci moved third reading of the following bill:

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Harmonious House.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, we hope the harmoniousness continues with the 50th order.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP / COMPOSITION DES COMITÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for changes to the membership of the standing committees.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to complete the leadoff of remarks on behalf of our caucus. When I was last speaking in this debate, I was referring to the number of bills, the very large agenda of the government, which are being referred to various standing committees that are established by this motion. I had talked specifically about the download bill on the Who Does What process the government is engaged in and what it will mean for various municipalities in this province.

I had referred to a periodical that is well respected in this province, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. I'd like now to refer to another equally respected periodical, the Burlington News.

In the Burlington News dated Saturday, August 23 of this year, there is a report on a discussion of the effects on taxes of the download by the provincial government to the municipalities, a number of bills that have been introduced and are being referred to various committees.

In the report, Burlington councillor Denis Lee, who is described as a card-carrying member of the provincial Tory party, joined his colleagues on the council in condemning this government, the Harris government, and local Conservative MPPs for acquiescing to the agenda put forward by this government.

I'd just like to refer to a statement made by Mr Lee, who said:

"We have to embarrass and highlight the quiet voices of our provincial members in this whole affair. They are not listening to their constituents, who are also our constituents.

"We have to bring them to the fire with their bare feet and hold their bare feet there until they listen."

I guess a number of the local MPPs in the region of Burlington are going to get their feet burned, except apparently for Oakville South MPP Gary Carr, whom one of the other councillors, Kevin Flynn, described as a breath of fresh air, because Mr Carr, according to the report in the Burlington News, has openly disagreed with his government on the downloading. In that respect, he is considered by the councillors from Burlington to have properly represented their concerns and the concerns of the people of Burlington, unlike the other MPPs representing the area.

I just hope that when we deal with these bills in committee, particularly Bill 152, the so-called Services Improvement Act, the other MPPs from the Burlington area, as well as the Conservative MPPs representing other constituencies who are represented on the committee that will be dealing with Bill 152, will speak for their constituents rather than just parroting the mantra which has been given to them by the treasury bench.

1620

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: While I share the member's wish, since there aren't enough members in the House to make a quorum, I think it's a faint hope. Would you check for a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there a quorum?

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I am pleased that the members have been able to come in to listen to my speech.

I wanted to move from my analysis of the effects of the download, the tremendous increase in property taxes that ratepayers are going to experience across Ontario because of this government's transfer of services and costs to the municipal level of government, and the fact that most of the Conservative members of the Legislature have not had the fortitude to actually stand for their constituents, and instead have simply been parroting the mantra given to them by the treasury bench. I do want to once again congratulate Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, because, as he is described in the Burlington News, he is indeed a breath of fresh air for speaking up for his constituents, unlike most of his colleagues in his caucus.

I would hope that on the committees, and I mean this quite seriously, the members of all parties, the members of the party supporting the government and the opposition parties, will speak for their constituents rather than speaking to their constituents on behalf of the Premier, and not even speaking to their constituents. I guess a better way of describing it would be speaking at their constituents.

I want to deal specifically with what has been the central issue brought to the Legislature today, brought to the Legislature by the Premier in his statement to the House and then followed up on by the Minister of Labour. That was Bill 136, which is designed to take away the rights of workers to free collective bargaining by constraining arbitrations, by taking away the independence of arbitrators and by taking away the right to strike, to withdraw services.

The Premier and his colleague the Minister of Labour tried to argue that they have listened to the Ontario Federation of Labour representatives, that they are prepared to make changes, that they are prepared to make amendments, but then they are unwilling to table those amendments and to let us know what the amendments are going to be. Instead, at the very time that they were supposedly listening to the representatives of the labour movement, the government moves yesterday on a time allocation motion on Bill 136 which will only allow for one week of hearings across the province, and only during a time when the House is sitting, next week.

I want to deal specifically with the issue that was raised by my leader in the House today. I have an excerpt from Hansard of June 4, 1997. That was a debate in this House, and questions were raised at that time about the bill, the bill that would take away the rights of workers. The Minister of Labour was asked specifically if she would commit the government to full hearings on this legislation across the province, and I have here her reply. She said: "Yes, I commit to you that there will be full public hearings. We will travel the province." That's a direct quote from the Minister of Labour in June.

Now we have a time allocation motion before the House which does not allow for travelling across the province. My leader stated the obvious, and for that he was asked to leave the chamber. The minister made a commitment in June and the government in September does something completely opposite.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): What about teleconferencing?

Mr Wildman: The minister did not say in her remarks on June 4, 1997, anything about teleconferencing. She said, "We will travel the province." Travel, not travel electronically. "We will travel the province, we will be in Toronto and we will listen." She didn't say they would be in Toronto only; she said they would travel the province. Everyone understood that to mean exactly what she meant it to mean: that there would be hearings in Toronto and there would be hearings across the province.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): That's not what she said.

Mr Wildman: I suppose the member for York-Mackenzie's response to my remarks is an example of how insincere the government is when it makes these kinds of commitments. He thinks it is quite funny. He thinks it is hilarious that the Minister of Labour would make a promise to the leaders of the labour movement, to the workers in this province and to the public of this province in June, and then the government will renege on that promise in September. He thinks it's funny. He seems to think it's quite hilarious that a minister of the crown gives her word in June and then the government of which she is a member goes back on that only a few months later.

How are we to understand this? How are we to believe that the committee will be serious in listening to people if the majority of the people who want to make presentations will not be able to participate? How are we to understand the government's position when at a time they are negotiating with the leaders of the labour movement, behind the scenes in the House leader's office and the Premier's office they are plotting to move forward without giving the members of the labour movement any opportunity to have real input?

1630

Most of us will be tempted to understand that the so-called negotiations, the dialogue with the labour movement, were simply a façade, that the government intended to move forward on this legislation denying the rights of workers and to do it as quickly as possible and they just put up a façade of negotiations with the leaders of the labour movement. Public sector workers are going to get hammered by this government. The government tried to cloak that hammer with some cloth, but when the sledge hits the head, it still feels the same way. The fact is, this government always intended to move forward as quickly as possible to remove the rights of public sector workers to free collective bargaining. They're doing it with this time allocation motion.

When the government says they are prepared to listen but won't give us the amendments, won't tell us what amendments they're prepared to make, we suspect there will be nothing substantial and that the workers will in fact be hammered by this government.

All I can say is that it's here in black and white. On June 4, 1997 the Minister of Labour said: "Yes, I will commit to you that there will be full public hearings. We will travel the province." The government now has moved a motion and forced a vote today because of a time allocation motion that refers Bill 136 to the resources development committee next week. They will hold hearings all next week. Everyone knows that the rules of the House preclude a committee travelling while the House is in session, so they will not travel the province despite what the Minister of Labour said.

Mr Wettlaufer: Teleconferencing, Bud.

Mr Wildman: That's not travelling the province. That may be called virtual travel, but it isn't travel.

Mr Wettlaufer: You can reach more people.

Mr Wildman: You won't.

In the Premier's statement today, he said that next week the Minister of Education and Training will be bringing forward his bill to change collective bargaining in the education sector. We've already had education legislation in this House that significantly changed the way education is governed in this province, Bill 104. That was referred to committee only after a lot of argument by the opposition. They did travel the province. They only went to a few communities, four or five, but they did travel. But the committee was unsuccessful in persuading the government to listen, to respond to the concerns raised by the people who appeared before that committee.

I was quite encouraged by the work of that committee. On two occasions that committee voted unanimously -- all MPPs from all parties on the committee voted unanimously -- to request that the Minister of Education and Training and the Education Improvement Commission consider changes in the boundaries of the proposed new school boards. Specifically, what produced that motion by the committee was a presentation made by representatives of the Hornepayne Board of Education, in my own riding. That board requested that their status be changed to that of a school authority. The committee members were persuaded. They moved motions to request the government and the Education Improvement Commission to respond. When the minister then responded, he didn't make the changes that the committee had requested.

He did make some changes in the northwest; I'll give him that. But he didn't respond to the concerns of Hornepayne. As a matter of fact, he put Hornepayne into another school board, which made that the largest proposed school board in the province as a result. He didn't respond to the concerns of the people in eastern Ontario, who will now have a board that consists of Lanark; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; Prescott and Russell.

Even when the committee works well together, when they listen to the people -- and it doesn't happen very often, unfortunately, under this government -- and they make recommendations, their recommendations aren't listened to by the government.

Do we have any confidence that this new education bill will be introduced and will be dealt with in a way that makes it possible that those concerned -- parents, students, trustees, teachers, members of the public -- will be able to have input and will be able to influence the government to ensure that the changes that are brought in will not force a confrontation and a disruption of education for kids in Ontario? I don't think so.

We know what's in the draft legislation. The government will have the power to make regulations concerning the length of the school day, the length of the school year, class size and other matters which up to now have been subject to collective bargaining between teachers and school boards. The legislation will allow the minister to make regulations on the use of people in classrooms who do not have teacher certification in this province. There is only one reason why the minister would want to do this. He wants to take money out, and by bringing in these kinds of less qualified people to teach in our classrooms, thus affecting the kind of education our kids will receive, he will be able to pay them less and get the money out.

The government has said they want to take an extra $1 billion out of education, over and above the millions of dollars they've already taken, that they are determined to do that and that is non-negotiable. The government, again, has put up a façade of negotiating with the teachers. Representatives of the minister's office went to meet with the teachers' representatives. They had discussions, but they started off from the point of saying the government is going to take the money out and that is non-negotiable. Even when the teachers' representatives put forward another proposal, an alternative, which would have made it possible for the government to receive savings --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe there is a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, can you check to see if there is a quorum?

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: The government has said to the representatives of the teachers that it is non-negotiable. The government is going to take the money out, they're going to take another billion dollars out of education. This is forcing teachers, who do not want to disrupt the education of their students, to the brink. The government wants a confrontation, they are pushing for a confrontation and, unfortunately for the students of this province, I'm afraid they're going to get it.

Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I've been listening to the member for Algoma --

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Can you speak up?

Mr Wettlaufer: I've been listening to the member for Algoma for nearly 17 minutes and he has yet to talk about the membership of the committees in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Member, go ahead. Frankly, I have been listening and I believe the member has mentioned at times -- I believe he is speaking to the bill. If you are not, please do.

1640

Mr Wildman: I'm talking about the formation of committees that will be studying these pieces of legislation. I'm hoping that the members of the committee will take seriously the representations of students, parents, teachers and others who have an interest in education on this bill that is being introduced, according to the Premier, next week, because that bill is part of the whole Who Does What downloading. The government has tried to justify the other bills it is sending to committee on the Who Does What process by saying that in transferring these other services and costs to the municipalities, they are compensating the municipalities by taking over 50% of the cost of education, without telling us what the formula is going to be for education in the province.

The government, in referring most of these bills to the committees we are forming in this motion, is doing it by time allocation and is constraining the work of the committees so that the committees will not be able to hear all of the people who want to make representations. They are moving forward like a steamroller because they want a confrontation. They are prepared to use the people of this province who receive public services and the kids who attend the schools in this province as pawns in a power play against the teachers and the other public sector employees in Ontario. It is completely unacceptable for a responsible government to act in this way, and it is unacceptable for members of the committees that we are forming under this motion to support the government in this process.

It is incumbent on members of the committee to speak for their constituents as the Burlington News says Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, does. It is incumbent on all members of the committee to listen, to ensure that there is enough time on committee for all of the deputants who want to make representations on the various downloading bills, including the education bill, to have their say and to listen to what they have to say, to respond to what they have to say and to make representation to the government requesting the government to back off, to rethink and to look at the implications of what they're doing. Because we are threatening public services in this province, we are threatening the education of our kids.

The members who are put on the committees under this motion have the responsibility to speak for the people of Ontario -- not to speak at the people of Ontario, representing only what the Premier and the Treasurer want to have said. It is their responsibility to persuade the leaders of this government to listen, to preserve public sector jobs, to preserve public sector services in this province and to preserve, above all else, education for our children in a way that is going to serve their needs for the future of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Wettlaufer: Much of what we are discussing here today relates to changes that our government has attempted to make regarding streamlining. I notice that the member for St Catharines has participated in the debate and much of his opposition to the changes in the standing orders relates to the fact that he is up many, many times discussing or prefacing his remarks with a reference to the speed with which our government is acting or, as he says, the reckless abandon, or that we're moving too quickly, or that we are creating havoc, or that we are acting with radical and reckless revolution with severe consequences.

Our government had a program and we were elected with that program. We have committed to balancing the budget within the term of our office. We also agreed that we would spend at least $17.4 billion on health care. What we never hear from the member for St Catharines or the members of the opposition Liberal Party is how that government would have balanced the budget in four years, because that was their commitment during the campaign. I wonder how fast that party would have had to move in order to attain their goals.

Mr Wildman: Speaker, on a point of order: I have listened very carefully for the beginning of these remarks, in relation to the point of order that the member himself raised about my speech. He hasn't yet mentioned anything about committees or the membership of committees.

The Acting Speaker: Let's give the member some time to come back to the committees.

Mr Wettlaufer: I'm building up to that. I have to give this background.

We also never hear from the Liberal Party or from the member for St Catharines how they were going to hold health care spending to $17 billion. We of course have increased health care spending to $17.8 billion in program spending alone, and we have increased total health spending to $18.5 billion. I want to move on to the changes in the membership of the committees, but I had to give this background.

We wanted to streamline government. We wanted to do more for less. One of the things we are doing is reducing the membership of the committees. What does that have to do with streamlining government? Many of the people watching today are wondering that. What it does is reduce the number of members who will be travelling.

In October 1995, we put together a motion increasing the maximum number of members to serve on committees to 14. Prior to our government coming to power, it was 11 under the previous government. What we have found since then, of course, is that committee rooms are a little bit stretched, and we find that when we travel we have monumental travelling expenses. Of course, the member for Algoma was very concerned about the fact we won't be travelling on Bill 136 and he is concerned that we are doing teleconferencing.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): That's a tremendous way.

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, it is, I say to the member for Brantford. It is a tremendous way of reaching more and more people. With teleconferencing we can reach 10 times as many people as we could possibly reach through physically travelling, plus we will be able to reduce the costs. It is far more efficient.

We also have found in our physical travelling on the committees that there have been occurrences in which reservations on planes have been made or there have been situations where we have had to reserve a big bus to transport all the members of the committee to various locations around the province --

Mr Ron Johnson: Huge expense.

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, tremendous expense, to the member for Brantford, and what happens? We show up at the front of Queen's Park in the morning to go off on the bus and there are only the government members, or there might be one opposition member. Isn't that odd? We have committed to all that expense and the other members don't want to travel. They'll travel on their own at other expense -- of taxpayers' money, I might add.

Let's not forget why we are here. We are here to serve our constituents. With the tremendous number of committee members, we are not able to properly serve our constituents if we're spending all our time in the committee. By a reduction in the number of members in the various committees, we can actually serve some of the committees with a reduced number of members and have other members able to serve their constituents. Some members will no longer have to sit on two committees. They will be able to sit on one.

In addition, we have a request from the independent member for Elgin, Peter North. He wants to serve on a committee so that he can serve his constituents by having input. This has never happened before, but under our motion the member for Elgin will be able to serve on a committee. He will have input into one committee. This makes perfect sense.

I don't know what the problem is. The people I speak to in my riding don't understand why the Liberals and the NDP are opposing this. They say: "Wayne, we want to see you more often. Don't their members want to see them?" I don't know; I really don't know if that's what's behind it. Maybe they don't want to speak to their constituents.

1650

Also, in our efforts to streamline government, to do more for less, we have committed to reducing the number of members in the House. After the next election we will have 103 members, no longer 130. That would make it a little bit difficult too for the members to serve on committees, because there will be reduced numbers.

I had a couple of other notes here; I've misplaced them. Oh, I know. One of the things I needed to talk about was other provinces. Other provinces don't have the number of members that we do. For instance, in Quebec, where they have, by the way, 125 members of the Legislature, they have 10 committees, 10 members on each committee. Very close to Quebec, in Nova Scotia they have 52 members of the government, 10 committees with nine members; New Brunswick, 48 members, and they have eight to 12 members on each of eight committees; Saskatchewan, 41 members, six committees with nine members. I don't see what the problem is. We're doing much of what other provincial governments are doing.

Some of the opposition we've had to streamlining, including length of time that one can speak and whatever -- I spoke recently to the Saskatchewan Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Berny Wiens, and he could not believe the amount of time that we speak in this Legislature. He said: "Do you mean you actually allow the lead speaker from the parties to speak for an hour and a half? Heavens, we would never permit our members" -- and I'm quoting him now -- "to hijack the affairs of the House by speaking for such an interminable time."

Mr Bisson: Especially when it's you speaking.

Mr Wettlaufer: No, I don't speak that long, I say to the member for Cochrane South. I don't speak nearly that long. I'm a man of few words.

I just want to say that all the changes we are making under the standing orders, including this one, the number of members on committee, are designed to streamline government.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I haven't had an opportunity to speak on this resolution yet, although the previous member seems to think I had, for some reason. It deals with the committee structure in the House. The government has a way of putting forward a case which is simply not credible, a case that objective people simply will not believe.

I look at several examples of that happening. We have in committees, ordinarily, the opportunity to visit various centres in Ontario so the people in those centres can make representations on various pieces of legislation. Normally, that is what we have done, and I think that has been very beneficial for our system of government, our democratic system.

There are people who believe that the world does not start and stop on the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, and I understand that. I want people to be able to have the input on legislation, because this is not legislation built of consensus, the kind of legislation I like.

The member for York-Mackenzie said I was a person who is a believer in consensus and a conciliatory approach, and he was right. Most of this legislation is not built on consensus, the way it was in the days of Bill Davis or Leslie Frost or John Robarts. This is radical and right-wing legislation, the kind you would expect to find in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and other progressive states of that kind. Therefore, we have to have adequate scrutiny by committees.

The real reason the government does not want Bill 136, the bill designed to take away rights from employees in the public sector, to go to various centres is that they're afraid of the embarrassment of the number of people who will show up in opposition. They would rather control it here where they have the security force, making it difficult and expensive for people to come from all over Ontario to Toronto. They want to control that. Therefore, we have what is called a time allocation motion, a motion designed to end debate, to terminate debate, the guillotine, if you will, on any debate on controversial legislation, so that it can be moved through expeditiously.

The contention of the government is that the opposition is not prepared to be cooperative in expediting that legislation, and the government is correct when it says that we do not want to see it whipped through the House quickly. But this afternoon, as my friend the NDP House leader, the member for Algoma, will agree, we passed a bill in a matter of a little over 20 minutes, a bill with significant ramifications for one community, Sudbury, a bill in the name of Rick Bartolucci, MPP for Sudbury, who had put forward this legislation that would allow for the election of a regional chair, a person to head regional government in the regional municipality of Sudbury. We moved through quickly on that. It was not a controversial bill. There was consensus. The government agreed, the Liberal Party agreed, the NDP agreed.

I should note in the middle of this that this is the 22nd anniversary of Bud Wildman -- I won't say his real name -- MPP for Algoma, so I'm going to lead the applause for him.

Applause.

Mr Bradley: Sean Conway and Bud Wildman are the only two left from the class of 1975. September 18, 1975, they were elected to the Legislative Assembly, respectively from Renfrew North and Algoma.

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: While we're celebrating the work of two very vigorous members, I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I am pleased to see more government members have joined to listen with rapt attention to my remarks in the House on the committee structure. I want to look at the issue of the government's not wanting to travel to various communities. Suddenly, they say, "We're interested in hearing people from all over Ontario so we're going to have a teleconferencing opportunity," when in reality everybody knows -- if they'd be up front and say this, I think it would be acceptable only in terms of the honesty -- that the government simply does not want to face the people of this province in the various communities who would come out in significant numbers to indicate their opposition to the legislation and make recommendations for its modification or withdrawal.

1700

Originally, it was the government itself that constituted these committees with a large number of members, not the opposition. The government made this proposal and the opposition accepted the proposal. What has happened now is that some of the Conservative members are getting bored sitting on the committees. They're not finding the legislation stimulating, and most of all they've found out -- and I think some of the members in their heart of hearts would concede to this -- that their participation in the committee, unless they are doing the bidding of the Premier, is meaningless. They are asked only to raise their hands when the chief government whip gives the order to the whip in the committee. The government members hold their hands up and vote as they are told; they speak as they're told and they don't speak when they're told. So a lot of the members in the committee are getting bored and they are saying, "Why should we sit on these committees when all we are in effect are henchmen for the government?" That is what they are told to do in committee.

I am surprised to see that they would do that, because that is why somebody would probably leave a committee. That is why somebody would say, "I am bored in the committee." The Tory members have gone to the House leader and to the whip and said, "Look, I don't want to sit around the committee and simply do what the whip told me to do, therefore I want you to shrink the size of the committee." Unfortunately, when they shrink the size of the committee they provide for fewer opposition members in the committee, and the opposition members are always eager to participate.

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Speaking of shrinking, we have again shrunk the quorum in this place. Would you check for quorum?

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

Mr Bradley: I want to compliment the chief government whip, Mr Turnbull, on being able to find his members and escort them into the House again. I appreciate his efforts. He is so busy that I think he should get a raise for performing his duties.

The performance we have to look at today is quite an amusing one. We had the good cop/bad cop performance and it was all the Premier could do not to break out laughing after rehearsing his lines. He is the tough guy who is going to stand up to workers in Ontario, but he didn't say "workers"; he said, "union bosses." He used that inflammatory description of the elected leadership of the trade union movement. I don't say, "Tory bosses." I call our Premier the Premier of the province. I don't call him the Tory boss.

Mr Klees: I have heard a few other terms.

Mr Bradley: The member for York-Mackenzie has too good a memory. I'll have to concede that to him.

After talking about how tough the government was going to be, up gets the Minister of Labour, who says, "We're going to make all these changes to the legislation." So nobody knows what to make of that. Have they one group of people out there saying: "Have they capitulated? The Premier is up there like Phineas T. Bluster of the old Howdy Doody show, blustering on." Or indeed: "Are the various amendments meaningless? So all the bravado that is expressed is meaningless." It was something to behold.

It appears that many members on the governing side, when in trouble, want to pick a fight. There are some countries which, as members will know, when they have experienced trouble start a war to distract people from the real internal problems of the country. We have in this case the Premier's advisers saying: "You know, we're down in the polls. We're getting some unpopular vibes out there. Why don't we pick a fight with somebody? Why don't we provoke a fight with somebody who might be vulnerable in terms of public opinion? Why don't we just pick on somebody out there?" Of course they have picked a fight with those who provide many services to people in this province. That is most unfortunate.

I couldn't believe that Bill Davis would do that. I don't remember Bill Davis ever doing that. Morley Kells, the member for Lakeshore, is here. He was a member of the Davis administration. I don't remember the Davis administration deliberately picking a fight with anybody. There were some disagreements that arose, but they didn't go out to pick an enemy and pick a fight, because they were built on consensus. They represented middle Ontario. They represented the significant portion of thinking in this province. But this government when in trouble is picking a fight with somebody out there and it's most unfortunate. I think problems can be resolved with the various people with whom the government has picked that fight. Those problems can be resolved. If I could see the honourable Robert Welch in this House today, he would be an individual who would find common ground with others.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke-Humber says I shouldn't make reference to the icons of the Conservative Party, such as Bob Welch. Perhaps I should send the Hansard to Bob, because the government just appointed him to the commission which deals with video lottery terminals. I know Bob will be concerned that this government wishes to place video lottery terminals at every bar and every restaurant, on every street, in every neighbourhood, in every community in Ontario. I know Bob would be concerned about that.

Tom Wells, another moderate around here; the late Larry Grossman, another moderate; Roy McMurtry, now in the High Court of Ontario, another moderate -- these were people who understood middle Ontario. They ignored the YPCs. They said: "These are people who have to get a life somehow. They should get a life." So they ignored them.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I'm glad the member for York-Mackenzie raises that case. I wasn't going to speak about this, but I will tie it into this. There was going to be a Young Progressive Conservative meeting in Brantford, as the member for York-Mackenzie reminds me. Someone invited Preston Manning, the leader of the small-c, ultraconservative Reform Party. I think it was Mr Johnson who invited Preston Manning to speak. Then they had an argument and somebody said: "You'd better not let him speak at the regular convention. Why don't we say the convention is over and then we'll have Preston speak?" A call came in from Jean Charest and Jean Charest was unhappy. Mike Harris didn't know what to do, because he wants to support both the Conservatives and the Reform Party. As a result, it was cancelled. The YPC convention was cancelled. It had to be rescheduled for London, Ontario, the member for York-Mackenzie tells me, on October 18. I'm wondering if on October 18 Preston Manning will be available and somebody is going to invite him. Because remember -- I ask you to recall this --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It seems to me that this is quite an interesting discussion. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with the motion we're debating.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for that point of order. I think, member for St Catharines, the government whip does have a point. I would recommend you get back to the debate at hand.

Mr Bradley: Thank you. I will try to tie this back into the motion we're talking about.

I'm a bit worried about this, though. Let me tell you this. I know Mr Johnson wanted Preston Manning to come, and I understand that. He's a friend of his. But, let me warn you, the member for London South may invite Preston Manning. I understood -- I could be wrong -- he was cosying up to Preston Manning and the Reform Party during the federal election. I just want to forewarn some of the more progressive members of the caucus, like Ted Arnott, one of the more progressive members of the Conservative caucus, that Preston may show up in London if you're not careful.

The member beside him, Bill Murdoch, is a member of the Reform Party, aren't you, Bill? He is. He squired Preston Manning around his riding when he was there. I've become worried. I'm going to phone Jean Charest to see what he thinks of this committee motion. Jean Charest has to be worried that some of the real right-wingers are abandoning the Conservative Party federally, with its long traditions, and going over to the Reform Party. That would worry me very much. I appreciate the member for York-Mackenzie, with his intervention, allowing me the opportunity to expand upon that particular situation facing the Conservatives.

I look forward to the future and what is going to happen. I have given examples in this House of how we have moved quickly to proceed with legislation that everybody thinks is fine and how we have taken a longer period of time and proposed amendments and made changes when we felt they were productive for the democratic system.

This committees motion does not enhance the democratic system. It limits and restricts the number of members who are members officially of committees of the Ontario Legislature. We're seeing a trend now where the government wants to hold fewer and fewer committee meetings. Yes, democracy does cost money. Some people are not happy with that. Some people who run their businesses one way say, "It's too expensive to do it that way." I don't expect them to run their businesses the way a Legislative Assembly or a Parliament is run. That's entirely different. I would not ask anybody who has a business to run it in that fashion, but I would nevertheless hope they would have a respect for a legislative body such as this.

By diminishing the number of Conservative members who can serve on a committee, and the number of Liberal members and the number of New Democrats who can serve, I don't think we enhance the operation. I don't think we contribute to democracy. I think we diminish it.

Take a look around at all the steps the unelected advisers to the Premier are suggesting to you people and you will see, in every case, that they are designed to enhance their power, the unelected whiz kids' power, and not the power of those who are elected. Whether I agree or disagree with elected members on the government side of this assembly, I want to be able to debate with them. I enjoy the opportunity to debate with them. I'm interested in what they have to say as individuals. However, all too often that opportunity is restricted by the backroom boys in the Premier's office, who don't want to see that happen. I can't debate with them. They debate with themselves and then they tell the Premier what should be done. They're not elected. They didn't have to go through what all of you had to go through to get elected.

I am speaking here on behalf of democracy. I can't help but believe that in your heart of hearts on the government side, those not in the cabinet agree with the contentions I've advanced today.

Mr Bisson: We are today probably hours away -- if not in today's legislative day, possibly Monday -- from passing a motion that in effect will say to the Legislative Assembly that we're going to reduce the number of members who sit on a legislative committee. To the government side, this is a good thing. They say, "If we have fewer members on a committee, it means our backbenchers don't all have to sit there and listen to the deputations of the public when they come forward to express their disfavour about bills." To the public, I would say it's probably a bad thing, because it means there is less of an ability on behalf of this Legislative Assembly, because of the diminished number of people on a committee, to be heard and to see in the final product, which is the legislation, what their comments might be. To the opposition, it creates a big problem.

We need to put this into the context of what this is really all about. That is, this government fundamentally believes that government is a bad thing. They fundamentally believe that the institutions of government, be it whatever department within the ministries, whatever service they deliver, or in many cases the institution of Parliament itself, are not necessarily a good thing.

I have the very opposite opinion of what the government says. First of all, I think government can and should play a positive role in our lives. I think it can influence many things in our economy and it can influence the betterment of how people live in our communities. I also think the Parliament, the Legislature of Ontario, can itself play a very positive role in making sure that the business the government does is done right. How is that done? One of the biggest things we do in this Legislature, other than debate bills in the House at second and third reading, is the work we do on committees.

For example, the government introduced a bill last spring called Bill 99, the Workers' Compensation Act changes. That bill went through a process in the Legislature, as most bills do in this House, where it went to a second reading debate. Members of the assembly elected from various constituencies across the province had an opportunity to have their say, based partly on their personal beliefs and partly on their political beliefs in terms of the party they belong to.

But more important, most members of this assembly, from all parties, went back to their constituencies and talked to the people who elected them. They said: "What do you think about this bill? Do you think there are good parts? Do you think there are bad parts?" Then we as elected members of this assembly say, "If you have problems with this bill or you have something to say that would make this bill better, we suggest you write to the committee as well as the minister. More important, if you have an opportunity, present your views to the legislative committee should it come to your community; if not, maybe you can travel to wherever the committee will be closest to where you live." Why? Because we as members of this assembly believe fundamentally that democracy is about giving people a voice.

That's my problem with this particular motion. The government, by way of reducing the number of people who sit on a legislative committee, is really in a lot of ways making it more difficult for people to find their voice in the legislative process. I think this government is quite deliberate in its attempt to limit participation on the part of the public.

Just to make the point, let me give you an example of the kinds of things this government does. We have just heard today in this House that the government is tabling another time allocation motion, something I heard this party, the then third party, the Conservative Party under Mike Harris, rail against when they were in opposition. They didn't like time allocation motions; they thought they were terrible. So does every opposition party. But they're bringing in a time allocation motion on Bill 98, the Development Charges Act, when only one party has spoken to the bill. The Liberal Party has just finished doing their lead speech on the Development Charges Act third reading, and the government has come into this House and has said, "We are tabling a time allocation motion that will limit the debate on this bill," not giving an opportunity to the New Democratic Party of Ontario to have its say and, even more dastardly, taking the opportunity away from government members, especially the backbenchers, who were elected and are trying to do their jobs in their constituencies, to reflect the views of their constituents.

I'm not saying there's not a case at times where governments have to use time allocation motions. I was a member of a government that used them. Quite frankly, I had a problem using them then; even more so now in opposition. The point I'm making here is that the government in this case is not even following the process that parties normally follow when it comes to time allocation motions. In the past the process has been that the government waits for three days of debate at second reading and then tables a time allocation motion; another day of debate at time allocation motion, giving four days of debate on that particular issue. In this particular case, the government is saying, "We're going to allow the Liberal caucus one lead speaker." Then they came in and they snuck a time allocation motion on the Clerk's table.

1720

There is something wrong with the democracy of Ontario when a government of the day tables time allocations in this House that basically don't even give the opportunity for parties that are recognized in this assembly to be able to speak on them. The government might say, "It's an oversight; we didn't notice; we did something wrong." I'm tired of this government making mistakes. I'm tired of this government saying, "We didn't notice; we slipped up again."

I wish one thing that this government would do is, if they want to do their agenda, that's one thing. I may not agree with it, but you have a responsibility to manage the change in an effective manner and to do it right. But don't come into this House and then say that you believe in that process, you believe in what you're doing, you believe in democracy and table a time allocation motion, not even giving our party the opportunity to speak on it. There is a process. I think the process in this case has been very much usurped in the sense that the government is saying, "We don't even have to listen to other parties now; we don't even have to listen to our own backbenchers have their say on a particular bill." I say that's wrong.

The other good example of what this government is doing around committees is what this government is doing around Bill 136. The government is going to make changes to the Labour Relations Act that are significant when it comes to the ability of working people in this province, working in the public sector, to be able to effectively manage the change when it comes to labour relations through this downloading. If the bill is passed in its original form, they're going to take away many rights that workers in this province have been able to get by working at the bargaining table with their employers for a number of years to be able to make a better living for themselves and better working conditions.

This government is undertaking this and is saying, "We're going to ram this legislation through the House, again by use of a time allocation motion, and we're going to limit the opportunity for the public to have their say about this bill to four days of committee here in Toronto." This is after the Minister of Labour stood in this House and promised that she was going to travel that bill throughout the province and that she was going to give people ample opportunity to have their say.

I listen to the government members say, "When you were in government...the social contract...you didn't have an opportunity to go out and travel." Excuse me, I was a member of the government that went through the social contract. There were six months of negotiations, face to face between the union movement and the government of Ontario day in, day out for six months. Those people affected had the opportunity to have their say.

I listened to the Premier today. The Premier tried to stand there and say: "You have a lot of nerve, the third party, the NDP, telling us that we shouldn't have hearings when it comes to Bill 136. Look at what you did on the social contract." I'll stand the social contract against what this government does any day. I've been at union meetings across this province, the same union meetings that I went to when we were government, when there were people who were upset with the social contract. When they look at what we did and they look at what you're doing, I can tell you they're saying: "At least we understand now what the social contract was about. It was about saving $2 billion, which you did, and at the same time trying to find a way to preserve services without kicking people out on the street. If I had to vote for that today, knowing what I know now, or vote for what Harris is doing, I'd vote for the social contract any day." I'm tired of the government trying to stand up and say that the social contract was such a terrible thing.

The other point that was interesting: The third party voted for the social contract. They've got a lot of nerve. I was in this House. I sat across at the same place where they are when I looked at the then leader of the third party stand in the House and say, "We think this is a good thing." Well, excuse me. Talk about utter hypocrisy, when the leader of a party takes one position like that and all of a sudden decides it's going to be something else.

Back to the motion. The point is that the government is going to reduce the number of members who can participate on a legislative committee, and I'm saying that is a problem. One day, if you're lucky as Tory members, you just might get re-elected in this House, and if you're lucky you'll still be a party. You're going to wish the heck that you had the ability to participate on legislative committees so that you can do your job to represent your constituents, because that's why you were elected, that's why you ran and that's what you're here to do.

When the government says, "We're going to limit the number of people who can sit on a committee," on the basis of some cockamamy idea that somehow this is going to be better for democracy, I remind the members across the way that every government eventually is defeated, I think much more quickly with you guys. The polls might say you're at 30%, but I'll tell you, I've got a sneaking suspicion that come next election you're going to resemble the caucus of Brian Mulroney after the 1993 federal election.

The point I make to you is that you think you're smart now, you think this is really cute, you think you're really intelligent by changing the rules of the House to the extent you have, by changing the membership on committees; you think you're doing a great job by making the changes around how you can use closure motions. But one day you will be on this side of the House, and that's when you're going to realize what you've done.

I've learned one thing sitting on both sides, and that is that what we really need to do in this Legislature is reform the rules so they work for the people of this province, not for the politicians at Queen's Park. We need to find a way so that people can see themselves in this Legislature through their representatives and that their voice can be heard here, and it cannot be heard here with the kind of rule changes this government has made.

I suggest that one of the things we should be doing in this House is looking, through a special legislative committee or the Legislative Assembly committee, at ways we can change the rules of the House to increase the participation of individual members of both the government and the opposition in the legislative process. That doesn't mean the amount of time you have to speak or when you can speak. It's not simply that. The problem we have in this system is that 40% of the people, or in the last Parliament 38% of the people, elect a government, it gets a huge majority, and then they do what the hell they want. It doesn't matter if 60%, or 62% in some cases, of the people don't support what the government is doing; they end up doing what they want. That's regardless of the back bench of the Tory caucus, because we know who makes the decisions: the Premier and the people around the Premier's office, and that's it. The cabinet follows along, along with the rest of the Tory backbenchers.

What I say we need to do is change the way this place works so that the people themselves, the people in our constituencies, have an ability to be heard in this Legislature, so that they know when they elect their member, be it a Tory, a New Democrat or a Liberal, they're able to come into this Legislature and have some voice and some ability to affect the legislative outcomes of this particular government or any future government.

How do you do that? Primarily, in my view, in two ways. You reform the standing orders so that you increase participation of members. I'm not talking about length of speeches; I'm talking about how members could actually influence things both at the committee level and here in the House. You reform the legislative process. I've got a number of ideas I've been talking to individual members of this House about for quite some time in terms of how we change the legislative process so people have an opportunity to participate.

One idea would be that the government would table not a bill at first reading but basically call it a discussion paper, a white paper, whatever you want. It would be: "Here's what the government wants to do. Here are the goals we're trying to achieve." After that, you'd have a short debate at first reading, not just rubber-stamping it, then send it off to a committee to let people have their say about what they believe is good or bad about this particular idea, this discussion paper, and then the government could draft up its bill. That way, the government is not put in the position of having to defend the bill even though it's flawed. How many times have we seen this government draft legislation that is utterly flawed and that government backbenchers have to sit there and say, "This is good"? That's what they have to do, because they're government backbenchers. It's the same with every party, I don't care who's elected. It's a problem of this House.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): How many times did you vote against the government?

Mr Bisson: I voted against my government five times. How many times have you? I was there, you weren't.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Yes. I voted five times against my government on a number of different bills.

The point I'm making here is that because of the way the legislative process works, the minute the bill hits the House the government members have to defend it, even though it's flawed, and that's wrong. We should have an ability to have free expression by all members of the House to say: "It's a good idea, Mr Minister. You want to do something in education or whatever. Here's what we think is good. Here's what we think is bad." Backbenchers or party members or whatever you want to call them would not be in the position of having to worry about being disciplined. That's what people are upset about at home.

1730

I think one of the other things you've got to do, and my colleague Tony Silipo is one who shares this view, along with others, is that you have to change the electoral process. We need to look at what has happened in Germany and New Zealand and in a number of other modern economies where they've gone to what's called proportional representation. I think we could learn by what they've done in other particular jurisdictions about trying to find ways of balancing the power between the parties in the Legislature so that parties start to work with themselves rather than trying to beat each other over the head.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: There's no use even listening to the guys across the way sometimes; they're really unbelievable. But anyway, the point is that you guys are changing yet again another rule of this House. In this case you're saying you're not happy by having new powers to invoke yet more closure motions; you're not happy in having new powers to be able to stifle the opposition; you're not happy enough in having new powers to be able to totally control the agenda of the House; you're not happy enough being able to pass a bill through the House in three days from beginning to end. No, that power is not quenching your appetite or your willingness to take more. You're now saying you're going to reduce the size of the committees.

I say there's a problem with that. There's a problem in the sense that you're limiting the ability of individual members to participate and to vote on matters that are important to them and their constituents. I think that's a problem. That's not a partisan view; that's my view. I would guess a lot of backbenchers in the Tory caucus and probably even some cabinet ministers would secretly admit the same if they had the opportunity.

The other thing is that by doing so, they're very much, in the end, reducing the ability that the public has when it comes to being able to participate in debate through the legislative process.

So I will vote against this particular motion for the reasons I have stated. I think it's wrong for a government to be able to do this kind of action. It's not going to serve, I believe, in the end, the constituents of the province of Ontario whom we are elected to serve. The quicker that the government figures that out, maybe the better off this government will be.

Ça a toujours été la même situation avec ce gouvernement. Ça démontre temps après temps que, quand ça vient à la question de la démocratie dans cette Assemblée, ce gouvernement retourne le dos au processus démocratique.

Ils disent, numéro un, qu'on a besoin de changer le Règlement de la Chambre parce qu'ils veulent avoir tout le pouvoir nécessaire pour être capables de passer la législation à travers cette Chambre dans trois jours.

Ils ne sont pas assez contents. Ils disent qu'ils veulent avoir la capacité de fermer par l'attribution de temps un projet de loi, en mettant une motion dans la Chambre. Ils ont changé les règlements selon leurs conditions, et là ils arrivent et ils disent que ce n'est pas assez bon.

Le gouvernement contrôle tout quand ça vient à l'Assemblée. Ils ont le pouvoir de tout arrêter et ils ont le pouvoir de passer la législation. Ils ont la capacité de fermer l'opposition quand ils veulent, et là, ils disent que ce n'est pas assez bon. Notre «candy» n'est pas assez gros ; on a besoin d'aller en chercher un autre. Puis ils disent qu'on va aller aux comités puis on va réduire le nombre de députés qui vont participer aux comités.

J'ai un problème. Le problème, c'est quand on limite l'habilité des députés de représenter leurs citoyens ou leurs citoyennes sur les comités, cela veut dire que le public a moins de chances de faire en sorte que leurs représentants sont capables de représenter ce qui est important pour les personnes de leur circonscription.

L'autre point, puis je l'ai dit tout à l'heure, c'est que ce gouvernement une bonne journée va avoir une élection. S'ils sont très chanceux, quelques-uns vont être réélus, même au troisième parti, s'ils sont bien chanceux. Eux- autres, ils vont être dans une situation, ces députés-là, les seuls qui seront réélus, de revenir à cette Assemblée et voir les règlements qu'ils ont changés.

Quand ils arriveront ici, je serai à l'autre bord de la Chambre. Ils seront assez chanceux d'être 12 ; ça va être vraiment quelque chose. Mais s'ils sont assez chanceux de revenir ici puis s'asseoir et regarder l'autre bord, et s'ils ouvrent les ordres du jour et les règlements de la Chambre et qu'ils les regardent, ils ne vont pas être contents, on va vous dire, parce qu'ils vont trouver que l'habilité des membres de l'opposition a été beaucoup réduite sous la direction du gouvernement de M. Harris. Puis une bonne journée, ils vont payer le prix eux-mêmes comme députés de cette Assemblée.

Madame la Présidente, je vous remercie pour avoir la chance de participer à ce débat.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Now I'm really complimented because two of the three deans in the House are present, the member for St Catharines and the member for Renfrew.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Flattery will get you everywhere, Margaret.

Mrs Marland: Actually, if anybody understands my comments, it will be the member for St Catharines and the member for Renfrew, because one of the things I really want to say is that I don't understand why we're having this protracted debate on this resolution at this time. It's very --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South. Come to order, member for Cochrane South.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The very fact that I did spend 10 years in opposition, I know very well about being an opposition member in a committee as well as in this place. This resolution that is before us today is dealing with two matters. It's dealing with who sits on a committee and which committee, and also the number of people who will sit on the committee.

Surely the first matter isn't up for debate because the names of those who are appointed to committees are submitted by each caucus. Every caucus decides who they want from their caucus to sit on which legislative committee. I think we can easily set that aside.

The size of the committees is tremendously interesting. When the David Peterson Liberal government was in power -- of which the member for Renfrew and the member for St Catharines were members of cabinet -- I can recall that in those good old days we had 94 Liberal members in this House.

Mr Conway: It was 95.

Mrs Marland: Yes, I stand corrected. It was 95 and one became the Speaker. Correct?

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: The member for Renfrew is not helping me with this debate.

At that time, even though the government of the day had 94 members plus the Speaker, guess how many members we had on the committees? I don't know if anybody remembers but I certainly do. We actually had nine, and 10 including the Chair. The reason that I remember is that in the first two years I sat -- no, actually, when you had 94 members, it was the 1987 election.

Mr Conway: Do you know how many we had before that?

Mrs Marland: Yes. In 1985 you elected 48 and the Conservatives elected 52, but what is really significant -- I will try to speak to the Chair, but it's so tempting, of course, always to speak to the member for Renfrew. After the 1987 election we had in our caucus 16 members, and as I fondly like to refer to that caucus, it was myself and the 15 old boys.

Now, with that composition of 94 government members -- I don't remember actually the number for the NDP, but I know there were 16 for us; I think the NDP were 19 -- the committee structure then was six government members, two official opposition members and one third-party member. I know, because I sat on three committees as a single member. I did not find, of course, that it was difficult to represent the views and the opinions of the third party and I certainly never heard any complaint from the government about the problem of getting public input around this province into the government legislation that was before any of those committees.

1740

So I really fail, I guess, to understand what this debate is about and why we're questioning the current makeup of the committees, because the current makeup will now be five government members, two from the official opposition and again, one from the third party. I think the members of the current third party have just as much ability to represent the views of their party as we did to represent the number of members that we had when we had one member appointed to a committee. Speaking from my own historical perspective, I think this debate that has gone on and on is really becoming quite redundant.

There are actually advantages to the motion that is before us. One of them I think certainly is the advantage for the member for Elgin, who happens to be at the moment the only independent member in the Legislature That member is going to have a membership on a committee. It happens to be the Legislative Assembly committee, which also happens to be the committee which he has chosen. I think enhancing the role of the independent member is being very fair.

The other aspect of this resolution that we're debating of course is the fact that we have an opportunity to save money. I find it difficult to understand, frankly, why any member in this House would want to debate or talk against saving money when we're talking about the makeup and operation of committees in this place. I think that if we have an opportunity to save money in one area, all of us in this chamber, I do believe --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, could you please keep your voice down? Thank you. Member for Mississauga South, continue.

Mrs Marland: I believe we all have a huge responsibility to the taxpayers in this province to save money wherever we can. We all know that when our committees travel around the province to have input and hear the opinions and concerns from constituents around the entire province, the more people we have travelling on those committees the bigger the bill we have to carry to pay for flights, buses. We don't any longer pay for meals, but we do pay for hotel accommodation. Those are big expenses. You know what's really interesting, of course, it isn't just the 14 members we currently require on committees that we pay for. We're paying for all the staff, all the committee clerk's staff, the translation staff, and we end up with very big bills and a very big expense in terms of making the public process something that's available through our public committee hearings.

I don't know how far we are along with this, but I personally hope we're going to expand on the system of teleconferencing for public hearings in committees.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: Are you correcting me?

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: I guess it's sometimes called video conferencing, and I guess it is video conferencing that we're talking about.

In any case, it would make sense in a new age where technology is changing almost month by month that we as a Legislature keep up with those opportunities. I look forward to the committees jointly, all of the committees of the House, and all-party input into deciding --

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Whip, it's very hard to hear.

I think if we can expand the opportunity for public input through other operational modes for our committees, then it certainly behooves us to do that.

On this bill itself, it's kind of interesting because I have sat in this House where we have debated the new standing orders and at that time, among some of the debate of the new standing orders, there was quite a lot of debate about the makeup of committees as well. So I think it's a little unfortunate that we are using time to debate something that has already been debated. I also notice that both opposition parties have taken the position that the debate on rule changes has dealt with the issue of committee size. I refer to Hansard for August 20. The member for Algoma, Mr Wildman, argued on page 11391 that the rule changes we had debated for six days did operate to reduce the size of committees.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine, Ms Lankin, speaking for her party also said that she disagreed with the rule changes but, and I am quoting from page 11392, "The intent of the motion is to change that rule to downsize committees; in fact, in the case of the New Democratic Party, to take away representation where we have only two members on committees and limit us to only one."

I go back actually to the example I gave when I was an individual member of a committee, when we had the same number of members in this Legislature as the New Democratic Party has currently, so what we're doing here isn't unfair, it isn't unjust and it isn't something that hasn't been done before. We're not creating new waves. We're not attacking the opposition parties. We're simply saying let's be more efficient and let's try to run this place like a business. I think that's something the public feels is long overdue. When we get into bloated bureaucracies and bloated systems within our own legislative chamber and our own operation of this place, this beautiful Legislature, then we are liable to criticism, and rightly so.

The Liberal spokesman, the member for Kingston and The Islands, Mr Gerretsen, said, and I quote from page 11393: "They want, according to what was just passed, a committee with only nine members immediately. That's what's there. Those are the standing orders that we passed today, not another motion: committees with nine people."

So what is significant? This is why I referred to Hansard. Was it that the opposition parties thought the new rule changes would govern committee size? When they were debating the rule changes -- by the way, a debate which lasted six days -- the opposition parties thought they were debating the issue of committee size. In fact, during those six days, the opposition parties were debating the issue of committee size. So here we are again, still debating the issue of committee size.

Effectively, including today, we have already spent more than seven days of debate, starting back in June, over the issue of committee size. Remember, today's debate is over an issue that on August 20, which is actually almost a month ago now because today is September 18, the opposition parties said it was already debated and it was already decided. I guess I don't quite understand why this is continuing and why we are wasting time on a debate that has taken place, especially when we have some very vital legislation and some very important issues to the people of this province that need to come to the floor of this House to be debated in order that it can get out to public hearings in the committee process and the people of Ontario have that opportunity for public input.

The other number I came up with which I think is really quite interesting -- naturally, I'm going to be defensive of my government's position, but I'd like to use facts to do that and not fiction. When I say that this government is clearly committed to consulting with the public, I'd like to place on the record that in 1996, just last year, we had 720 hours of public hearings on 33 government bills, compared with 681 hours for 40 bills in 1994 with the NDP government and, just to be fair, only 529 hours for 93 bills in 1989 in the Liberal government. I say to my friends the member for St Catharines and the member from Renfrew that you passed 93 bills in 1989, but you only spent 529 hours debating them.

Frankly, I feel we are at a point in the debate of this resolution where I really have a concern that we are just going round and round the clock. I believe this House is entitled to at least vote on whether the House feels we have had sufficient debate on this very simple, very straightforward, very technical question of committee size. Therefore, I move that the question now be put.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Marland has moved that the question be now put.

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

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

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1757 to 1827.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Snobelen, John

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Kwinter, Monte

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays are 10.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Johnson has moved a motion for changes to the membership of the standing committees.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

I've just received a letter from David Turnbull, the government whip, which reads:

"Dear Mr Speaker:

"Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I would like to request that the vote on the motion for changes to the membership be deferred until Monday, September 22, 1997."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I know that all the members are anxious to hear the weekly business for next week.

On Monday, September 22, we'll deal with Bill 128, Uniform Federal and Provincial Child Support Guidelines Act; on Tuesday, September 23, interim supply, and Bill 102, the Community Safety Act; on Wednesday, September 24, Bill 98, the Development Charges Act; Bill 146, the Farming and Food Production Protection Act; on Thursday, September 25, private members' public business, ballot items 99 and 100, and Bill 149, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 (No. 2).

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on Monday.

The House adjourned at 1832.

18 septembre 1997