Journal des débats 1998-mai-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Because this is such a significant bill that is being presented, the House has a special presentation to make to Mr O'Toole. We are looking for unanimous consent to have him wear this pin that says, "Very Irish but hardly green." This comes with the compliments of Patrick Gillen of Irish Traditions Ltd at 444 Yonge Street. In fact, after I told him about this bill, he decided that he would supply pins for the House. Do we have unanimous consent?

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr O'Toole: I would like to thank the member for Sudbury. It's very Irish and very blue.

It is a privilege to stand in the House today to discuss my private member's Bill, Bill 8, An Act proclaiming Irish Heritage Day, March 17, in Ontario.

The act, if passed, will establish St Patrick's Day as a day of provincial recognition on which to commemorate and celebrate the historic legacy of Ontario's Irish community and its outstanding contributions to Ontario society.

At the outset I would like to say that our cultural heritage is one of the most important aspects of our identity and self-understanding. It was Patrick Moynihan in the US who wrote about the importance of cultural continuity and personal links to a wider extended family as a source of values for one's own life amidst the impersonal consumerism of North America.

Canada's multicultural self-identity is one in which Canadians uniquely blend our Canadian citizenship with the traditions of the countries left behind, which either we or our ancestors migrated from in search of a better life.

All Canadian cherish heritage. Respectfully, we live in Canada in a province like Ontario that celebrates a cultural mosaic. We have many cultural celebrations, like Caribana in Toronto, Oktoberfest in Kitchener, and in my riding of Durham East, the city of Oshawa has a wonderful Fiesta Week where most cultural groups celebrate their heritage. The Dutch, a very important group in my riding, Ukrainian, Greek, Italian, German, Caribbean, French, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, African and every cultural group celebrate during some time of the year.

We all at some point, and some with more intensity than others, search for our roots, a search for meaning, and this is good.

I looked in the dictionary to define the term "Irish." "Irish" is from the term "Iras," meaning of Celtic origin. The word "heritage" is described as "the sum of the qualities and potentialities genetically derived from one's ancestors."

My immediate family began its history with my father, Claire Michael O'Toole, and my mother, Ruth Annabel Driscoll. All their parents were born in Canada. Their parents had settled outside Peterborough. I am fourth-generation Irish. County Wicklow and county Cork are the places of the family roots. Sadly, I have not yet visited Ireland, but my oldest son Erin has on a couple of occasions and my sister Jane O'Toole-Goodman is planning a trip this summer. Many Irish are given to making this lifetime pilgrimage. I hope to make the voyage after my life in politics, some time in the distant future.

My cousin Lawrence O'Toole suggests that he is a distant relative of St Lawrence O'Toole, who it is said, was related to St Patrick himself. There's a tradition. It is also strongly believed that what is Power Court Park today was once the O'Toole family lands.

There are many stories like this in the Emerald Isle.

My wife's name is Peggy. Imagine that, Peggy O'Toole. It is almost like the lyrics of an Irish melody. Part of Peggy's family also comes from Ireland. Her grandfather, Herbert Brown, was a loyal Orangeman right to the end of his life. It is rumoured that there were Catholics on that side of the family, but then there are things we don't talk about. I do know, however, that they did have a beautiful daughter, my wife.

1010

The Irish have been in Canada for over 300 years and are officially recognized as one of the founding peoples. As a people, we are an integral part of Canada's national culture and identity, as is a right of all Canadians of all backgrounds. The Irish influence is evidenced in the coat of arms of Canada with the royal harp of Tara, the shamrock and the cross of St Patrick. These symbols and traditions are important and they are important to all countries.

In the early 1800s approximately 3,000 Irish settled in the Peterborough area. Peter Robinson and other famous settlers of the area are now all an important part of that area's history. Many small villages and towns in Ontario were inhabited and developed by the Irish, and these people became the community leaders. They worked and were hardworking and built communities in Ontario.

In my research, I discovered in the census of 1841-42, 1851, 1861, and right up to 1881, that when the birthplaces of all British North Americans were tallied up, Ireland recorded the largest number of those born outside the country. In the census of 1842, Upper Canada, now Ontario, had 78,255 Irish-born inhabitants, making them the largest non-indigenous group.

The Irish of the day were priests, ministers, farmers, labourers, tradesmen, merchants, lawyers, teachers and indeed politicians.

You may ask the question, "What is the most significant contribution to civilization the Irish have made?" It has often been stated that Ireland has produced a disproportionate number of scholars, orators and writers. The speeches of Edmund Burke and the speeches of playwright and speaker-orator Richard Brinsley Sheridan are manifestations of a rhetorical tradition central to the Irish sentiment and feelings. Mr Sean Conway, the member for Renfrew North, often imitates some of these traditions in the House here today.

The list of Irish artists and scholars goes back to Jonathan Swift, William Butler Yeats, Oscar Wilde, Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, Brendan Behan, Marshall McLuhan, and more recently, Conor McPherson, Martin McDonagh and Maeve Binchy.

The tradition of the Irish storyteller is well documented, and I can recall my father's ability to recite poetry at will and his love of books. My father's family boasted of his three sons who attended university, and indeed, my Uncle Alphonse O'Toole had two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in education. Their love of literature and culture is perhaps the greatest legacy of the Irish culture.

Like many people, and this happens today, some people are mischaracterized and misrepresented. I recall as a youth that the Irish were referred to as dogans or micks, hard drinkers, hard fighters, boxers and perhaps good sports, all brawn and - you know the rest. But when we think today - these characterizations are not helpful to any culture - we must look at the gifts and strengths of people and find positive common ground. No one is perfect.

My bill does not address the long struggle of all Irishmen. The religious arguments must be put aside. The time has passed. The struggle over land, as characterized by the famous Irish film The Field, is all part of the history that we can learn from and resolve never to repeat. I would rather dwell on those things of a positive nature that we can agree on and move forward. I prefer to think of the beautiful Irish dancers, most recently the Riverdance group, the popular Leah family, the resurgence of Celtic studies, Irish humour and, of course, Irish whiskey, but just a dram - above all, just a dram.

Over the past few months, in consulting with a variety of Irish groups, I have been amazed by the depth of interest. Mr Pat Rooney of the Emerald Isle Seniors Society; Tiarnan and Marilyn Carter de Freine, editors of the Toronto Irish News; the Celtic Society at the University of Toronto; Stephen Clancy, the County Sligo Society; Steve Whelam of the United Irish Society of Canada.

The Ireland Fund of Canada, with its themes of Peace, Culture and Charity, perhaps best symbolizes all that is good about the Irish. This is a wonderful charitable organization. Their work gives me hope for the future of Ireland, north and south.

On March 17 of this year, I was pleased to make a presentation on behalf of our Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Honourable Isabel Bassett, to the Irish Person of the Year, Ms Peggy Delaney, a delightful person. Ms Delaney is a breath of spring and a wonderful lady. The spirit of that day was magical, and the St Patrick's Day parade was beautiful. What a great day to celebrate Irish Heritage Day. Everyone was Irish for a day.

Today, I believe, there are over 70 million Irish around the world, famous people like Timothy Eaton; Sid Ryan of CUPE; Darcy McKeough; the Irish-born Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Hilary Weston, the first Irish-born Lieutenant Governor.

There are many decisions going on in Ireland today. On May 22, there will be a referendum on Ireland, north and south, with respect to the Good Friday agreement. I wish them luck in their discussions.

It would be a mistake if we did not recognize that a country that has struggled for years must be recognized and its traditions celebrated. Perhaps it is our differences that make us great.

As a Canadian of Irish descent, it is my duty, privilege and pleasure to present this bill to the House today.

Mr Bartolucci: The top of the morning to you, Speaker, and the best of the rest of the day to you all. You might wonder, what is an Italian doing standing up with an Irish brogue? Let me tell you that it's been said that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Today we want to ensure that we flatter the Irish, not only in Ontario and in Canada but in the entire world.

Why would I want to be flattering the Irish? Let me give you a little bit of history. About 30 years ago, I met this young colleen by the name of Maureen. Now, Maureen is the eldest child of Van and Teresa. Teresa's maiden name was Mary Teresa Reilly. She was from Swinford in county Mayo in Ireland. I might suggest to you that Maureen and Van and Teresa exude the Irish traditions that we spoke about in the House earlier and that we've lived for years and years and years.

Van and Teresa had a big family. There's Maureen and Lorraine; there's Jim and Carolyn; there's John, Michael and Barbie, all of whom are married and all of whom have either sons or daughters. This family, you can rest assured, whenever they gather at Teresa's house, I might suggest to you that the Clancy Brothers and the Irish music is playing well into the wee hours of the morning.

My father-in-law, Van, who is no longer with us but never forgotten, played the spoons - my God, he played the spoons. He loved playing the spoons. He tried to teach me how to play the spoons. Although I may be a good teacher, I was a lousy student. I continue to try and I only wish Van was here to help me. But I believe that my in-laws are the perfect example of what the Irish are. They're loving, they're caring, they're kind, they're compassionate, with a love of life and a love of laughter, and it is deeply rooted in faith and conviction.

The Sudbury Irish Heritage Club is much like my family in Sault Ste Marie. It was founded in 1959. It has a membership of approximately 300 and growing. I might suggest to you that they were instrumental in banding together and creating the Isles of Innisfree co-op housing project which is in Corsi Park off Copper Street. They're very, very active in our community and they ensure that the Irish traditions, the traditions that all of us are so proud of, are maintained and enhanced. In fact, you're invited on May 30 to the Isles of Innisfree in Sudbury for what's known as the Spudfest. Might I tell you it's a time of mingling and a time of enjoyment and a time of merriment. And, yes, there is music and there's song and there may be the odd beverage included.

1020

The week containing March 17 in Sudbury is a very, very important week. It's declared Irish Week in Sudbury and there are all kinds of activities which enliven, enrich and remind us of the importance of the Irish to our communities, to our province, to our country and to our world.

Might I suggest to you you're welcome to come to Sudbury any time during the week and hear what I would suggest are the two best Irish groups that I've ever heard, those being Patti's Patriots and the Friends of Erin. You can hear them at the Cambrian Foundation, you can hear them at the Ramada Inn, you can hear them at Grumblers, if you want, or they provide free concerts for people at the City Centre, the new Sudbury shopping centre. In fact, they want to share their music, so I invite you to come to Sudbury.

More importantly, I invite you to support this bill because this bill indeed enhances the appreciation we all have of the Irish culture, we all should have on an ongoing basis. I'm reminded of the beautiful Irish blessing that I'm sure every Irishman in the world has for everyone else, including the members on the government side and on this side of the House, when they say, "May you live as long as you want and never want for as long as you live."

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In addressing this subject this morning, I want to begin by saying I can't imagine, although I'm sure there are people out there, who could be any more proud of their heritage than I am. I'm an Irish immigrant to Canada, came to a place called Wawa in 1960 with my mother and father, five sisters and a brother. I remember it, but not so well as probably my mother. We arrived in Sault Ste Marie in the middle of the night in January - snow, cold - got up in the morning and caught the train through the Agawa Canyon up to a place called Hawk Junction and over to Wawa. We kids thought that we had died and gone to Disney World. I'm sure my mother had a different view of the whole situation, perhaps thought we were in Siberia, but nevertheless there we were.

In reflecting on my heritage and on my life and the fortunes that I have been gifted with, I think there are probably two things that a father, a mother or a set of parents can give to their children, and I have four who will be second-generation Irish in this wonderful country of Canada. Those two things are a sense of their roots - where they come from, the traditions in their family - and wings, an interest in the world, an excitement about life, some basic information so that they might discover from their roots how it is that they might participate in creating a world that is better and more fair and just than the one that we've turned over to them.

It's in that light this morning that I want to reflect for just a moment on the experience of the Irish in Canada and even before they came to Canada, back in the time when in fact most of the immigration happened. That was as a result of the Irish potato famine that I spoke of here only a few nights ago to share with the people who watch this channel and to share with the people in this House some of the difficulties that the people of that day experienced, why they experienced it and how some of it is so similar to what we're experiencing today in this great province.

Before I do that, though, I just want to share with you a quote from a little book that I quoted the other night as well, it's called Famine Diary: Journey to a New World by a fellow by the name of Gerald Keegan. In the foreword to the book by Don Mullan, the Peruvian theologian, Gustavo Gutierrez says:

Our view of the past must not be impelled by nostalgia but by hope. It is not a fixation on the painful and traumatic events of the past but rather a concern about contemporary poverty and a conviction that only a people which has retained its memory can change its situation and build a better world.

That's why I suggest to you that the experience of the Irish in this country, which was such a difficult experience - and if you talk to anybody, particularly in this great city of Toronto, who remembers, and I know there are events that are celebrated each year in Toronto that recall some of the experience of the early Irish - it was a very difficult time and it was not in any way an easy life they lived in arriving in this new world; and that in remembering that struggle and remembering the coming together of people around particular issues and the sickness and the death that took place, we might not repeat that page of our history and we might not, now that new immigrants come to this country from other places, impose on them the same hardship, the same troubles that were imposed on the early Irish immigrants when they came to this country; and that to understand that anything we do to people in need in our province today out there by way of cuts to their source of income would be the kind of thing that would have been done back then to the Irish because they were the immigrants, they were the poor, they were those who were at the door of the establishment asking for work, asking for opportunity, asking for a way to provide for their families, themselves and their neighbours.

It behooves us to remember that, but not to get stuck in it, not to get so preoccupied with the difficulties and the hardship and the deaths that occurred that we get frozen in time so that we're not able to rise above and respond to the call of people like Gutierrez when he says that hope must be the overarching, the overriding sentiment with which we view this.

I think it's important today that all of us who have Irish ancestry, all of us who have ancestry of various cultural backgrounds in this country, recognize that, remember that and sometimes actually bring it to the fore in a way that causes us to celebrate, and to tell stories that perhaps sometimes aren't quite only the truth is valuable to the culture that we now develop for our own children and for Ontario and for Canada.

My own experience of coming to Canada and arriving in Wawa was actually quite a wonderful experience. We were told in Ireland before we came to Canada, in all the stories and the songs that were written, that in North America and particularly - New York was the place that most people wanted to go, but some of us ended up in Canada because that's where our relatives ended up and we followed suit. Coming to Canada, I have to tell you, was probably the best decision my father could have made for the lives of me and my siblings and for my children.

Arriving in Wawa, we did in fact find a new world, a world where Irish, both Protestant and Catholic, got together, partied, celebrated and supported each other in the very difficult task of dealing with the challenges that are presented to anybody who lives in a small northern Ontario community, particularly back in the 1960s when we didn't have many of the conveniences of today to cause us to become insular and independent and individualistic.

In that little town called Wawa, we had a community of international root and history. I remember my father going to work at the plant and talking about the fellow he met from Germany and the Ukrainian and the French Canadian, and the Polish hall that was established in that community where we celebrated most of the weddings and New Year's Eve dances, where we, as young people, went to school with the children of those immigrants and, through the celebration of the various feast days of the different cultures and nationalities, came to understand and respect and appreciate and in some way grow out of that experience.

That made us, I suppose, the kind of Canadians who will be able to best deal with some of the diversity that we find in our country today that causes so many of us out there such pain, as we try to come to terms with the questions of what does it mean to be Canadian and how do you define the Canadian experience and what is the Canadian experience and how can we take the best of what is Canada.

1030

Our history - recognizing that this country was and is built on three nations of people, the English, the French and our first Canadians, our first nations, but contributing to that mix are all those who arrived later in time with our own experience of life, with our own cultures, our own religions and we put that into the mix. Where in other parts of the world that causes strife to the point where people actually hurt each other and in some places go to the extreme of killing each other, in Canada we've found a way to be appreciative, for the most part, of the contribution that each group can make.

I suggested a few minutes ago the story of the Irish coming to Canada, particularly in such large numbers, around the time of the great Irish famine. It certainly wasn't easy, because there were so many of us who came, and we were so needy, so poor. There was, because of the long trip across the ocean, so much disease among us that the then inhabitants of Canada were very afraid, were very frightened, and did not open their doors readily to this new wave of immigrant people. In spite of that, we stayed and we survived and we thrived. I believe we are now a very important and positive part of that fabric that is Ontario today, that is Canada today, that the rest of the world looks at and envies and wishes they could emulate or duplicate in some significant and concrete and real way.

To spend some time today in this House to reflect for a moment on the contribution, the history of the Irish people to this great country of ours, I think is really important and really timely. On this occasion I thank the member for Durham East, Mr O'Toole. He and I don't always see eye to eye on everything, but this morning we certainly agree on this: that we should together, as a House elected by the people of Ontario, recognize the valuable contribution of a particular portion as it blends into the mix of all the other very important and valuable groups of people who make up the communities and the cities and the towns and the province that we live in.

In wrapping up, as I'm wont to do here from time to time - because I do read a bit in my role as a member in this House so that I might understand more fully how I might participate in a way that's helpful and positive, and challenge this place sometimes to remember where it is that we come from, so that we don't repeat it in a negative way now or in the future, but that in learning from it we might create that better world that the theologian Gutierrez talked about in my opening quote. In this little book it goes on to say:

"It would not be proper to end this story without at least a brief reference to the survivors of famine, pestilence and the hardships of travel. In their search for ways and means of earning a living, they got no help of any kind from the government. In fact, they were completely rejected by the predominantly British population of Upper Canada. Being Irish and being poor they were not wanted. It was almost impossible to get a bit of land fit for cultivation. All the choice lands had already been given to the United Empire Loyalists or selectively distributed by land agents to people they considered loyal to the crown. The only alternative was to clear patches of land in the dense forests or else take on slave labour on the railroads, in the mines or in the forests. But they were used to hardship and they succeeded in earning a living while making substantial contributions to the development of Canada. A remarkable number of them and their descendants rose to positions of distinction in church and state and in commerce and industry." Today, we hail and recognize and thank them for that.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): It's my pleasure to rise to speak on the private member's bill which will proclaim March 17 annually as Irish Heritage Day. My colleagues and I are going to split the time we have available.

Today it is my intention, along with my colleagues, to extol the family values that the people of Irish descent originally brought to Ontario when it was still constituted as Upper Canada.

In the process of doing research in this regard, I located in my library the two volumes of The Untold Story: The Irish in Canada, which is a compilation of a number of articles and essays dealing with the arrival of the Irish on our shores long before Confederation in 1867. But before I quote directly from these sources, I would like to provide a few personal anecdotes about my own Irish heritage.

As a youngster growing up in the 1940s in Toronto I chummed with the Murphys in my neighbourhood. Mr Murphy was a tailor who worked on the dining room table in his home with his legs crossed all day long cutting and sewing. He said to me, "Your last name is Kells and you must be from Ballymena." Not realizing what he was talking about, I answered that no, I was from the village of Waverley, which is located close to Midland on Georgian Bay. Mr Murphy went on to explain about the possibility and geographical location of my Irish roots, and so at the age of 10 I learned that I was not only a Canadian but a Canadian with ancestors from across the sea. From that point on I began to take a greater interest in things Irish and to ask questions of my parents about my ancestry.

I suspect my little story has parallels with many members of this Legislature. With this in mind, I found out that my mother's maiden name is McWatters and that her mother was a Brown and they both considered themselves to be of Irish extraction. Surprisingly enough, after many inquiries I was able to ascertain that nobody knew exactly where they were from in Ireland and when and why their ancestors travelled to Canada to start a new life.

As I grew older, I began to research and eventually wrote a booklet on the McWatters family for use at a family reunion in 1976. The family Bibles revealed that on my mother's side my great-grandfather, Samuel Brown, was born in the Port Hope area in 1841 and that he homesteaded in Tay township near Midland. Other Bibles inform me that my other great-grandfather, William Albert McWatters, was born in Cartwright, Ontario, in 1869 and that he moved to Medonte township, adjacent to Tay, where my grandmother and grandfather met and were married in 1893.

Consulting my book on the Irish in Canada, it indicates that between 1825 and 1845 the Irish constituted 60% of all arrivals. At the time of Confederation, Canadians of Irish origin were the second-largest group after French Canadians in the country.

Reviewing the maps provided shows that Irish immigration did not take place along the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie simply because that land went to United Empire Loyalists after 1812 and early English settlers before that. The Irish came later and obtained tracts of land further north, including the many townships that make up Simcoe county.

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't the potato famines that drove the Irish in great numbers to Canada. Although the maps show that most Irish immigration took place before the potato famine, the Irish immigration was certainly bolstered by the aforementioned potato crop failures in the 1840s.

One of the articles informs us:

"For a country of its size and population, Ireland has indeed had a remarkable influence. Its success in restoring the light of Christianity and classical learning after the Dark Ages is well known. Its contribution through its many religious orders to the education of millions of children in Africa, Asia, Australasia, and the Americas is second to none."

In the epilogue to the introduction, the editor, Robert O'Driscoll, refers to a conversation that he had with a bus driver in rural Ontario, who advised him that if you're interested in the Irish of Ontario you should go over to Phelpston, which is a typical Irish village. The bus driver said, "They'd rather fight than eat."

The bus driver was born in Elmvale, which is five miles from Phelpston, and his reference to the Irish Catholics of that village is typical of the attitudes that once prevailed in that area. I know this well, for indeed almost 100% of my relatives from my mother and father's time came from this region with its towns and villages. Fortunately, time has ameliorated the prejudices that sprang from the ages-old conflicts in the mother isle.

1040

I could say a great deal more about the combative relationship between the twin religious cultures, but this is not the purpose of this bill. The most important thing is that early in the 20th century Canadians learned quickly that peaceful cohabitation was much preferable to any kind of antagonism. Indeed, as this century comes to an end, the old irritations have ceased to exist here once and for all.

I think my time is going on me, so I will cut down a bit and say that there is something whimsical about being of Irish descent. Many third- and fourth-generation Canadians like myself have journeyed to Ireland to look for the specifics that support the inner feelings of intimacy we harbour for the soil where our forefathers laboured, raised their families and watched as their children migrated to the new land across the sea.

Upon reflection, I find that being Irish is not about nationalism, nor about historical antagonisms, but rather it is about feeling - a feeling of belonging, of relating to people and a place. Personally, a deep quiet feeling of satisfaction overwhelms me when I think of this, because I know I have roots beyond these shores. It's because of this that I am so pleased to be able to speak in support of an Irish Heritage Day and ask that you vote to make this a reality.

In a society that is becoming more broadly diverse each and every year, it is propitious that we stop once a year to add another dimension to St Patrick's Day, that of an unspoken, continual annual tribute to that ancient race of people known as the Irish. God bless them all.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): It's with great pleasure that I rise to join the debate on this bill declaring March 17 as Irish Heritage Day, known to the rest of us, of course, as St Paddy's Day, a day on which everyone, certainly in the community I live in, becomes Irish for a day. Such is the generosity of the people.

My name is Cullen. It's a contraction of Cu'ullen. It's a very Irish name. It means "of Ulster." Just to lend some perspective to the heritage we're talking about, the first Cullen was the bastard son of the high king of Ulster. He was known as the Hound of Ulster and he grew up to be a fine Irish hero and a giant.

Such was his fame that at one time when his enemies attacked him, he put his back to a tree and for three days and three nights he fought off his enemies. The dead mounded around him and such was the carnage that was going on around him that they withdrew. When they withdrew, for three days and three nights they stood there watching this giant, and it wasn't until a raven landed on his head and pecked out his eye that they realized they'd been fighting each other, killing each other all this time.

I'm just saying this because it shows some of the colour of the heritage of Ireland. It is not always leprechauns and wee folk. It is a history that goes back into pre-Roman times, and I'm pleased to say that my family forms part of that history.

Of course, Ulster forms part of the four kingdoms of Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Munster and Connaught. I have to tell you again that members of this House will recognize the red hand of Ulster. It so happens that back in those days the tribes of Ulster would go off to one of the western isles to elect the high king of Ulster. Politics being what it is, members of this House will appreciate that from time to time they would not be able to make a decision between two very strong candidates. The legend has it that it was resolved. The Irish always love a good competition. They suggested to the two claimants for the high kingship that the first one to reach the shores of Ulster and touch the shores of Ulster would become the high king of Ulster.

The race was set and the two boats went off, the tribe of one claimant and the tribe of the other claimant straining to get back to the shores of Ulster. One ship pulled a little farther ahead. The chieftain in the other boat took out his sword, cut off his hand and threw it across. His hand touched Ulster first and he became the high king - and not a word of a lie.

This all goes to show the kind of legends that grew out of Ulster, the giants that strode the land, Finn McCool and others that formed the very colourful heritage that is in Ireland and that many of its immigrants have brought to our land and to many others.

I mentioned that my family name is Cullen. My father came to this country following the war. His name was Henry Patrick Joseph Francis Conluth Cornelius Cullen, a fine Irish name. He came from a family that had been very active in the struggle for the independence of Ireland. I wear my grandfather's ring. It's green. He participated in that struggle. As a matter of fact, when he died in Ireland the president of the republic, Eamon de Valera, came to his funeral.

I have many cousins in Ireland. I have been to Ireland myself. I'm very pleased to have met my cousins, Fidelma, Fionnuala, Porric; lovely, wonderful people. I've travelled in Ireland, and I have to tell you they are very friendly people, very pleased to know that I came from Canada. Very often I would stop in the village and someone would come up to me and say, "Well, where are you from?" I would say, "I'm from Canada." "Oh, Canada, do you know me cousin in Halifax?" Unfortunately in Ireland they don't realize the tremendous size of this country. I have yet to be to Halifax, and they're quite surprised. Everyone in Ireland knows everyone else.

One of the interesting things in my life, in travelling through Ireland, is recognizing the vast history of it. I'm very pleased to say that in Ottawa we share that history as well. Of course, Ottawa was made famous not only by being the nation's capital, but also because of the canal that was built so long ago, yes, by Colonel By, but the trenches were all dug by Irish navvies who came to this country and helped build the canals, the railways, literally helped build this country.

I could go on for a long time about the contribution the Irish people have made to our country. I will save that for other times because I know many other members here want to contribute to this debate.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I congratulate my colleague the member for Durham East in bringing forth this private member's bill and for his foresight in realizing that probably more than half of this Legislature is made up of people whose heritage dates back to Irish descendants. If they don't claim Irish heritage, then probably they were married to someone who has that background, or they just want to be Irish. Not only in this House do we have the O'Tooles, the McGuintys and the Sheehans, but we also have the O'Harrises and McEves.

The idea of an Irish Heritage Day is a wonderful idea and very special to me because of my family heritage. The name Stewart is usually associated with Scottish heritage. In my particular instance, my heritage can be traced back to 1608, when under James I of England, William Stewart was asked to take the task of settling Presbyterians in Ulster, Ireland.

Now, it happens that 200 years later, in 1828, another William Stewart of county Monaghan, Ireland, became the first Stewart ancestor to settle at Stewart Hall in Peterborough, Ontario. William, who was 47, arrived with his wife and seven children. The Stewart family chose to settle first in Cavan township and one year later moved across the Otonabee River and settled in Peterborough county. His younger brother, Alexander, accompanied William's family, and they were later followed by another brother, Richard, in 1829 with his wife and child. It is to this brother Richard that I am directly related. Three brothers and several sisters remained in Ireland near the village of Drum, Cootehill, county Monaghan. As well, some of the children chose to come to Canada at a later date.

The south end of Otonabee township is a peninsula of land enclosed on three sides by the Otonabee River, which flows towards Rice Lake. In the centre of this peninsula is a high ridge of fertile land, which is where my family of Presbyterian Irish heritage settled. My descendants chose to live close to the established Peter Robinson Irish settlement of Peterborough. Land was purchased for $500 for 200 acres, and thus their farm and their home in the new land had begun.

I am the fifth generation of Irish Stewarts to continue to raise family, work and enjoy living in the Peterborough area. My grandchildren are therefore the seventh generation of Stewarts to be raised in Peterborough county. I suggest they might be classed as pure Canadians but with Irish roots.

1050

The original town of Peterborough began when the Honourable Peter Robinson brought 2,000 Irish immigrants to the then Newcastle district in 1825. The original settlement housed the immigrants in rough huts and shelters until they were able to leave for their final destinations in the townships. Of course many of these settlers stayed in the town of Peterborough to establish thriving businesses such as farriers, dry goods and indeed pubs. The townships of Ennismore and Douro in Peterborough county were settled by Irish Catholic families in the early 1800s and to this day the surnames of these settlers still make up our communities. So began one of the many Irish settlements throughout southeastern and central Ontario. I'm sure every MPP in this Legislature has similar stories.

Both Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics have shaped the very essence of our province. Those immigrants proved to be hardworking, hard-playing, family-oriented individuals who helped shape our municipalities. They had an unquestionable work ethic. Their motto was, and I quote, "Work hard and be rewarded."

These Irish men and women came to Canada with the hope for a new beginning for their families. They established themselves in this province and became first and foremost Canadians. They accepted our way of life and added a rich culture that lives on through their ancestors. The rich heritage of Irish immigrants, our forefathers, is part of Canada and can easily be lost if we allow it. We should remember the contribution of these people with the proclamation of March 17 as Irish Heritage Day.

I leave you with one thought. As the great Irish philosopher Murphy once said, "If you don't agree with what I am saying, it's just because you aren't listening."

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm sure this act proclaiming Irish Heritage Day will have unanimous agreement. How could we not do it? Looking into the eyes of all those Irish members here today, it would be very, very hard to do.

That reminds me of the international song:

When Irish eyes are smiling Sure it's like a morn in spring, In the lilt of Irish laughter You can hear the angels sing. When Irish hearts are happy All the world seems bright and gay, And when Irish eyes are smiling Sure they steal your heart away.

I've heard in these comments today of the great contribution Irish Canadians have made to the development of this country. I'm more familiar with the Toronto community and consequently I've done some research for a book called Toronto's Many Faces. I'd like to give you some background on how the Irish have contributed so much.

"In the foyer of the world-famous Eaton Centre, a bronze statue honours one of Toronto's best-known Irish Canadians. Timothy Eaton was an Irish-born merchant who turned his Toronto dry goods store into Canada's largest privately owned department store," employing more than 9,000 people. "Today, the Timothy Eaton Memorial Church on St Clair Avenue West stands as a reminder of the contributions of the great Irish Torontonian.

"Irish settlers have lived in Canada since the early 17th century. The Irish may have constituted" at that time "as much as 5% of the population of New France, and during the 18th century, the Irish began to settle in the new British colonies. More Irish settlers were among the Loyalists who arrived in Canada following the American Revolution.

"The potato crop failure and famines in Ireland in the 1840s resulted in a large number of settlers arriving in Toronto. Early Irish working-class neighbourhoods along Toronto's waterfront and the Don basin were called Slab Town, Paddy Town and Cork Town. Irish Claretown developed around Bathurst and Queen streets, and by the 1890s the Junction area of West Toronto became home to many Irish." Remember Cabbagetown? That is "reputed to have been named for the Irish working class who planted cabbages in their front yards.

"The first Irish Catholic churches in the city were St Paul's in Cabbagetown, St Michael's Cathedral, St Basil's Church, and the original St Patrick's Church, established in the 1860s. These churches were centres of education and social activities. The pioneer charitable organization was the St Vincent de Paul Society whose members also founded the Toronto Savings Bank and the Catholic Children's Aid Society.

"In the 1850s, St Michael's College, now part of the University of Toronto, became a seminary school under the Basilian Fathers to provide higher education for Irish Catholics. The Christian Brothers established De La Salle as a secondary and commercial school, complementing the schools of the Sisters of Loretto, and of St Joseph. St Michael's Hospital was opened in the late 19th century by the Sisters of St Joseph... followed by the establishment of St Joseph's and Our Lady of Mercy hospitals.

"In the second half of the 19th century, there were a large number of Ulster Protestants living in the city. Lodges of the Orange Order, a predominantly Protestant society, [were] founded in 1795.... The main meeting halls were the Eastern Orange Hall on Queen Street, as well as the Western District Orange Hall on Euclid Avenue. The lodges provided social services, health care and illness and death benefits. The needy received additional aid from the Ladies Loyal True Blues and the Irish Protestant Benevolent Association.

"Irish Torontonians have contributed greatly to the city's development in the political, business and sports sectors. The first...mayor, W.H. Boulton, took office in 1845 and, during the rest of the century, 20 of Toronto's 23 mayors...." were Irish. "Among Toronto's most popular sports figures were the late King Clancy and former Canadian boxing champion and Olympic silver medallist Shawn O'Sullivan."

Today in Metro Toronto, we have some 550,000 people of Irish ancestry. Of course, we know the community has many cultural, charitable, social and sporting organizations, many of Gaelic names, and there are many, many more pages of contributions Irish-Canadians have made.

I am very happy today not only to support this bill but to have stood in this House and listened to and heard many of the members and their personal stories, which were very heart-rending. I am delighted to support this bill and I know my party will do it. I'm very happy that it will receive unanimous agreement today. For the Irish today I would only hope -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Further debate?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): As a member of this Legislature I am pleased to support the bill brought forward by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Durham East, Mr O'Toole, designating March 17 as Irish Heritage Day in Ontario.

There is a great history of the Irish in Canada, as has been recounted here. There was a generation of Irish who came to this country - there's a wonderful book called Flight from Famine, The Coming of the Irish to Canada, by Donald MacKay, in which he documents:

"About a million Irish left for Canada in the span of one generation. Thousands died of typhus or cholera at sea or in the notorious quarantine stations at Grosse Isle, Quebec and Saint John, New Brunswick, where heroic doctors and priests tried to ease their suffering, sometimes at the cost of their own lives."

My own family arrived in Saint John, New Brunswick, in the 1830s, starting off with the preferred name at the time, James, which continues to the present day - James Flaherty from Ireland and Mary Murphy from Ireland. On the other side, James Harquail, again a preferred name, and Mary Carroll, who came from Cork in 1845. That followed through to the present generation, through New Brunswick and Lower Canada and to what is now Upper Canada, so that today there are many of us in Canada and in the United States by the Flaherty family name, including my own siblings, David Harris, Edwin Harquail, Ann Isabel, Gerald Francis, Terrence Patrick, Norah Clare and Mary Stella, all of us the progeny of Edwin Benedict Flaherty, born in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Mary Monica Harquail, born in Campbellton, New Brunswick. All of that by way of history.

But it goes back much farther than that. There's a wonderful book written several centuries ago by Roderic O'Flaherty, published in 1684, which is a history of the west of Connaught. One can find that in a lovely bookstore in the city of Galway called Kenny's, where one can review the book and obtain a copy of it. It is is a wonderful history of the west of Ireland, which is where the Flaherty family is from.

As you come out of the bookstore - I've researched this on location - if you go just a tad south and a little west, there is another hospitable place called A Bunch of Grapes. You can visit that also, about 6 in the evening, with the Kenny brothers. They will be happy to explain most of what's in this book to you directly and personally. Then if you want an excursion, you can travel north from the city of Galway into the county of Galway and visit the Flaherty family castle, which is near Ballynahinch.

The Flaherty family continues to get together. That happens each year somewhere in North America. I'm very pleased that my siblings and our mother will get together this year in the province of Ontario to visit the beautiful Thousand Islands in July as we continue the wonderful history of the Irish in Canada.

1100

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I only have a few seconds. I just want to show the members today an Irish newspaper printed on fine Irish linen which contains a very brief Irish blessing. I will conclude my remarks by simply reading to you some of the words on here:

"May the wind always be at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face and the rains falls soft upon your fields. And until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of his hand."

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: What a coincidence, and maybe a paradox, that Mr O'Toole's bill is numbered Bill 8, because back in 1986, another Bill 8 was approved unanimously by this House. That was the French Language Services Act. Since then my motto has been, "Live and let live in harmony."

The Speaker: You better knock all this lovin' off. This is making me sick.

Mr O'Toole: I'd like to thank the many members for their wonderful, noble comments with respect to Bill 8, and of course their endorsement of the bill.

I would also like to thank the O'Toole family - that's my own family on all sides - as well as Alex Roman, the researcher who did a considerable amount of work, and Mr and Mrs O'Neil, who took time out of their busy day and busy life to come and enjoy the speeches from the many members.

All cultures can document their struggle in their journey to the place they are now. It's not unique to the Irish, it's not unique to any culture, but it's important to remember where you're from. As we always say, if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it.

The Irish themselves, north and south, will decide on May 22 where they go from here on their journey. It's important that they look back to the support of all Irishmen. Indeed, all countries are struggling with their identity, and at this time of year we should put our hearts together and go forward in a positive vein.

In a positive vein, the member for Wentworth North stole my concluding blessing, but I do have the odd blessing as well which I'll share with the members. The Irish are well known for their many little blessings and virtues, some of which have been shared today. Perhaps the members would join me. At the moment I'm waiting for them to join me.

"May your pockets be heavy and your heart be light." Another one we say is, "May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you're dead."

There are many members, and I'd like all members to join me in singing:

The Speaker: Good timing.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (SUSPENSIONS DE PERMIS)

Mr Grimmett moved second reading of the following Bill:

Bill 5, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences / Projet de loi 5, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les suspensions de permis de conduire.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It's certainly a privilege, and a privilege that's remarkable for an MPP, to have the opportunity to introduce a private member's bill. I feel particularly privileged to have the opportunity to introduce a bill that I feel would have a significant benefit to my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Bill 5, unlike the previous bill, is on a little more sober topic, I think, and that is the issue of boating safety in Ontario. Boating safety is a topic of great interest in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay. Muskoka and the Georgian Bay part of my riding are among the most popular boating destinations for tourists in Canada, indeed in North America. In the summer months in Muskoka-Georgian Bay, recreational boating not only is a tremendous source of recreational pleasure for the people who live there year-round, but it's also a significant economic benefit to the area. People who come to Muskoka-Georgian Bay to participate in recreational boating have a big impact on the economy, and many of us who live there full-time make our living by catering to people who are there because of the lakes and rivers. That tremendous natural bounty of surface water is the reason a lot of people have decided to have a cottage or to spend their weekends in Muskoka-Georgian Bay. For that reason it's important that I, as the representative for that area, with my private member's bill, try as much as possible to promote further recreational activity in Muskoka-Georgian Bay. I haven't been able to think of a better way to do that than to assure the boating public that in Ontario the waterways are safe to boat on, not only in the daytime but also in the evening and at night.

Just to summarize the contents of the bill, many people in Ontario are unaware that if they're convicted of impaired operation of a boat, they do not have as serious a penalty as if they were being convicted of impaired operation of a car or snowmobile. Currently if you're convicted of impaired operation of a car or snowmobile in Ontario, you face the suspension of your driver's licence. That is a very serious sanction in our society because of the importance a driver's licence has come to take on. Virtually everyone over the age of 16 in Ontario values their driver's licence and uses it on a regular basis, and it is my feeling that threatening the loss of that privilege has a big impact on attitudes.

In the time that I have been a driver of a car, attitudes about drinking and driving have changed significantly, and I think that is directly tied to the penalties in the law. I don't think that attitudes on drinking and driving have changed simply because people think it's the wrong thing to do; I think it's directly related to the fact that they will lose their driver's licence if they're caught and convicted of impaired operation of a car or of a snowmobile.

This bill would bring in the same penalties for a person convicted of operating a vessel while impaired as currently apply to persons convicted of operating a car or a snowmobile. It would also allow the police to suspend the driver's licence of a person who is charged with impaired operation of a vessel immediately upon the charge being laid, and it would allow the police to suspend that person's driver's licence if they blew a warning on a roadside breathalyser device.

Both sanctions are very important. I know from talking to the police, they feel that the 12-hour suspension may be even more important than the suspension of the driver's licence on conviction, because in a lot of cases I think the public feels that if a person is blowing a warning on the roadside breathalyser, they should not be allowed to leave the scene and get in a car and drive. I think the police obviously feel the same way and would like to suspend that person's privilege of driving a vehicle for a 12-hour period. That would ensure that the person would get home safely without endangering the rest of the public on the highway.

1110

Currently, in speaking with police marine operators, I think there is an improving climate in Ontario as far as the tools the police have to deal with boating infractions and bad boating habits. The Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, an umbrella body that brings together all the various groups in this province that are against impaired operation of a variety of vehicles, had their launch this week because we have the holiday weekend coming up beginning tomorrow. They had their launch of the season and their campaign against impaired driving. At that launch, there were marine police officers from several different forces in Ontario. They all feel that the new federal-provincial partnership that allows marine police to lay marine charges under the Provincial Offences Act has helped them a great deal.

I have received some statistics from the Ontario Provincial Police on their waterways policing in the past two years. I think the public would be encouraged to know that contrary to some suggestions that there is less presence by the police on the waterways, in fact the presence of the police has increased. In 1996, the OPP records show that 35,297 hours were expended by the Ontario Provincial Police on marine patrol. In 1997, there was a significant increase of over 3,000 more hours as they expended 38,897 hours on marine patrol by the OPP in 1997. That's a significant increase.

There is also a relative increase in the number of boating charges laid by the OPP. In 1996, 2,292 boating charges were laid; in 1997, a significant increase to 2,442 boating charges. That is a reflection of the police operating with better tools. From talking to the police about Bill 5, I'm going to take a risk here and suggest that every police officer in Ontario thinks this bill is a very good idea. It will give them the kinds of tools they need when they deal with an impaired or a suspected impaired operator of a vessel on the water.

They want to make sure they can suspend their licence for 12 hours so there's no risk of them being out on the highway during the 12-hour period following the time of the arrest. They also want to make sure they have a strong deterrent out there that people will consider before they drink and operate their vessel.

I've received a lot of supportive mail and faxes. Perhaps when I summarize I'll note who those supporters are. I also received a couple of faxes just this morning. One of them is from the Canadian Safe Boating Council. I'll just read it into the record; it's not very long:

"The Canadian Safe Boating Council represents over 60 national and regional organizations working for better boating safety. We have supported many initiatives aimed at meeting our goals, including significant changes to legislation and regulation.

"Naturally, as a safe boating council, we are interested in reducing the number of deaths attributed to boating each year. A significant portion of these deaths include alcohol consumption as a contributing factor.

"Our organization welcomes your proposal to link suspension of the provincial automobile driver's licence to the federal Criminal Code sanctions already in place.

"The council feels that a strong message delivered to boaters across Canada, and especially in Ontario, which accounts for about half of all recreational boating in Canada, will reduce the number of boating fatalities significantly. Thank you for your work in delivering this message."

Those are the remarks I'd like to make for now. I'm interested in hearing my colleagues' remarks.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few moments discussing Bill 5. I commend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for bringing it forward. I will certainly be supporting it. Weather records indicate that Sudbury is one of the sunniest areas in Ontario. It has a recorded higher annual average sunshine per hour than London, Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie and North Bay, so obviously the people in Sudbury are attuned to going outside and enjoying the great outdoors. The regional municipality within its boundaries has in excess of 90 named lakes. It may surprise the members of the House, but within the city of Sudbury itself there are 30 named lakes - that's 30 within the boundaries of the city of Sudbury.

Sudbury's Ramsey Lake, which is the most populated lake in the area, has won the 1992 International Excellence on the Waterfront award for any region or any city. It is the largest city-contained lake in North America, featuring both leisure living and all forms of water activity and recreation. Within the heart of the city of Sudbury is Ramsey Lake, and it is only 1,500 metres from a very vibrant civic square or the seat of local government.

Those are some of the reasons I'm going to be supporting this legislation, because the people in Sudbury, the city and the region, believe that those who operate vessels or boats on the waterways of Ontario should operate them in a very mature, responsible manner. I'm suggesting that if you're operating a vessel when you're impaired, that's not being responsible and it's not being very mature.

I should let the House know that the Sudbury Regional Police Service is very active on the lake within the regional municipality of Sudbury and is supportive of this bill, because it will allow every police officer to thoroughly enforce the proper operation of vessels. The police forces in Sudbury, both the regional police force and the OPP, are on our lakes and they do manage them very effectively. We don't have a major problem with regard to safety, but this bill will reinforce their presence and will afford them the opportunity to do meaningful enforcement and, if charges are necessary, make meaningful charges.

I would suggest to all the members of the House that we who take part in recreation in or on the water must be protected. Bill 5 offers those of us who may be swimming, those of us who may be water-skiing, those of us who may be doing other forms such as fishing within the lakes and rivers in Ontario, the opportunity for maximum safety. How can that be wrong?

I suggest to you that with the inclusion of Sea-Doos on the waterways of Ontario we have very unique problems being posed to us. Bill 5 will ensure that those individuals who are operating Sea-Doos do so in a very responsible and professional manner.

In summation, I would suggest that this bill is timely; I would suggest that this bill is necessary; I would suggest that this bill will be well received within the communities of Ontario that have recreation on or in our waterways; and I would suggest that this bill should become law as quickly as possible, to ensure the maximum safety on our waterways within this province. I thank the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for bringing this bill forward.

1120

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I rise in support of Bill 5. I congratulate Mr Grimmett for bringing it forward today.

I am a city dweller. Everybody here knows that I don't use motorized boats, but I do like to go on canoe trips and have for a number of years been portaging those big canoes over my head for kilometres and kilometres -

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Lots of strength.

Ms Churley: Yes, I may look small - with a great backpack on and going as deeply into the lakes and as far up north as I can get to get away from people.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): To get away from constituents.

Ms Churley: That's one of the advantages, especially in this profession. Every now and then, when you're on holiday, the main thing you want to do is, for a little while, just get away from your good friends in the Legislature. You certainly wouldn't want to run into any of them way up north, would you, at those times?

But I'm finding now that it's getting harder and harder to get away from motorized boats. Certainly we're all aware that there have been deaths in Ontario, in Quebec and in other places, partly as a result of Sea-Doos. I realize that they are of major concern and you're not addressing those specifically today, but hopefully this will help that situation to some extent.

I applaud the fact that you're bringing this bill forward and say that it's a long time coming. It's something that really should have been done a long time ago.

I'm sure, Mr Grimmett, that in your riding this is an issue of great concern because you come from the Muskoka area where there are a lot of boaters. I know a lot of people from the city go to Muskoka and other areas and get out in their boats. Most people, like in every situation, do not break the law and drive their boats safely. But as in every situation there are always those who don't and certainly those are the people whom this bill tries to capture.

When they go out on their Sea-Doos or other motorized boats, if they do drink, if they're driving dangerously, they endanger the life of myself out there in a canoe or out swimming. In some locations now in Ontario it is terrifying to be out in a canoe or to be swimming in the lake when there are a lot of motorized boats around. You just don't know who's being responsible and who isn't. Some of these, particularly the Sea-Doos, go so fast and come at you so quickly that it can be very frightening. I don't know if people here in this House have experienced that, been out in a canoe and been surrounded by a lot of these motorized boats. It is quite frightening.

Perhaps the member can respond to one of the concerns. I'd like to have more information on the policing, especially in his area and other areas. A bill is only as good as the enforcement around it. As we know, if we have strong regulations and we have strong laws in place, they're no good, they mean nothing unless the government of the day commits the enforcement, the policing that's necessary to catch the people. I would say to you that all of those people who go out in their boats and drive carefully and are responsible would applaud this move as well. I think, however, that we must have assurances that it's going to mean something, that it isn't just a piece of paper and that once a law is passed and the enforcement isn't there, people realize it very quickly and the law therefore is there to be broken.

I very much support the private member's bill that's before us today. Even though it's private members' hour, I believe I can speak on behalf of all of my caucus on this. We're very happy that it's here before us today. I hope and believe everybody in the House will support this.

When Mr Grimmett responds later on, perhaps he can talk a little bit about the enforcement and assure us, and I hope that his government will agree as well, that we can pass this bill without delay. I'm sure you will have the support of this caucus to move forward and that you will have the support of your government to put the necessary enforcement in place so that we know that our waters will be safe as a result of this bill.

I would say to Mr Grimmett, if that's the case, he can indeed be very proud. If he is able to get this bill passed through the House and it actually is enforced, I believe lives could be saved as a result. Again, I congratulate the member for bringing this forward and assure him that he has my full support.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This morning I stand in this Legislature in support of the efforts of my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to bring safety to Ontario's waterways. I realize Bill Grimmett, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, brought this same bill forward last year, but if something is worth saying, it's worth saying twice. This bill is certainly worth repeating in this Legislature.

I don't need to remind anyone that I have been an advocate for safe boating for many years and I have certainly repeated my cause many times before you all. My resolution, which was passed in this Legislature last September, called on the government of Canada to immediately amend the Canada Shipping Act as it relates to small vessel regulations. That marked the fifth time I have stood in this Legislature advocating boater safety in Ontario and I still refuse to give up on that issue, because I believe boater education will reduce accidents on Ontario's waterways.

Last month the federal government finally announced a government licensing program, but to my disappointment, the program will not come into effect until January 1, 1999, not in time for this boating season.

This weekend we will once again be joining our constituents to kick off the summer season in Ontario. As we travel to our favourite body of water to play and enjoy our outdoor programs, we must ever be conscious of the inexperienced, careless and sometimes intoxicated watercraft operators. Alcohol consumption is not tolerated on our highways and it should not be tolerated on our waterways either.

This bill before us today, if passed, would require the suspension of a driver's licence of individuals convicted of the impaired operation of a watercraft vessel. It would give our enforcement officers the ability to suspend a boater's automobile licence for a 12-hour period upon a charge being laid. We know that several other Canadian provinces have enacted this legislation, as well as many American states.

This legislation is being introduced to save lives and is supported by our own Ontario Provincial Police. These front-line people see what is happening and must deal with the families of victims of someone's carelessness.

Ministry of Transportation statistics show that on average 60 people die every year in boating accidents in Ontario. More than 40% of recreational boating fatalities in Canada are alcohol-related. Statistics show that most boaters consume alcohol always or sometimes when boating. Despite the fact that the Criminal Code of Canada states, "It is an offence for persons to operate a vessel when their ability to do so is impaired by alcohol," some 66% of boaters do consume alcohol while boating.

Our OPP officers must deal with the reality of these sad statistics on the frightening scene. This is not the level at which you and I deal with boating accidents. We deal with them from the protected distance of our television set, radio news or our daily newspaper, and from this distance we don't begin to understand the whole story, the story of a family devastated by the loss of a loved one.

Many organizations work each summer to heighten awareness of boating safety and responsible alcohol use. Accidents can be prevented through safety training and better knowledge of the rules of the waterway.

I believe the penalty should fit the crime. It is a crime to drink and drive a boat or a personal watercraft and the penalty should be severe. If someone is charged with being impaired while driving their boat or personal watercraft, that same person is also impaired and unfit and unable to drive their automobile. I believe taking away their driver's licence is a good deterrent and it will protect others on our waterways and highways.

Why is it that people who don't dream of driving their cars after drinking often don't show the same good sense when it comes to boating and alcohol? We know it is every bit as hazardous and illegal to mix alcohol and boating as it is to drink and drive a car on our busy highways.

We know alcohol affects an individual's balance, which is worsened by the fact that a boat is a moving platform. We know alcohol affects an individual's judgement, which can create a risky situation if you're driving a fast vehicle through treacherous waterways. We also know alcohol affects an individual's reaction time, which can be crucial when operating a watercraft in a populated boating area.

We know it makes good sense to support this bill. I encourage all of us in the Legislature to save lives and support this bill of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Mr Bill Grimmett.

1130

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I'm delighted to speak on this bill today. I'm delighted because it would add security to the boaters, the fishermen and the people on the beaches in Ontario especially.

There have been many serious accidents on the Ottawa River in the last 10 years, accidents that have left seriously injured people. Some will be crippled for the rest of their lives. The Ottawa River, according to Mayor Lacroix of Gatineau, has over 10,000 registered boats from Parliament Hill to the Carillon Dam. This area was cleaned up in 1989. Ever since then we have visitors from all over the world, and especially from North America, who are using this waterway.

The Ottawa River is the most important river in Canada. It has 1,271 kilometres. It was the only means of transportation at one time, especially in the year 1610 when Étienne Brûlé used it for the first time. As I said, the Ottawa River is one reason we're supporting this bill, and we just hope it goes through before the boating season starts.

On the Ottawa River there is the Carillon Dam, built by Hydro-Québec way back in 1959. Ever since then we've been seeing a slew of tourists on the Ottawa River. But let me tell you, there have been some major incidents on the Ottawa River because of the increasing number of boaters. There was no law. We have visits of the OPP on the Ottawa River, every weekend especially, but their hands are tied at the present time. You could have your driver's licence suspended, but you were able to use a boat on the Ottawa River. This is where the law is lacking. There is no protection for the leisure people who use the Ottawa River more and more.

It's funny. Just three weeks ago, we found out that the Ottawa River was not recognized by Heritage Rivers of Canada. Why? We don't know. During Champlain's time it was the only means of transportation to carry furs from Baie James to Ottawa and Montreal.

At the present time, with the increase in the number of boaters, there is police surveillance on the Ottawa River, but again they have their hands tied. We were able to attract boats from Kingston that were coming down to Montreal, back up by the Ottawa River and right up to the nation's capital. They stop in Hawkesbury, L'Orignal, Lefaivre, Rockland, Cumberland, and then they end up in Ottawa.

I just hope the whole assembly will unanimously support this bill because it is for the protection of our people, and this bill will also increase the number of tourists on Ontario waterways.

There have been many accidents all over Ontario and on Lake Ontario, and there was nothing to prevent these suspended drivers from coming on the rivers, on the waterways of Ontario. Even though their driver's licence was suspended for having been caught drunk, they were able to go on the Ottawa River and use a Sea-Doo, use a boat. I just hope that we will include the Sea-Doo in this part because there are more and more Sea-Doos on Ontario waterways.

This is an industry that is growing. It attracts some tourists but also it chases some tourists away from the tourist areas, because on weekends, especially on Sunday, we see a bundle of Sea-Doos on the river and many times I suspect whether those people should be driving those Sea-Doos on the river.

Once again, the Ottawa River is the most important river. As I said and as Mayor Lacroix has said, there are over 10,000 boats registered on the Ottawa River. This is a stretch of only 110 kilometres. If we look at the rest of the province, you could imagine how many boats we have registered in Ontario.

Once again I will definitely support that bill and I want to congratulate the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for coming up with this bill.

Mr Bisson: First of all, I want to congratulate the member opposite for introducing this bill. I think it's high time that we recognize that drinking and driving, no matter what the motorized vehicle might be, is not an acceptable practice in Ontario.

It is now widely accepted that anybody who is drinking and driving on Ontario's highways, when pulled over, is going to get their licence withdrawn for 12 hours if it's an infraction under a certain limit, over that they lose their licence, and at one point they lose it for life. We recognize that when it comes to motor vehicles and snow machines, but we don't recognize that when it comes to boats. To the member across the way, I want to congratulate him on bringing forward this particular bill.

I want to say, however, that the reason you had the bill I think demonstrates to what extent people sometimes are their own worst enemy. We hopefully are all responsible voters and responsible in what we try to do. Never would this member opposite have had to bring forward the bill if people hadn't decided to go out and act irresponsibly when it comes to operating motor boats on our waterways in Ontario. We have seen incidents, unfortunately too frequently, where we've seen kids who have been killed, people who were bystanders who were killed or injured, who had nothing to do with the person who happened to be driving the boat who was intoxicated. We've seen all kinds of tragedies, to the point that there's been a public outcry for the government to move forward and try to put an end to what is a very serious problem.

This member comes forward in trying to recognize by way of legislative action that driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol should be illegal and subject to the same fine that applies to a person driving another vehicle under the motor vehicle act.

I want to make a plea to people out there because I am an avid snowmobiler, as are many other people from northern Ontario. I love to get out on either my Polaris or my Bombardier and take a nice ride on a Saturday or Sunday, when I get the time, with my friends. I go out on the trails, enjoy the scenery, participate in the activity with friends and family. It is really a delightful way to spend some time when you have a few hours to get out.

One thing we're starting to see - I know I am not speaking directly to your bill but I think it responds to what I'm trying to say here - unfortunately is far too many people on our Ski-Doo trails driving excessively fast, to the point that they're endangering the lives of other people on the trails, endangering their own lives. We're seeing an increasing amount of alcohol utilized on the trails. Although we are protected under the motor vehicle protection act in that if somebody gets caught, they get their licence withdrawn the same as any other motor vehicle, the fact is that it's very hard to enforce this. The Ontario trail system, when it comes to snow machines, is so large that it is very difficult to get a police presence out there to really clamp down and send a message that if you're going to get on your snow machine when you're intoxicated, you're going to get caught. Because of that, the OFSC has embarked on a program with the local police and the Ontario Provincial Police to have trail wardens to patrol the trails.

The point I want to make is this. Because of the actions of a few people who decide they want to be irresponsible, they're going to mess up the sport for people like me who like to get out, drive within the speed limit most of the time and try as much as possible to operate their snow machine in a safe manner respecting other people who are on the trail. The same thing has happened with boats.

This never would have been an issue if people had not decided that they were going to be careless. Unfortunately, what we've seen is mostly younger people - I don't want to attribute it just to younger people because I've seen people my age and older act foolishly behind boats as well. But people decide: "Nothing's going to happen to me, I'm invincible. I will never be a peril and have any kind of accident because I'm always in control. I just can go out and yip it up, drink as much as I want and get totally intoxicated, jump in my boat and go for one heck of a good ride and have a great time." Your good ride unfortunately has cost people's lives, has caused people injury, has caused people all kinds of trauma that we don't even want to talk about here today, and now this particular Conservative member, Mr Grimmett, has come into the House and introduced a bill to try to clamp down on it. If people out there are looking and saying, "Jeez, why is the government doing this?" it's because there have been some irresponsible people out there who have decided that they're going to go out, yip it up on a Saturday afternoon and not have regard for anyone else who is on the waterways and have created this problem to the point that a member of this House has to come forward with a bill.

1140

My warning or my suggestion to people out there watching is that if we don't want the police always watching over our shoulder to make sure that we're driving our snow machines properly or we're driving our boats properly, be responsible. Remember that when you get behind the wheel or you get behind the engine of a snow machine or a boat, or whatever other type of motorized vehicle it is, you have to take responsibility. That is a lethal weapon when you think about it. You could endanger your own life by trying to drive too recklessly, and more important, you're going to be putting in danger the lives of many other people by carrying on in an irresponsible fashion.

I have to say to people out there, if you're mad because this member is bringing forward this bill, you have no one to be mad at but yourselves. It's people themselves who have created this problem, it's people who have decided to be irresponsible, and this member is doing the responsible thing by coming before this House with a bill to try to address what is a real problem. Unfortunately, there were far too many prayer services last summer and funerals for people who have died because of the accidents on our waterways, and most of them were attributable to alcohol. So if you say to people, "Don't drink and drive," that applies to boats, bikes and snow machines as well as it applies to cars.

Je veux remercier le député M. Grimmett pour avoir eu l'idée d'amener en avant ce projet de loi. Je pense que c'est à peu près temps qu'on essaie de revenir à une réalité, que n'importe quel véhicule avec un moteur, si c'est un char, une bicyclette - une moto - un bateau, une machine à neige, est une machine dangereuse et, comme telle, on a besoin de s'assurer qu'on a des lois qui disent qu'on ne peut pas utiliser ces machines quand on est sous l'influence de l'alcool.

Je veux dire aux francophones, comme j'ai dit tout à l'heure en anglais, qu'il y a du monde qui disent : «Écoute, je suis en beau maudit contre le député pour être venu avec ce projet de loi. Il a bien du front tout le tour de la tête,» comme on dit en français. «Imagine-toi que je ne pourrai plus prendre ma petite bière quand je m'en vais avec mon bateau sur la Rideau, sur la Mattagami.»

Excuse-moi. Ce sont des actions du monde qui ne sont pas responsables qui ont causé cette situation. Ce n'est pas une majorité, on le sait. On sait que la majorité du monde qui utilisent des bateaux sont comme nous autres, qu'ils essaient d'être responsables, mais il y a eu assez de monde qui ont causé des incidents dans les dernières années, qui ont causé la mort des personnes, qui ont envoyé du monde à l'hôpital, qu'il est devenu un problème. Ce député, Mr Grimmett du Parti conservateur, a eu l'idée de venir en avant avec ce projet de loi, et à cause de ça, on va essayer de boucher le problème dans la loi qu'on a qui ne traite pas les bateaux comme des véhicules sous la «motor vehicle act». I want to thank the member across the way.

I want to suggest in the last minute I have that I think we would probably have unanimous consent of the three parties in the House if we were to decide at the end of second reading today to skip the committee process and send this directly to third reading. I think we have debated this issue far too many times in the Legislature. We have now debated it with vehicles, cars, snow machines, everything else. The point is that these are motor vehicles. Clearly we don't need a bunch of committee work to figure out that this needs to be done, and I would suggest to Mr Grimmett across the way that our party would be prepared to give unanimous consent to have this bill skip the committee process and go to third reading.

My fear is that if we allow this to go only to second reading and it gets caught in an infernal committee somewhere, this bill will never see the light of day. We all know how government operates and we all know how ministries operate, and often they don't want to support a private member's bill. I would be prepared to move, after our vote, that we agree to allow this bill to go through second reading, directly to third and skip the committee process so that this bill can get passed and we can save lives in Ontario next summer. Get rid of the red tape.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate regarding the member's bill on this whole subject matter. I would like, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and myself, to congratulate the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for being so persistent in bringing back this bill in terms of how it could save a lot of lives in the next few years.

I think the timing is very propitious in that we have thousands and thousands of people in Metropolitan Toronto, in the new city of Toronto, who have camps, cottages and other recreational facilities in north-central and northern Ontario, and they usually take their boats and trailers, starting this weekend, up to those locations for the summer. So I think within the context of timing, the member's bill is very, very propitious in that sense.

In this province we have had over 816 Ontario citizens die in motor vehicle accidents in the year 1996 alone, of which 203 situations involved a drinking driver. In the same year we had 45 fatal boating incidents, 19 of them involving alcohol. The Ontario Provincial Police have estimated there are approximately 150 people yearly charged with drinking and driving. Clearly we need to do more to reduce drinking on our motorways and on our boatways.

I think it's so important in the sense of this bill that even one incident of a boating death or a boating accident involving injury is one too many. In fact, if you look at it in terms of personal tragedy, there is also the enormous cost involved to our health care system when you have an irresponsible drinking boater taking a boat, racing it through a small-boating-area waterway where there are swimmers - and we've had many of these incidents in the past - and that particular vessel has struck the swimmers involved.

Our government, as everyone may know or ought to know, has taken a strong and proud position when it comes to protecting public safety. The government has clearly demonstrated its commitment by reducing the incidence of drinking and driving on our roadways through the administrative driver's licence suspension system.

As well, we have taken several other vigorous measures, some of which will come into effect this particular autumn through the comprehensive road safety bill that was passed by this Legislature in June 1997. Furthermore, the measures this fall will include mandatory remedial treatment or education programs for all those drinking drivers who have been convicted in our courts of this particular charge; extended licence suspension periods, as well as impoundment of vehicles that have been the cause of these unfortunate tragedies and incidents.

In principle, the transportation ministry supports this proposed legislation to maximize safety on Ontario's waterways. By introducing a further deterrent linked to suspending the driving privileges of those convicted of operating a boat while impaired, these people will think twice before they attempt to use a boat while intoxicated. If and when passed by this Legislature, boaters who are convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada for operating a boat while impaired will have their driving privileges suspended under current sanctions contained in the Highway Traffic Act.

1150

I believe that the strategic linkage suspending driving privileges and impaired boating is not only logical but worth pursuing. I believe we should work together to overcome any difficulties to reinforce this government's proven commitment to reducing drinking and driving, whether it be by snowmobile, car, truck or boat.

Once again, I'd like to commend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for bringing forth this legislation, particularly as we start the long weekend when people are using boats of various capacities, some of them without thinking of their responsibilities and how they exercise that particular vessel on the water system of this province. Thank you once again to the member for reminding us of the importance of this aspect of public safety on Ontario's water system.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I too would like to congratulate the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for his private member's bill this morning. I can recall when a similar private member's bill was introduced by Mr McLean some time ago, last year if I'm not mistaken. But the government saw fit at the time not to endorse the bill. It never received third reading or royal assent. It died on the order paper. Let's hope Mr Grimmett's bill will not have the same fate as the previous bill.

Speaker after speaker has been talking about responsibility. I support this bill for the simple reason that boat drivers, vessel operators, have to be responsible people, just as if they were driving a car or truck on one of our highways. I support the fact that this bill says that their driver's licence should be suspended or even cancelled.

I happen to enjoy a cottage on a very small lake. I can tell you that year after year I can see the great increase of boats on our lake. The capacity is forever increasing and, sorry to say, we have more irresponsible people year after year.

I will share the remaining time with another colleague. I just want to congratulate again the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. We will support his bill.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm very pleased to rise and respond to this particular bill, Bill 5, previously Bill 154. I've been rather privileged to have grown up on the water. When I was young, it was Lake Ontario, where the Lennox generating station now sits. Now, with my family, we are fortunate to have a cottage on Lake Kashwakamak, just below the Mazinaw. When I was 12 I built a canvas-covered kayak. I built a power boat when I was 16. I feel very privileged to have been that close to the water over the years.

Over and above the speed of kayaks and canoes versus the speed of a 150-horsepower outboard motor going 50 miles an hour or 80 kilometres an hour, there are also trolling speeds for fishing. People are swimming and they can't get out of the way very quickly. We also have paddle boats, which are slow in the water; we have pontoon boats and houseboats. All of these activities are going on on a lake.

If you compare it with the driving of cars, with cars there are some in front of you and there are some behind you, but when you're out on the lake, an open body of water, they're coming at you or going away from you from all points on the compass. It's certainly a very different kind of driving experience. Add to that some of the problems of visibility. Some of the windshields of boats certainly are not to be compared to those of cars. There is great reflection off the water. Add to that maybe a water skier out behind a boat. It's tremendously different than driving a car. It's far more complex and the rules are different.

I'm very pleased to see the support of both of the opposition parties, the official opposition and the third party, for this particular bill. We're quite anxious to get this through for the boating season of 1998. I'm certainly very pleased to see the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay bringing this bill in for the second time and also the support of the opposition for this bill.

I really have to wonder why it should be any different when you're in trouble drinking and driving a boat than it would be with a car or a skidoo. We certainly have legislation for skidoos. Wow, when you add alcohol to the mix of 150, 200 horsepower outboard motors on boats and similarly inboards and outboards, that kind of power, it is not have a healthy mix. A lot of people enjoy the water. They shouldn't have to be challenged with this kind of risk when they're out there.

There's no question there are statistics showing a decline in drinking and driving, particularly of our young people, a tremendous decline in that area. That relates to education. What's important about this bill coming forward is that it will put it in front of boaters and people in general. There'll be an education component to make people aware that it's not right to drink and drive.

Charges were mentioned by the member for Riverdale. There were 2,292 charges in 1996, increasing to 2,442 in 1997, up 6.5%. There has been a steady rise in charges over the last several years. There's no question enforcement is being carried out.

This bill will put us on the same footing for drinking and driving as it does for -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today as well in support of this bill. I think the issue has been around long enough for the consideration of every aspect and pretty well every side of the issue. It covers all vehicles, but it really pertains to what one would hope would be a sense of social responsibility on the part of persons. But when that doesn't happen, perhaps this would act as a deterrent. It is at least consistent with other responsibilities and other deterrents and other charges and punishments related to the operation of motor vehicles, motorcycles and even those who travel through the woods on their skidoos.

Talking about skidoos, Sea-Doos, I don't know if you can put into this bill, by the way, whether we can have some mufflers added to Sea-Doos. Let me tell you, it destroys a lot of the flora and fauna in a lot of lakes with kids buzzing around on these things.

There was a tragedy in Lake Muskoka several years ago that affected a friend of our family, a young woman whose fiancé got killed by a boat that was speeding. The operator was under the influence of alcohol. This has happened many, many times; I'm sure some people know of personal situations. What a tragedy; young life, just before they got married, and this had a tremendous impact on us who knew this young man.

There's no question that we need to advise people. We also need to educate people. We need to continue to promote the responsibility that people have when they are driving a vehicle which is a powerful piece of machinery or a vehicle which can quickly slip on the water and bash into someone else who might be in a canoe or a sailboat or something of that nature.

I'm happy to support this. I would suggest to the members that if they want to see the example of total responsibility related to boating - the boating season opens up this weekend - the Canadian Tulip Festival has a flotilla of boats, all kinds of boats. They will not, of course, be speeding at all; they will be slowly going down the canal to the hundreds of thousands of people who will be visiting the Ottawa-Carleton region this weekend. As past president of the tulip festival and not being able to see it because I've been here all this particular week, a lot of it, I want to congratulate all my friends.

I'd like to congratulate the member for this bill and will be happy to support it when it comes forward.

The Speaker: To sum up, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

1200

Mr Grimmett: I certainly have been very encouraged. I want to thank all the members who have spoken today on this bill. In particular, I'd like to thank the members opposite for their encouragement and their suggestion that if we can proceed with this bill directly to third reading, it may give us the opportunity to allow the police to utilize this extra tool during the boating season in 1998. Upon concluding my remarks, if the bill does attain second reading, I will also be asking that it be moved ahead directly for third reading.

I wanted to comment on the suggestion of the member for Riverdale that this bill applies to motorized vessels. In fact, it applies to all vessels, whether they're motorized or not. It might be of interest to the member for Riverdale that 30% of those people who die annually in vessels actually are in canoes. We have a problem with people drinking and operating canoes. There's some rather graphic information from the police that I won't pass on today as to the usual reason this happens to males in canoes.

I wanted to sum up by saying that the main impact this bill will have is that it will help to change attitudes among boaters so that they will more seriously consider the risks, not only to themselves and their fellow passengers, but also to other people on the waterway, if they choose to consume alcohol and operate their vessel. This will be an opportunity for this House to send out a message to the public that drinking and boating is not acceptable.

IRISH HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DU PATRIMOINE IRLANDAIS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr O'Toole has moved second reading of Bill 8, An Act proclaiming Irish Heritage Day. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent to move the bill through for third reading.

The Speaker: Rather than move it, we'll order it. You're seeking unanimous consent to order it for third reading. Agreed? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (SUSPENSIONS DE PERMIS)

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Grimmett has moved second reading of Bill 5, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent that the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

It now being just past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1203 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BERYL POTTER

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I rise today to honour Beryl Potter, a great woman who selflessly served her community and the citizens of Ontario in a long life of public service. With her passing early this month at the age of 71, Ontario has lost a woman who truly demonstrated the spirit of sharing.

Mrs Potter was a tireless advocate for the disabled, herself a triple amputee. She spent the last three decades working on campaigns to advance the interests of disabled people in Ontario.

Working at both the grass roots and provincial levels, her achievements are impressive:

In 1975 she formed the Scarborough Recreation Club for Disabled Adults, helping people to cope with their disabilities.

In 1980 she founded the Ontario Action Awareness Association to lobby politicians on behalf of the handicapped.

In 1981, the International Year of the Disabled, she was an organizer of the group PUSH, Persons United for Self-Help.

Mrs Potter served on the Ontario advisory council on the physically disabled and was also co-chair of the coalition on employment equity for disabled persons.

In addition, she collected $31 million in Dominion cash register tapes that were exchanged for $66,000 to buy wheelchairs, canes and aids for disabled people.

In the 1990 Ontario general election, she took on another challenge and ran as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine, finishing second.

Her honours included the Order of Ontario, the Order of Canada, an inductee into the Terry Fox Hall of Fame, an honorary doctor of laws degree from the University of Windsor, as well as dozens of other awards and accolades.

Mrs Potter was predeceased by her husband, Victor Carter. On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I extend condolences to her children, Dianne, Victor and Dennis, her grandchildren, her brother Norman, and to all those whose lives have been touched by the remarkable accomplishments of a truly remarkable woman.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I've received a very interesting letter written by Garry Guzzo, MPP for Ottawa-Rideau, to David Turnbull, the government chief whip. This letter has been widely distributed to many people. Here it is in three parts for the benefit of the members of the public:

"Dear Minister:

"This will refer to our discussions of last week with regards to the above-captioned item. I write at this time to record my total dissatisfaction with your behaviour and with the inconsistency with which you apply the rules of conduct in these matters. You will recall that I raised this item with you by way of letter dated May 10, 1997, a copy of which is attached and as of this date, we have not discussed the issue.

"Let me be abundantly clear that I advised you in person on Tuesday last, May 3, 1998, when you raised the issue with me that Mr Baird wished to speak on my bill, notwithstanding that his position was diametrically opposed to mine, I would be willing to provide five or six minutes for him, and all he had to do was ask like a human being. This was the same position that I presented to the local minister...when he raised the issue with me the following day. On Thursday morning at 9:45, when your staff contacted my office, Mr Baird had still not had the decency to make the request and by this hour, having learning about his discreditable behaviour, I could appreciate why he wasn't capable of looking me in the eye and asking me like a man. When your staff contacted me at my office, I could not take the call myself because I was in discussion with a member of the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton."

Stay tuned for part 2.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Halton North. I don't appreciate that. I would ask that you not do that any more, please.

BUSINESS AWARDS

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last night, I had the pleasure of attending the Outstanding Business Achievement Awards dinner sponsored by the chamber of commerce. This event is held once a year to recognize those companies and individuals whose success has impacted positively on the economy of Hamilton-Wentworth and has contributed to making Hamilton the number one city in Ontario in which to invest and grow a business, and we're pretty proud of that.

The Small Business Award was presented to the Meat Factory which was founded in 1980 and located in Stoney Creek. The Meat Factory is Canada's largest processor of peameal bacon.

The large business award was presented to Amcan Castings, founded in 1942 and located in the city of Hamilton. Amcan designs and manufactures high-pressure aluminum die casting for the North American automotive industry.

Bermingham Construction Ltd, founded in 1897, won the award in the Ironman category for their 100 years' - and more - contribution as a leader in the field of foundation and marine construction.

The Young Entrepreneur Award was presented to Mirella Marsilio of Mirella's ladies boutique who founded her operation in 1992.

Special recognition was also given to ONTV for their highly deserved recognition and their contribution to the community of Hamilton-Wentworth.

On behalf of the constituents in Hamilton West, and I believe in all of the city, I want to thank all of the winners and all of the nominees.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): For some weeks now myself and my colleague from Lawrence have been raising the issue of the Hague convention, a document which needs to be signed to allow Romanian babies to come into Ontario and be properly adopted.

We have identified 35 families in this province who are waiting, and have been waiting, because Ontario is one of the only jurisdictions in Canada to not ratify this particular convention. Until such time as that's done we have to work under an obscure memorandum of understanding.

We had the families to Queen's Park some five weeks ago. The minister did a press release that day saying, "We're going to bring in legislation as soon as the House comes back and we're going to pass that legislation so we can deal with this troubling problem." Like so much else, the fire and brimstone and rhetoric are not followed up by substance. To date there's been no law, no bill.

Later today my colleague will be introducing a private member's bill on this issue. We challenge the government to adopt it so that people like Ann Lecours can have her baby over here as soon as possible. In fact, good news today, thanks to the efforts of our federal counterparts, her baby's going to be in this province probably in another four to five weeks. People like Gerry Levitt have made that possible.

I wish this government would do what's right and do the honourable and decent thing and bring in legislation if you won't support Joe Cordiano's bill.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I continue where my colleague the member for Riverdale left off.

"The irate councillor was calling because of Mr Baird's submission to him the day before in Ottawa when Mr Baird advised him that my bill would mean the destruction of French-language services within the municipal structure of Ottawa-Carleton. My answer to the irate councillor was quite simple. I asked him why people like M. Grandmaître and M. Morin would be supporting this bill if that were the case. The councillor had no answer to my question and was satisfied with my position, notwithstanding the slanderous misrepresentation received the day before.

"My question to you, Minister, is very basic: Why is it that you and your office were concerned with the speaking arrangement of my private member's bill? How many other people in this caucus have had the type of interference from the whip's office with regard to their private members' bills? And why, when the local minister, Mr Sterling, and the minister responsible, municipal affairs, are both supporting the bill, are you running around in circles attempting to interfere with my speaking arrangement for Thursday morning? How many other members of our caucus have had to put up with this type of intrusion?"

The member for Beaches-Woodbine will continue from there so we can hear the rest of it.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE FAMILY

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Tomorrow, Friday, May 15, is International Day of the Family. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the importance of having strong, healthy families. Strong family units are the foundation of our society. As chair of the family issues caucus, I have spent a lot of time talking about issues that concern the family.

The health of the family unit is a good indicator of the health of society in general. When the family is under attack, the repercussions are felt in our workplaces, in our schools, on our streets and in all our institutions.

We have made such great progress in recent decades. The standard of living has been steadily rising. White-collar jobs have been replacing blue-collar jobs. We've developed a social safety net that is second to none.

Yet, on the other hand, our families are falling apart. Since 1990, for every 10 marriages between people aged 20 to 49, five end in divorce. That means half the children in this province come from broken homes.

Even more disturbing, since 1955, the rate of child suicide for children aged 10 to 14 has increased by 1,100%. We know we are doing something terribly wrong when innocent children are ending their own lives at such an appalling rate.

We must find ways to strengthen our families. When families are healthy, society is healthy. The family is the place where children first learn that they are valued, and they in turn learn to value others.

By building a strong economy, a fair tax system, a healthy job market and a responsible welfare system, this government has been helping families help themselves.

Recognizing that tomorrow is International Day of the Family, I hope we will all make a pledge to continue to do everything in our power to make changes that help families stay together.

1340

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My phone has been ringing off the hook. Councillors, mayors, reeves, politicians from all across northern Ontario have been phoning my office for the last day and a half asking if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was correct when he said two evenings ago on two different occasions during debate on Bill 12 that, yes, there will be a permanent fund for northern Ontario to replace the transition money to ease the downloading initiatives by the Tory government.

The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association and the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities have been asking for this fund for a year and a half. If indeed this is the case and we are going to get that permanent fund, we in opposition will be very happy because it will acknowledge our repeated requests that our northern municipalities be treated with respect and a permanent fund be set up.

Minister, I ask you to live up to the commitment made by your parliamentary assistant not once but twice when he said, "It's done; it's a done deal." I challenge the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to prove to me, to Dalton McGuinty, to the northern Liberal caucus, and to every member in this House that you will live up to the commitment made by your parliamentary assistant.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Guzzo letter, part 3.

"Now let me ask the question straight out: Is there a double standard in this caucus? Is there one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another group? Does it matter to any of the members of our caucus who sat on a committee and sabotaged the plan for the Ottawa Market that the biggest vendor on the market today is the National Grocery chain which moves a freezer truck in at 5:30 am every Saturday morning? Who gives a damn about the local growers who have supported the market over the past 75 years? Certainly not the members of our caucus who failed to appreciate the local impact.

"Please be assured that I do not need to be advised that we are all on the same team! I know who is on my team every time I go to the Ottawa Market on a Saturday morning and will be reminded again by Ontario PCs in the Ottawa area who continually ask how someone could vote for the megacity but continue to support 12 municipalities for 700,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton. I do appreciate that your job is a difficult one at the best of times. I do appreciate that it is not made any easier when people who cannot act as adults come snivelling around asking you to break the rules and assist in sabotage. It is true that one cannot expect professional, or even maturity in all members of a caucus totalling 82, but one can certainly expect it from the chief government whip."

We knew there were double standards in this government for the people of Ontario. We knew there were double standards in this House for the government versus opposition. We didn't know it existed within the Tory caucus.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There's a lot of noise in here, but in fairness to the chief government whip, I would like to ask unanimous consent for him to respond.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? No. I heard a no.

TOURISM

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I am pleased to announce that my riding of Lanark-Renfrew has become a partner with Ontario Tourism to celebrate Ontario Tourism Week, May 18 to 24. I have a newspaper advertisement on the importance of tourism which was placed by Marie Elmsley, tourism coordinator for Lanark county, the maple syrup capital of eastern Ontario and of Ontario as a province. As well, Marie Cheesman, tourism coordinator for Renfrew, has invited me to the annual "Blackfly Barbecue" for about 100 area tourism stakeholders next week, Tourism Week.

I would like to salute both Lanark and Renfrew counties for their diligent marketing efforts on behalf of eastern Ontario tourism. Stakeholders of tourism and small business in my riding have told me they are thrilled with the new emphasis this government has placed on this very exciting and revenue-producing industry, and I have the minister with me here this afternoon to support me on that.

Some $120 million has been budgeted to assist with the marketing of tourism ventures over the next four years. We estimate 56,000 jobs in eastern Ontario. We know this number will increase significantly.

I encourage all members to work with the tourism industry in their communities in celebrating Ontario Tourism Week.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm rising on a point of order because the member for Lanark-Renfrew was using a prop, that being the minister, and that's just not allowed in this House.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The minister is not a prop.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à empêcher la syndicalisation en ce qui concerne la participation communautaire visée par la Loi de 1997 sur le programme Ontario au travail.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1347 to 1352.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the bill, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Ecker, Janet

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 24.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to implement The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption / Projet de loi 23, Loi de mise en application de la Convention de La Haye sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): This bill would see the Hague convention on intercountry adoption finally ratified in Ontario. The government and the minister have given their support to this bill. The legislation would finally bring the convention into force in Ontario. Without this ratification, many families have been caught in what amounts to a bureaucratic nightmare, so I urge the government to move forward and pass this legislation on behalf of all those families that have been waiting.

TECHNOLOGY FOR CLASSROOMS TAX CREDIT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT FAVORISANT L'EMP/ LOI DE LA TECHNOLOGIE DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE

Mr Hastings moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 24, An Act to amend the Education Act and the Income Tax Act to provide for a tax credit for private sector investment in classroom technology / Projet de loi 24, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation et la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu pour créer un crédit d'impôt pour les investissements du secteur privé dans la technologie employée dans les salles de classe.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Is that a tax bill?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't know.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This sounds, although we haven't seen the bill itself, as if -

The Speaker: I think I'll finish the vote and then I'll deal with the point of order.

Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker -

The Speaker: Order. We're in the middle of -

Mr Wildman: Is it in order for him to introduce it?

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I will deal with that directly after I finish the vote.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

A short comment from the member from Rexdale.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): The purpose of this bill is to provide for private sector investment in computer software and hardware so that it could be appropriately donated to school boards.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, point of order.

Mr Wildman: Frankly, just on hearing the title of the bill and the explanation from the private member, it appears to me that this is an attempt by a member who is not part of the government bench to introduce a tax measure, that this is a bill that would provide for a tax credit, which only a member of the treasury bench can introduce in the House in order for it to be in order. It sounds to me like this is simply an attempt by the government to put through a government bill using a private member. If they want to do this, it should be a member of the treasury bench.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I haven't read the bill and I won't until it's printed. When it's printed, I will review the bill and report back to the House.

Mr Hastings: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In point of fact, this particular bill also was introduced last December 18 and there was no objection at that time on this basis.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, his is a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, I'm not going to debate with you. His is a point of order. I'll take it under advisement. Yours is not a point of order.

1400

VISITORS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May I be given the opportunity to introduce in the House Mrs Shirley Lewis, the clerk to both levels of the Houses of Parliament in Jamaica?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, but that's out of order.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I would also like to rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have the pleasure of introducing grade 13 law students from Emery Collegiate Institute and their teacher.

The Speaker: Let's remember, members, that's not a point of order. In fact, it's out of order. I know full well, member for Yorkview, that you didn't know. I may introduce people, actually, so that's what I'm going to do now.

I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Bulgaria led by the Honourable Jordan Sokolov, president of the National Assembly, and also Mr Dimitar Philipov, consul general, Republic of Bulgaria. Welcome.

Now that was in order.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to take the opportunity to allow the House to have the privilege of welcoming Mr Ignat Kaneff, who is here as our guest today, and is one of the leading philanthropist citizens of our great province, for which he received an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Toronto. He also is from Bulgaria.

The Speaker: Welcome. That's as much in order as the member for Yorkview was, as a matter of fact.

Since we're at it, is anyone else here?

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since we are at it and you're being so lenient, I would like to introduce a grade 12 class from Chatham Collegiate Institute in the gallery.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps the remaining guests could simply stand one at a time and introduce themselves.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO WORKS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): People on welfare across Ontario have told me that Ontario Works is working. Taxpayers have told me they want welfare to offer real assistance and links to employment. This government will not stand by and allow some labour leaders to stop these valuable and productive reforms to our welfare system.

Some union representatives have chosen to try and prevent the government from moving forward with Ontario Works, our mandatory workfare program, either by -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members, the minister has the right to make the statement. You'll get a chance to respond. I ask you to save your comments till then. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Some union representatives have chosen to try and prevent the government from moving forward with Ontario Works, our mandatory work-for-welfare program, either by threatening to unionize -

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Hey, Ecker, your armband's slipping.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, that's out of order. I ask you to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I caution you again, that is out of order. I ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn again.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: They have done this either by threatening to unionize welfare recipients who participate in community participation or by harassing community agencies.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I caution the members. I caution the members for Welland-Thorold and Hamilton Centre, please come to order. Your response time is immediately following this. I ask you to use your time then. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They have chosen to do this either by threatening to unionize welfare recipients who participate in community placement or by harassing the community agencies that are offering to help. Just last week the London and District Labour Council threatened to picket 48 community organizations and to withdraw their financial donations if those agencies participated in Ontario Works to help people on welfare get back into the workforce.

Today I am introducing An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997. This bill, if passed, would provide that the Labour Relations Act, 1995, does not apply with respect to participants in a community participation activity under the Ontario Works Act. Its purpose would be to prevent those participants from unionizing or striking. Individuals participating in community placements would continue to have basic health and safety protections.

This bill indicates that we are determined to complete our fundamental reform of the welfare system, that we are determined to implement changes that will help people get back to work.

Members will recall that the Legislature passed the Ontario Works Act during the last session. By introducing Ontario Works, this government kept its commitment for fundamental reform by creating a mandatory workfare program. The program provides hope to welfare recipients and taxpayers alike by breaking the cycle of welfare dependency.

Ontario Works is aimed at creating critical links between welfare recipients and employment. The program has three key elements: community participation, employment support and employment placement. It provides access to work experience, job search, basic education, job-specific skills training and referrals to job placements. It also provides financial assistance to people in need.

Community participation is a fundamental element of Ontario Works. Community placements provide welfare recipients with the opportunity to contribute to their communities, to acquire skills, to gain work experience and to make contacts for future employment. Ontario Works is now in place across the province. Ontario Works is making welfare work. More than 273,000 people have participated in one or more of the program's mandatory activities, and over a quarter of a million people have moved off welfare since June 1995.

This bill would be another step in our plan for welfare reform. By protecting the integrity of Ontario Works, it would enable the full benefits of our welfare reform initiative to be achieved for those on welfare who want to escape the dependency cycle and for the taxpayers who pay for the system.

Ontario Works restores the welfare system to its original purpose: a transitional program of last resort that provides people on welfare with a stepping stone back into the workforce. Union opposition will not deflect us from our goal. This bill, if passed, would ensure that welfare recipients continue to have the opportunity to benefit from community participation.

We are determined to move forward with these valuable and productive reforms to our welfare system. It is a promise we made to the people of Ontario, and it is a promise we intend to keep.

1410

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I wish I could say that this bill surprises me, but the fact is it does not. The government continues unabated the war it wages against the poor of this province and also against unions.

What I would have preferred the minister to do today was to get up and acknowledge a serious crisis that's taking place, that's unfolding today as we speak in Ontario. There are 500,000 children in Ontario today who are growing up behind the eight ball. Either they're growing up in poverty, or they are the subject of abuse or the subject of neglect, or they are suffering from emotional or psychological problems.

There are 71,000 children in Toronto needing food banks today. That is a 65% increase over the year 1995. There were 600 families in 1997 - there are more today, but 1997 is the last year we have figures for - living in emergency shelters in the city of Toronto. There are 30,000 eligible families in Ontario as of 1997 on the waiting list for child care subsidies. In Ontario today, only 16% of our children needing children's mental health care are actually getting treatment.

The minister and the other members of her government are suffering from a terrible dearth of positive public policy ideas. I have some help for her, and in fact I've delivered it to her in the past. It's a program that I and my party have put together called First Steps. This makes it clear that there are certain kinds of things we can do today to address the needs of kids in Ontario who are growing up at risk. What I want to do now is to refresh the minister's memory with respect to some of the ideas I have put forward.

First of all, we believe that in Ontario, junior kindergarten should be available in every single community right across this province. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce came to this precinct some four or five weeks ago and pleaded with the Premier to fund junior kindergarten and make it available throughout the province.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, you are not making your statement now.

Mr McGuinty: We've also suggested, Madam Minister - and it would be in your interest to pay some attention here - that every mother and newborn child should have the right to remain in the hospital for at least 48 hours after delivery of a newborn baby. Today in Ontario, as a result of cutbacks to our hospitals, mothers of newborn babies are being discharged, together with their baby, at or around the 24-hour mark. Mothers have asked that they be permitted to stay in the hospital together with their newborn babies for at least 48 hours. I think you ought to recognize that basic right.

Something else: We have also suggested to you that every newborn child and mother be visited by a public health nurse shortly after they return to their home. That is something we have done in the past. It's of positive value.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, I think you should give them a chance to respond if you want the chance to make a statement.

Mr McGuinty: She's got all the answers when she's sitting down heckling but she has none when she's standing up.

We have also suggested, in an effort to help parents who are caught up in the struggle to juggle workplace responsibilities and responsibilities on the home front, that in the case of middle-sized and large Ontario companies, those employees be permitted to take time off work to provide -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the members come to order, please, both sides.

Mr McGuinty: We have also, as I was saying, recommended to the minister and her government that middle-sized and large Ontario companies provide some basic assistance to their employees who are caught up in this struggle to juggle workplace responsibilities and responsibilities on the home front. Those employees ought to be entitled to take unpaid time off work to stay at home to look after a sick child or a sick parent or some other member of the family. We believe that you shouldn't have to choose between the job you need and the family you love.

The Speaker: Responses.

Mr Kormos: I'm pleased that we understand where the Liberal Party leader is on this issue. He clearly doesn't support mandatory opportunity, which was the Liberal version of workfare when they campaigned in 1995. He clearly doesn't support mandatory opportunity for children under five.

Let me say this to you, Speaker. This is the foulest, most repugnant bit of legislation to enter this chamber -

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Let's talk about the social contract.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): What about the social contract, Peter?

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury, member for Hamilton East, come to order. The member for Welland-Thorold has the floor and it's time for the response of the third party. I ask the House to come to order. Member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: - foulest, most repugnant, vilest piece of legislation to have come across this House in the last two and a half years plus.

This government is making quite clear what its intentions are with respect to workfare, and that is that it has every intention of expanding workfare very clearly and very soon and very quickly into the private sector because it hasn't worked and hasn't been working in the public sector. Once that happens, the jobs - oh yes, they're the low-wage jobs and the part-time jobs. They're the ones that the few students who are able to work, who have the opportunity, are working at to try to pay ever-increasing tuition fees. It means that those jobs are going to be displaced by Ms Ecker's workfare participants.

She's gone one further. We've heard in this House, coming from this government, two issues - once as a bill, once as a resolution - both of them attacking the Rand formula, a direct attack on the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain in this province, a right that was won over the course of decades and generations with great sacrifice.

I know that when I speak, the people in Welland-Thorold and the folks back in Crowland remember the era that Ms Ecker wants to restore. They remember back in the 1930s - yes, in Crowland, when relief workers were stood guard by Mitch Hepburn's OPP, armed with rifles, and forced to dig sewers - when those workers attempted to organize. Those workers prevailed because they weren't afraid of the jackboots of Mitch Hepburn, and I tell you, their children and grandchildren are not afraid of the bully tactics of Harris and his corporate buddy gang here.

We know full well what this bill is all about. This bill is all about telling working people, those most desperate people who have been unemployed for so long because this government has failed miserably in its commitment to create 700,000-plus jobs - oh yes, we know there are new jobs out there, inevitably minimum-wage, part-time and temporary. Those jobs aren't jobs that people support families on. Those jobs are part of this government's low-wage agenda.

I tell you, this government is launching an all-out attack on the rights of working people to collectively bargain. I think they've taken on a little more than they bargained for. They wanted to draw a line in the sand. Well, Ms Ecker, today you have.

Let me tell you this. People in this province and in this country struggled for the right of freedom of association. I ask you if you questioned the Attorney General about how much of a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms this bill will constitute in that it precludes, forbids, people working together to associate into a collective bargaining unit.

It's a repugnant exercise on the part of a government that once again is showing its true colours, creating a low-wage economy in this province, crushing the trade union movement and making workers victims of the whim and whimsy of their bosses.

1420

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Further to the comments of my colleague from Welland-Thorold, this bill is entitled "An Act to Prevent Unionization," and then goes on to say what this is about. I would say to anybody watching this in the province of Ontario, get ready, because when you follow the Tory agenda, the day is going to come when it says, "An act to prevent unionization of your job." You're going to be next. This government has plucked off parts of our society one after another after another. People are beginning to realize, "If it wasn't me yesterday and it's not me today, by God, with Mike Harris and the Tories it's bound to be me tomorrow." That's the agenda of this government.

We've already seen the impact of you making scabs legal again in Ontario. That's okay with you. We've seen you deny injured workers decent compensation when they're injured on the job through no fault of their own. You've gone after poor children, nurses, teachers, public sector workers one after another. And let's not be kidded by the Liberals, who talk about mandatory opportunities - doublespeak for the same thing. Either a government believes in the rights of workers, and part of those rights are to organize, or not. Clearly, this government is anti-union, anti-worker, anti-anybody who's not a Tory.

A cell phone rang.

The Speaker: There are no cell phones allowed in the chamber.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday I visited a high school in Sault Ste Marie. You may be familiar with the terrible unemployment problem they're facing in the Sault. They have an unemployment level there approaching 20%. I had the opportunity to speak with some students at a high school, and one of the things they've become very concerned about, obviously, is what you're doing to tuition fees in Ontario.

They understand, perhaps more than students in any other community in this province, about the value of post-secondary education. They know that if they're going to get a job, it's absolutely essential that they go on to college or university. They asked me a very simple question, and I'm going to put it to you, Minister, to give you an opportunity to respond: Why is their government making it so hard for them to go on to university?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Far from it. There are more full-time students at universities and colleges today than ever in the history of the province. Certainly, there are more students at our post-secondary institutions than there were in 1985 to 1990, when the Liberals were in power, or indeed at any other time.

The member opposite doesn't agree with our total program to open up more opportunities to ensure accessibility, to enhance the quality of our post-secondary institutions. The Leader of the Opposition prefers the status quo. But not everybody agrees. The Council of Ontario Universities has written a letter to the Toronto Star today which indicates with regard to our post-secondary policy:

"This is a good policy. It will increase opportunities for young people to get the high-quality educations they so urgently require."

That's what this government is about, more opportunities for our young people.

Mr McGuinty: You can speak on behalf of the two dozen or so Ontario universities. I want to speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of students, both in our universities and in our high schools, with dreams of going on to university. I want you to keep in mind that we've got an OAC class here behind you and a grade 12 class behind me. I want you to tell them why it was okay for us, all those sitting in this Legislature today who benefited from affordable post-secondary education, who understood how important that was to us and our opportunities in life, how we benefited from that, how we found success in life, how we enjoy greater incomes, how we enjoy a better quality of life, why that was okay for us. It was deemed by our parents to be important for us to have.

Why is it that your government is suddenly sending them the message that you're going to increase tuition fees by 60%; that if they want to go on to medical school, they'll have to pay up to $10,000 or $11,000 in tuition alone every year? Why is it that you've changed your mind when it comes to our responsibilities to our young?

Hon David Johnson: If we're talking about whom we're speaking on behalf of, maybe the Leader of the Opposition would bring us up to date on the federal thinking on this matter, the federal Liberal government which has reduced assistance to the people of Ontario, to the students of Ontario, to those who need health care in Ontario by over $2 billion. What's the thinking there? Who are the Liberals speaking on behalf of when they're reducing assistance to students and health care recipients by over $2 billion? Whom are the Liberals speaking on behalf of when they refuse to be involved in an income-contingent program to assist our post-secondary students?

When his party was in power, the maximum direct assistance to students in Ontario was about $200 million a year. Today, under a Progressive Conservative government, the direct assistance to post-secondary students is two and a half times that amount at over $500 million to help our post-secondary-institution students.

Mr McGuinty: If there is such a terrible shortage of money in Ontario and we can't possibly provide the necessary money to our universities and we've got to have our students come up with that money, why is it that we can afford a $5.5-billion tax cut? It's simply a question of priorities.

Ontario is suffering from academic anorexia. You are starving our universities. Every other jurisdiction in North America has put more money into their universities. You have cut funding to our universities by 15%. Suddenly it's okay to saddle our students with tremendous debt loads so they come out of university now with, on average, a $25,000 debt. With your new system of deregulated fees, if they do three years undergrad and three years medical school, they're looking easily at a cost of $75,000 to $80,000 in tuition fees.

Why is it that all of a sudden in Ontario we have decided that the future of our children is not such a high priority? We have decided that when it comes to their dreams, their hopes, their aspirations, and the dreams, hopes and aspirations of middle-class parents right across Ontario, that is no longer a priority.

Hon David Johnson: The Leader of the Opposition has asked, "What is this a question of?" Well, this is a question of quality.

Your government, when it was in power, allowed tuitions to go up by 35% and there were no strings attached. We have indicated that if a post-secondary institute is to raise tuition, then there must be a quality improvement plan attached to the tuition increase. We must see an improvement in the quality of education for our students.

Second, it is a question of accessibility and the billions of dollars of student assistance that this government has committed to: $9 billion in the Canada-Ontario millennium scholarship; $600 million of direct infusion over the next three years in provincial support. It's a matter of ensuring accessibility.

Finally, it's a matter of opportunity. Through our programs, 17,000 more young people will have an opportunity for the programs they want.

1430

TEXTBOOKS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Minister of Education. I have a copy of a letter to you dated May 11, 1998, from Jack Stoddart, president of the Association of Canadian Publishers. You have opened up the bidding on the production of textbooks to be used in Ontario schools. Something that Mr Stoddart says that is of great concern to him, and it's of great concern to me as well, is the following. He says that under the old rules, apparently learning materials to be used by Ontario students had to be both Canadian-authored and Canadian-manufactured, but under the bidding process you've opened up, it's an either/or situation now; that the books could very well be both produced in the United States and authored in the United States. I'm just wondering if this is true. Are we going to have American-authored and American-produced textbooks used in Ontario by Ontario students?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Here we go again. The opposition party several months ago raised the issue of the teams that would be doing the reforms of the secondary school curriculum and said we were opening it up for Americans, that we were going to allow many people from New Zealand or England or some other awful country, according to the Leader of the Opposition, to be party to the writing of the secondary school reform.

We have confidence in the people of Ontario, we have confidence in the publishers and we have confidence in the teachers of Ontario. We opened up the process, and each and every bit for the secondary school reform was won by a team right here from Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, I know, it makes a great headline.

We want the best for our students. We want the best opportunities for our students and we have the greatest confidence that the publishers and the teachers in the province of Ontario will deliver.

Mr McGuinty: I take it from that that what the minister is saying on behalf of the Mike Harris government is that it is acceptable in Ontario today for American-produced and -authored textbooks to be used inside Ontario primary school classrooms. That's what you're saying. Our kids, apparently, aren't getting enough of a steady diet of American TV. Now what we're going to do, apparently, is we're going to allow American-produced and American-authored textbooks to be used inside our classrooms.

Our kids know a lot more about Abraham Lincoln than they do about Sir John A. Macdonald. They know more about Bill Clinton than they do about Bill Davis. I think, and I want to put this on record, that it is important for our textbooks to be authored in Canada by Canadians, for use inside Canadian classrooms. If the minister disagrees, then I want to hear him.

Hon David Johnson: This is quite a slam at the teachers of the province who are writing the secondary school curriculum. The leader is saying that somehow, according to him, our teachers don't have the smarts to write Canadian history and Ontario history into the curriculum of the province of Ontario but, instead, that they are choosing to write about Abe Lincoln and American history.

I can tell you, I have a lot more confidence than that in the teachers of Ontario who are writing the curriculum for the province of Ontario. I'm confident that we'll get the best product for our students here in the province so that they can have the best-quality education.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure what the minister is answering, but he is surely not answering my questions. I'm going to give him another opportunity.

You are about to permit American-published, American-produced and American-authored textbooks to be used inside our primary schools in Ontario. That's the issue here, and I want you to join this debate. I want you to stand up and tell me that is a good and healthy and positive development in the history of the delivery of public education in Ontario. That's what I want you to do right now. You stand up and tell me that this is a good thing for Ontario children, that they're not getting enough American TV, are not subject to enough of an American influence, but now we're going to have our textbooks crafted, carefully produced, authored and published in the United States of America for use in our classrooms.

I think that is an unhealthy development, and I want to know what you think about it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Etobicoke-Humber and Nepean and the Chairman of Management Board, come to order, please.

Hon David Johnson: This is a public call and is open to any publisher who has print-based learning materials that meet the criteria stated in the call document. Learning materials submitted are to be written by a Canadian citizen or citizens, or permanent residents of Canada, and produced or manufactured in Canada. I think that probably answers the question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Cambridge, that's out of order. I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I withdraw.

Hon David Johnson: The question has come up in the Toronto Star, what are the Liberals offering voters on education? It's not at all clear, is the conclusion drawn in the Toronto Star. However, two of the major unions had tables in the lobby of the convention hotel to disseminate literature during the Liberals' recent convention, and they dominated discussion. Perhaps that's what we can expect, that's where we should look in terms of the future of education from the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member forget to mention that Steve Gilchrist was at the convention also.

The Speaker: Order.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Health, I will address this question to, I gather, the minister of everything today, the Minister of Education.

Minister, yesterday we heard the Premier try to tell us that everything in the health care system was wonderful and that there are no problems. I want to tell you about the ordeal of Angela Ferns from Pembroke, who was admitted to Pembroke General Hospital. She was very ill. She was suffering from liver failure, so despite the fact that they had no beds, they admitted her, but because there were no beds they put her on a stretcher in a storage room. Halfway through the night the nurse came by and took her out of the storage room and put her in the hallway because the storage room was becoming too hot.

Minister, do you believe it's appropriate in the health care system of Ontario that critically ill patients are put on stretchers in storage rooms overnight?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): This is a situation that I'm obviously unfamiliar with. As a government, we feel that all the people of Ontario should get first-rate, excellent-quality health care in Ontario, and if any circumstance such as the leader of the third party has described has indeed happened, that people are in unsuitable circumstances at a temperature that is inappropriate, then obviously I cannot condone that. I'm sure that the Minister of Health would be anxious to hear about this matter. I assure the leader of the third party that I will pass along this concern to her.

Mr Hampton: Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. The next morning it became clear that Mrs Ferns was very ill: 80% of her liver function was gone and she had to be moved to a larger centre which would have the specialized resources and facilities to treat her. They tried to move her to Ottawa, but the Ottawa hospital said, "Sorry, we don't have the capacity right now to be able to deal with this patient." After 24 hours of searching, for a very ill patient, she had to be flown to the London Health Sciences Centre.

The irony is that at the London Health Sciences Centre they didn't have enough beds either. In the space of one month while she was there, she was forced out of hospital three times and had to be re-admitted three times, all because of the shortage of beds.

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

Mr Hampton: She was so ill that they wouldn't allow her to return home. They put her in a hostel home where she could be monitored.

Minister, do you think it's appropriate in Ontario's health care system -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I refer this to the Chair of Management Board. I understand he has some material pertaining to it.

1440

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On the specifics of this issue, I think everyone has a great deal of empathy and compassion for the family in the predicament. To answer your question specifically, no, that's not acceptable, and I think you know that.

This government's been trying to take every step within its means to make sure we address that. Just a couple of weeks ago and again in the budget, you know full well that this government committed an additional $75 million to respond to the hospital emergency task force to ensure that hospitals have the flexibility to meet these needs.

On the specifics, I think you got an answer from the Minister of Education that we'll ask the Minister of Health to look into the particulars on this case.

Mr Hampton: These are the same words we hear all the time. The fact is, this is a government that has taken $800 million out of hospital funding and has created a very serious situation in our hospitals.

Fortunately, this story gets better. Mrs Ferns got better. She did not need to have a liver transplant. To put it in her own words, she says, "I received excellent care from overworked and under-resourced doctors and support staff in both facilities, but they are forced to work in impossible conditions, placing critically ill people in storerooms, fighting to get emergency transportation, hopscotching sick patients in and out of hospitals, from room to room, to deal with the bed shortage."

The problem is this, Minister. Your government can find the money to finance a $5.5-billion tax scheme which is going to benefit only the wealthiest people in this province. Why can't you find the $300 million the hospitals of Ontario need and that they've told you about in order to maintain quality patient care?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I appreciate the question from across the way because it allows us to remind the third party that under their policies of 65 tax increases between the Liberals and the NDP over 10 years, our revenues went down, our capacity to provide the programs that are needed for our public went down.

This government, because of the tax cuts, has created the economy's economic growth. We've been able to make reinvestments and announcements on long-term-care beds. We've also taken the tough choices of restructuring our health care system. This is a huge system. The public of Ontario realizes it's complicated and realizes that the problem needed to be addressed years ago, but other governments lack the courage to do it. Our government is doing that. It takes time to restructure and it means that at the end of the day, after this restructuring, we will have more capacity in the system to help more people in the province, whether it's in long-term-care beds or in emergency rooms, to try to avoid these situations that are developing.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the Minister of Education and Training. It is along the same lines as the last, only it deals with education. Minister, when you released the so-called new funding formula, the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board was told that its budget would only be cut by $2 million a year, but now the board has done its own analysis of the figures provided by you, and the result is that the budget has been cut by $9 million a year. You told the Toronto District Board of Education that their budget would be cut by $19 million a year. They've analysed the numbers and it now turns out to be a cut of $92 million a year.

Even the boards that you said were supposed to get an increase are discovering that the increase isn't there. For example, the Durham Catholic District School Board was told they would get a $13-million-a-year increase in budget. They've discovered, after analysing the figures, that it's only $4 million a year, clearly not adequate for their population.

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

Mr Hampton: How many school boards have had their funding reduced or changed since your announcement at the end of March and how many have had further reductions -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The total amount of money going into the system has actually increased over 1997. The amount of money for the 1998-99 school year will be more than the money spent in 1997 for all the boards across Ontario. In round terms, about $13.4 billion will be spent in 1998-99 and it was roughly $13.3 billion and change in 1997. That doesn't include the teachers' pension fund, of course, which is on top of that again.

Each and every board, all 72 boards across the province of Ontario, have more moneys in the classroom. That's more moneys for teachers, for textbooks, teachers' assistants, computers in the classroom, guidance, libraries, moneys to assist in the classroom. Every board in Ontario has more money. That's exactly what we said we would do in the Common Sense Revolution: focus on the classroom, cut the administration, cut the waste. That's exactly what the formula does.

Mr Hampton: The problem is, some of these boards believed you. They believed the numbers that you gave them. Then they started doing their own analysis of the numbers. The Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board found that they're $7 million short of what you told them they would get. They need to know within 18 days how many teachers they have to lay off for September. They have to figure out how many secretaries and educational assistants will be getting permanent layoff notices at the end of the school year instead of the normal two-month layoffs.

The Keewatin-Patricia board has had to lay off 200 staff. They're waiting to know what the final numbers are going to be. Peel has laid off, as you know, 400 teachers. The Geraldton composite high school has laid off one third of the teachers in the school because they discovered they can't rely on your numbers. School boards across the province are finding that they're having to make very difficult decisions, even more difficult because your numbers weren't true. When are those boards going to get the real numbers from you?

Hon David Johnson: The boards know the numbers now. The technical, final calculations will be completed over the next month or so, but they know almost precisely the amount of money they're going to get now. Each and every board knows that they will have more money in the classrooms in the province of Ontario.

I was talking to a board form the Ottawa area which is now in the process of recruiting 200 more teachers. Just about all of the notices that have gone out are quite different from actual layoffs. It's not untraditional. Every year boards do this. They send out a whole raft of notices -

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): A big scare.

Hon David Johnson: - a big scare, as the minister says, but then in the final analysis they withdraw those notices. Particularly in combination with the early retirement factor, there will be more teachers in the classrooms of Ontario over the next year. There will be 3,000 more teachers in the classrooms of Ontario over the next three years.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The minister, in the past, has justified the cuts in urban areas like Toronto and Ottawa on the basis that rural boards would get more. We now know that the Hastings and Prince Edward District board has $9 million less. Now he's saying that all the boards will have more money in the classroom.

Does the minister know that on Monday night the Hastings and Prince Edward District board decided to establish a charitable foundation in order to make up for the cuts to the classrooms that your funding formula has produced? The children of Hastings and Prince Edward District will be returning to school in September with cuts to supply teachers, teachers' assistants and computers, all part of the classroom funding according to your formula. Now they're looking to philanthropists to make up the difference.

In London, we had the first public high school in Ontario establish itself with charitable status because of your cuts under your funding formula. Now this board is looking for charitable dollars for essential classroom tools such as computers. How do you justify, under your funding formula, Ontario schools and school boards having to turn to charity to meet the educational needs of the schools?

Hon David Johnson: The member has referred to a justification of cuts. I'm not concerned about the cuts, because the cuts are on administration; the cuts are on the bureaucracy; the cuts are on the waste. The cuts are on the fact that in Metropolitan Toronto there were seven administrative buildings. Now we have one board; we need one administrative building. The cuts are on the waste and the duplication.

But on the other side of the ledger there is extra money going into the system: more money for computers, more money for teachers, more money for students, more money for the classroom, each and every board. There's $100 million in the budget for textbooks and resources going into our classrooms, $12 million for scientific equipment going into our classrooms. There will be more money spent than ever in the history of Ontario in education over the next year, but it will be spent where it needs to be spent: right in the classrooms of the province of Ontario for our students and our teachers.

1450

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the absence of the Premier, to whom I'd like to direct this question, I'll direct it to the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet.

Minister, there's a very serious situation that has arisen in the Harris government, one which I think reflects badly upon the ethics of your government and upon an agency which reports directly to the Premier of this province. It appears that the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, headed by David Lindsay, former Conservative candidate, former principal secretary to Mike Harris, former director of PC communications, an agency which is supposed to be completely non-partisan, has become a propaganda machine for the Conservative Party.

Arriving in almost four million Ontario mailboxes this week is a clearly partisan pamphlet which has cost the taxpayers of this province three quarters of a million dollars.

Minister, will you now admit that the Harris government has established this new agency as a re-election propaganda agency for the Conservative Party, funded by the taxpayers of this province?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I welcome the question because I think it's important that the government communicate with the public, with the taxpayers, to be held accountable for what we're doing and what's taking place in the province. I'll challenge the member to compare our advertising budget with any other advertising budgets from past governments, if he wants to take a look at the Liberal government in the late 1980s and what they spent on advertising.

The jobs and investment secretariat is there to promote economic growth, to look for ideas on how to expand the economy even more. I know it's a foreign concept to opposition parties that our party wants to see our economy grow so there are expanded opportunities for young people to get the jobs that are required in the next century. One of the things they're doing is telling the public what they're doing and looking for ideas on how to improve economic growth.

Mr Bradley: It's really a matter of integrity when you do this. If the Conservative Party were to put out a pamphlet like this, I wouldn't object to it. That's what a party does. If you paid for it out of the funds that you have in the Conservative Party, I'd say that's quite all right. I don't even object when you have $50 million in a fund which is going to promote Ontario in some way. I don't object to that.

What I think the people of this province justifiably object to is the use of political propaganda, the use of an agency of government, the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, to purvey this kind of clearly partisan propaganda.

Will you now, on behalf of the government, reimburse the taxpayers of this province with Progressive Conservative funds for this pamphlet, which is clearly partisan in nature, which clearly has no purpose other than to shed a favourable light on the Conservative Party and your colleagues?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think in general it's important that the government explain to the people of Ontario what they're doing. Specifically to his question, if the member from the opposition wants an answer to that specifically, we all know in this House that he asked the Speaker for a ruling on government advertising. He said he was going to refer it to the Integrity Commissioner. I invite him to do that with his new allegations and see what the Integrity Commissioner has to say.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training. The Minister will know that there is a shortage of occasional teachers and supply teachers in some boards across Ontario. He will also know that there are many students who have completed their studies at faculties of education, completed their exams, and are available to supply-teach, and it would help them start paying off their student loans, which have grown substantially.

Why is it that your government is prohibiting them from supply teaching if there is a space available for them this month and in June?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not sure precisely what the member from the third party is referring to. I will say that in terms of the general teacher situation across the province of Ontario over the next few years, I share the concern that there could indeed be a shortage of teachers, particularly in certain pursuits.

I remember being at one function when a young lady came up to me and said that she was caught by all the fuss at that particular time. She wanted to be a teacher in the future and she wondered whether I would advise her to be a teacher. I said, "Absolutely." I think there are great opportunities for young people getting into a teaching career. Particularly in certain subject areas - mathematics is one area, perhaps science - there will be a real shortage of teachers with these kinds of qualifications.

I'm certainly happy to talk to the member opposite about a particular concern he has, but in general the ministry is going to do everything it can to assist young people getting into the teaching profession.

Mr Wildman: We know from the minister's previous answer that school boards and schools are now having to turn to charity to hire teachers. We know the chair of the Thunder Bay board has said that even though they need more teachers, the funding formula won't enable them to hire more teachers.

My question is specifically related to students who have completed their studies at faculties of education, written their exams last month, and are available to teach now as occasional teachers and supply teachers. It's my understanding that the Ontario College of Teachers has informed them they cannot take the positions that are available to teach this month and next month when they are needed by the boards. In fact they could help the students in the high schools and elementary schools and, yes, they could pay off some of their student loan.

Why is that? Why don't you ensure that these people who want to teach, who have the initiative to get out there and do it, will be able to do so?

Hon David Johnson: I understand this is a matter that does involve the College of Teachers, which is not under the direct authority of the provincial government. It is composed of a body of 14 representatives from the teachers, 14 representatives from government, and three more, who make up a total 31-member board. They direct affairs of the College of Teachers. There is some situation there that is preventing these people from being involved. I will give my undertaking to the member that I will discuss this matter with the College of Teachers to see if there isn't something that can be done to ease that flow.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): This question is addressed to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. It concerns an issue I have been involved with since I was a crown attorney in Hamilton.

The former NDP government in 1992 disbanded the joint forces unit in Hamilton and as a result there was no agency specifically designed to investigate organized crime, and that includes biker gangs. It was my impression then, and still is, that biker gangs have been allowed to flourish and aggressively carry on with their criminal activities. Can the Solicitor General tell me what is being done to correct this situation?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to thank the member for Wentworth North for his question. As a former crown attorney, he certainly knows that in many cases biker gangs are not the free-spirited, Easy Rider romantics they would have us believe. In many cases they are criminals, internationally organized criminals involved in activities such as the illegal narcotics trade, contract killings, kidnappings, prostitution, extortion, robbery, assault, fraud and theft.

That is why we announced in the recent budget an immediate $3.4 million in additional funding for this fiscal year and $2.7 million in subsequent years to expand the Ontario Provincial Police anti-biker-gang squad. These funds will allow the OPP, the RCMP and 16 local police services, including the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Service, to crack down on biker gangs engaged in organized crime in Ontario.

Mr Skarica: I want to thank the Solicitor General for his answer because it demonstrates a clear contrast between this government and the priorities of the previous governments which frustrated those of us in the law enforcement community. As the government demonstrated in its recent budget, public safety and front-line policing are high on the priority list. Can the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to fulfil the commitments made for front-line policing in the recent budget and what the reaction has been thus far?

Hon Mr Flaherty: This government has committed over $150 million for new community safety initiatives over the next five years, which my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville worked very hard to develop. They include a $6-million program to hire 115 cadets for the Ontario Provincial Police to do non-operational tasks. This will free up a large number of Ontario Provincial Police front-line uniformed officers to return to the front lines of policing in Ontario; a community policing partnership program which will result in an additional 1,000 uniformed front-line police officers in Ontario to target high-crime areas.

The Niagara Regional Police Chief Grant Waddell said, "We can certainly use the help this program will give us." Durham Regional Police Chief Kevin McAlpine said: "I am very encouraged by this offer of assistance. Every new officer we can get out on patrol increases the level of service we can provide. Our goal is safe communities in Ontario."

1500

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. You're well aware of the OMA report, which became another slamming indictment of your ministry and your action as minister of this province when it comes to the environment. In their own words, "Air quality in Ontario is a public health crisis." We know that on peak pollution days 50% of all respiratory admissions to hospitals in Ontario are as a result of air pollution. We know that 1,400 hospital admissions a year are as a result of air pollution.

In the middle of this crisis, you have done absolutely nothing. You have cut your budget. You have delayed and reannounced and reannounced your program of vehicle emission testing, with no sign of this program beginning.

Understand this: This is a serious crisis. Ontarians are dying. Think of this for a second: Every single day of the year in this province, five Ontarians are dying as a result of poor air quality. Think of any other sector of our province, any other area of our province, where five people die per day as a result of one particular cause.

Very specifically, without the long-term picture here, what are you doing for June, July and August -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you for the question. Minister of the Environment, response.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): As you know, before I was the Minister of the Environment, I was very much involved with the whole issue of tobacco and controlling smoking in the workplace, as a forerunner of that legislation; in fact, 35 people die every day in Ontario as a result of tobacco smoking. That was something I attacked as an opposition member and was successful in dealing with.

We have done more in this government with regard to air quality than any of the previous governments before us. We have improved our air quality monitoring in Ontario. We have also taken an aggressive approach to dealing with the air quality standards we received, which had been neglected for some 20 years. Last year we lowered the volatility standards for gasoline in the province and recaptured some 18,000 tonnes of emissions which would have otherwise gone into the air during the summer.

We are proud of our record, and we are continuing to do more on this particular matter.

Mr Agostino: That is an amazing answer for an amazingly incompetent minister, who has done more to destroy - you have cut more money out of the MOE, you have cut more staff, you have cut more regulations, you have cut air monitoring stations, and the list goes on and on. That's what you've done. You have destroyed every single thing that had been built by government in Ontario when it comes to environmental protection.

I want to ask you specifically about smog for June, July and August, which you have refused to answer. There is no vehicle emission testing; we know that. The city of Toronto yesterday was the first municipality in this province to bring in an emergency smog plan, which means they now have a mechanism to at least try to minimize the impact of smog days across Ontario through certain actions.

Minister, you can take certain steps as well. You can, just for a change, just for once in your term as minister, show some leadership in this area. I want you to commit today that you as the minister will immediately bring in an emergency smog plan for Ontario and that you will mandate or require municipalities across this province to do the same thing to take care of the smog problem. Simply, how many more people have to die before you have the guts and the leadership to act?

Hon Mr Sterling: We hear much hyperbole from the member for Hamilton East with regard to this. But let me speak to the actual results.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I'm not warning you again. If you interrupt, I'm going to name you.

Hon Mr Sterling: The air quality index in Ontario is a measure of a number of pollutants in the air, including ozone. In 1989, the air quality index exceeded 31, which is moving from the good to moderate range, in 14,137 hours over that year. In 1996, when we are in power, it only exceeded that particular measure 11,802 hours. The result? Air quality is better now than it was in 1989. Air quality is better now, in spite of the huge growth which we have had in our economy and in spite of the fact that we have many more people in Ontario than we had before.

CASINO WINDSOR

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, it has been several weeks since your public musings about the possibility of three casinos being opened in the city of Windsor. We know that the Northern Belle riverboat casino is set to close shortly. The lease is going to expire on the temporary casino that's owned by the Art Gallery of Windsor. We don't know the date for the opening of the new casino. The people of Windsor are anxious to redevelop our waterfront.

You've said that all options are open, but you've provided absolutely no time lines. You've said that a business case could be made to have three casinos, but as far as I can tell, no one in the Windsor has seen those plans. Where are your business plans? Are they being prepared by some of the whiz kids over in the corner office? Why are you stalling? When are you going to make up your mind, take control of the management of the casino file and give our community the answers we deserve?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'm glad the member of the third party from Windsor asked the question. He is probably fully aware that when the NDP signed the agreement with the city of Windsor to have a casino back in 1993, one of the stipulations in the agreement was that the riverboat, which is a temporary site, would have to be moved, gone, off the waterfront. The second condition they agreed to, in a legal agreement, was that the art gallery, which was turned into the interim site, would be converted back to an art gallery.

I was asked if it was possible that the interim site could remain as an interim site or become more permanent instead of becoming an art gallery; and secondly, and specifically to his question about the riverboat, if it would be possible that it could stay where it is. I said it was possible, but there are two parties to the agreement. The city of Windsor would have to agree to that and the Ontario government would have to agree. From the interests of the Ontario government, there would have to be a business case to support that if we were to change that agreement.

Mr Lessard: We'd like to know who is working on that business case and when you're going to make it available. The Northern Belle is set to close on June 10. We want to know what's going to happen to the 900 employees who are working there. Certainly they and their families deserve some answers.

I have a copy of a letter addressed to you. It's dated April 23 and it's from Ken Lewenza. He's the president of CAW Local 444, which represents those employees. In it he states, "As a major stakeholder in any decision that may be made relative to casinos in this region..., I would suggest in the strongest terms that your government has a moral obligation, if not a legal responsibility, to consult with us before any decision is made."

Minister, don't you think that's a reasonable request? Have you taken any official steps to consult with the employees, the city of Windsor, the Art Gallery of Windsor and others who are going to be directly affected by your decisions?

Hon Mr Hodgson: This is probably the ultimate in hypocrisy, unless he's not talking to his local officials. Members from my staff and from the Management Board secretariat on gaming have met with the city officials as recently as last week. They were told by the city in no uncertain terms that they did not wish to have the boat remain where it is. They want it removed. It takes two parties to change an agreement that they both agreed to back in 1993. Surely your research department could have told you that.

1510

SPACE SCIENCES

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. My question relates to the awareness that all Canadians have regarding the importance of science and technology in today's knowledge-based economy. What I would like to know is, when you apply the new budget that was recently announced by the Minister of Finance and combine that with the involvement of some key people from this province, particularly Dr Dave Williams, a Sunnybrook physician who played a very key role as an astronaut in the recent space shuttle, and the participation of Spar Aerospace in that particular mission, what other companies have been involved in those missions and in this particular mission in the advance of space sciences in this province?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank my colleague from Etobicoke-Rexdale for making the comments he did with respect to the April 1988 NASA space shuttle. Ontarians can be very proud that we were involved in sponsorship of scientific experiments on that shuttle mission. It was called the neural lab. They were studying the effects of weightlessness on the nervous system. Ontario's primary involvement was through our centres of excellence. This is a program administered by my ministry. We spend some $32.3 million a year.

The Centre for Research in Earth and Space Technology, or CRESTech, as it was called, was involved in two experiments conducted on the neural lab mission. One experiment was the role of visual cues in spacial orientation. It studied the process by which astronauts orient themselves in microgravity. The other experiment was visual motor coordination during space flight. It involves the study of changes in movement during weightlessness that affect such things as pointing and grasping objects. The hardware for this experiment was provided by Magellan Aerospace Corp of Malton, Ontario. The expected spinoff from this will lead to new technologies for improving the way we detect neurological disorders.

Mr Hastings: Thank you very much for an informative answer, Minister. I'd like to know to what extent your ministry will play a greater in-depth role in the advancement of space sciences in this province, particularly when you look at the key employment numbers that Spar Aerospace carry out along with its functions: some 2,500 people involved in engineering, science and support staff.

Spar Aero is also involved in the telorobics technology and systems to support the national space missions of other agencies around the world. How will your ministry help to advance this particular sector of our vital space technology?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again I thank my colleague for the question. Our minister is very much involved and Ontarians are very much involved in the work being done by NASA. All the people of the world will benefit from the science on the space shuttle. We're working in cooperation with other companies and I'll just mention four briefly.

Sensor Technology from Collingwood in my riding of Simcoe West has been working with NASA for some 14 years. One of their latest projects was to test the effects of radiation on the Canadarm. They employ about 20 people.

Resonance Limited from Barrie, in Joe Tascona's riding, is an innovative electro-optics company which develops and produces unique light sources, remote sensors and detector technology for commercial, industrial and space applications.

Also, Millenium Biologix in Kingston is a firm that has developed the hardware for osteoporosis experiments in orbit.

Finally, Bubble Technology Industries in Chalk River also develops radiation detectors to be used in space. Their technology has been used on several shuttle missions. Bubble Technologies employs about 26 people.

The government works in cooperation with all of those companies.

TUITION FEES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Education. As a member from rural eastern Ontario, I can tell you that nowhere is your government's policy with respect to the deregulation of tuition fees of greater concern than in the rural communities of the Ottawa Valley and the rest of the province.

With that in mind, I want to tell you, if you don't already know, that earlier this afternoon the Ontario branch of the Society of Rural Physicians issued a press release which says in part:

"The Ontario government's decision to deregulate university tuition fees for medical programs will worsen the already severe ongoing shortage of physicians working in rural and remote areas of Ontario."

What does the Minister of Education have to say to communities like Barry's Bay and Eganville and Ear Falls, where at this very moment the Premier of Ontario will be meeting people who face the serious, chronic, ongoing problems of underserviced and inadequate medical personnel, and according to the OMA's subcommittee your tuition policy is going to aggravate and make worse an already bad situation?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I know this is an ongoing concern. It has been for years and years. I suspect back through not only our government but the previous government, your government, this has been a concern in rural Ontario. When I was the Minister of Health for a short period over a year ago, it was an issue that faced me even at that point in time. We were looking at ways and means to encourage physicians into mostly remote and rural areas, some in northern Ontario, some not in northern Ontario, to ensure that those communities had adequate support. We did take some actions through the Ministry of Health to encourage that, but still today we're here and there need to be additional measures taken.

One of our members, Helen Johns, I'm sure you are aware has introduced a private member's bill which would have the effect of eliminating the tuition fees for physicians, doctors, going into those remote areas. My response is that I'm more than delighted to have a look at that, to work with the Minister of Health to see if that doesn't make sense.

Mr Conway: In its release this afternoon, the Ontario Medical Association makes it clear that your new policy to deregulate tuition fees particularly for medical schools will be a significant added new impediment to recruiting, educating and returning young medical personnel into rural and northern communities.

I want to know, Minister, what you are going to say to the Ontario Medical Association, which has put out this release today, which release also indicates that your new tuition policy is going to be a particular hardship on women from rural and northern communities who might consider careers in the practice of medicine in that part of Ontario and Canada. It's your new tuition policy that is making a bad situation worse. What specific undertakings are you prepared to give to the OMA and, more importantly, rural communities that you are going to back away from this madness?

Hon David Johnson: First of all, I would call on the support of the member for Renfrew North in terms of approaching the federal government with regard to the reinstitution of the $2.2 billion that the Liberal federal government took away from Ontario in terms of health support, in terms of education support for those very people he professes to support in rural Ontario. If we had that extra support, wouldn't that be helpful in terms of finding solutions to this problem?

I would further say that we have been attempting to work with your federal cousins on an income-contingent loan repayment program to assist the students in the province and have had no cooperation from the federal government.

Finally, I would say that we are aware of this particular problem. It's been an ongoing problem for many years. I'll be working with the Minister of Health. Our member for Huron has brought forward a resolution which, if adopted, would address this problem. I look forward to working with her and with the Minister of Health to seek solutions.

1520

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the acting Premier. Today we get word of some actions by the parliamentary assistant to the finance minister. Apparently the member for Nepean failed to act "like a human being" and engaged in what is described as "discreditable behaviour" towards his fellow government members. This assessment comes from the member for Ottawa-Rideau, a nearby riding, who from his letter appears to be extremely well acquainted with the character and behaviour of the parliamentary assistant.

I would like to ask you, acting Premier, is this the kind of conduct that you encourage or condone among government members with high responsibility, among parliamentary assistants to your ministers? Also there have been some comments about your chief whip that you may want to comment on.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Take it under advisement.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The House leader says I should take it under advisement. I probably should refer the question to him, but I won't.

I don't want to go into the specifics of letters or accusations or anything else. I can say that our party respects freedom of speech. It's obvious that we allow our members wide discretion, unlike former parties where they sanctioned members and they used to ask them to leave caucus.

I come from the riding of Dennis Drainville. You might remember Dennis. He was a man who liked to speak his mind and he had some deep beliefs. Unfortunately he felt he couldn't stay in a caucus that tried to stifle freedom of speech. Our caucus does not share that same view. We allow people to talk.

Ms Churley: I think there's a little bit of a difference here.

I just want to go on. The letter also includes some devastating criticism of the chief government whip. The member for Ottawa-Rideau cites a previous occasion when government backbenchers were allowed to sabotage a private bill to benefit local growers supplying the Ottawa Market despite overwhelming support from Ottawa city council. The member describes occasions when "people who cannot act as adults come snivelling around asking you to break the rules and assist in sabotage." He goes on to say, "It is true that one cannot expect professionalism or even maturity in all members of a caucus totalling 82, but one can certainly expect it from the chief government whip."

My question is, when are you going to get rid of these two losers and try somebody else?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the member opposite asks this question with full seriousness in the gravity of the situation and I will take it under advisement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Riverdale, that's unparliamentary. I realize it's in a letter, but it doesn't allow you to quote it. I would ask that you withdraw that comment.

Ms Churley: I'm sorry?

The Speaker: Referred to at the end of your comment.

Ms Churley: You want me to withdraw what I quoted out of the letter?

The Speaker: I want you to withdraw the comment with respect to the two members.

Ms Churley: Oh, I'm sorry. I withdraw that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I have the weekly business statement. Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of May 25, 1998.

On Monday, May 25, in the afternoon we will have the Liberal opposition day. In the evening we will be calling Bill 16, Small Business and Charities Protection Act.

On Tuesday afternoon we will be calling Bill 15, Tax Cuts for People and for Small Business Act. In the evening we will deal with the Ontario Speaks resolution.

On Wednesday afternoon we will be dealing with Bill 16 as mentioned above, and in the evening Bill 15 again.

On Thursday morning, May 28, we will be dealing with private members' public business for ballot items 11 and 12, and in the afternoon we will again be dealing with Bill 16.

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the assembly which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I've affixed my signature to this document.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

On behalf of my caucus colleagues, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

ABORTION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition today signed by about 153 people, most of whom live in my riding. In accordance with the standing orders, I'll summarize the petition. They're petitioning the Legislative Assembly to cease providing taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions. I'd like to file that today.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have two petitions signed by several of my constituents in Renfrew county. Both petitions are the same.

The petitioners request that the government of Ontario enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their conscience and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination. I'm pleased to present these petitions to the assembly on their behalf.

ADULT OCCUPATIONAL CENTRE

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

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has announced the closure of the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, a first-rate community-based facility for developmentally disabled adults; and

"Whereas the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, is not an institution in the traditional sense and is a community in and of itself for those who reside there; and

"Whereas the care provided at the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, is of a specialized nature, requiring highly trained, skilled and dedicated staff; and

"Whereas alternative services and supports that would meet the needs of the clients of the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, are not in place in the community; and

"Whereas these clients have developed important friendships and relationships because many of them have chosen to make the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, their home, despite having been given the opportunity to live in the community; and

"Whereas the majority of the clients of the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, have no desire to leave this community to be repatriated to a community they have no relationship with; and

"Whereas the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, is currently home to approximately 28 fire-setters and approximately 55 repeat sex offenders, which include pedophiles, rapists and exhibitionists, and the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, provides an environment whereby these clients are given the opportunity to live a fulfilling life in a safe and secure setting away from potential victims;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, demand that the decision to close the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, be revoked and that the clients of the Adult Occupational Centre, Edgar, be allowed to continue living with dignity, stability and without threat in the community they call their home."

1530

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a petition from a good number of people in northwest Toronto and Peel region. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I was going to mention this earlier on. In petitions, you may summarize the petition. You don't have to read word for word every petition. If you'd like to, you can summarize them and that way we can get - maybe not today but other days - more petitions on the record.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This petition is about rent control and is signed by a large number of tenants. It's to the Ontario Legislature and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that rent control will continue; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those who can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris proposals will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I'd like to summarize this, but this petition is so important, I want to make sure that we dwell on every word.

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has passed Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons; and

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking and the ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy other than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario continue to urge the government of Canada to repeal from Bill C-68 those provisions for a compulsory registration of all firearms."

It is signed by in excess of 200 people, and to that I affix my signature.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have - today is petition day - another petition. In this case the petitioners request that the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting.

This has been signed by scores of my constituents in the Ottawa Valley.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense or sell chemicals or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

I affix my signature to that.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This petition concerns education and is addressed to the assembly. It reads as follows:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. As Minister of Education and Training, you should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary school reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and government.

"We recognize and support the need to review secondary education in Ontario. The proposal for reform as put forward by the ministry is substantially flawed in several key areas: (1) reduced instructional time, (2) reduction of instruction in English, (3) reduction of qualified teaching personnel, (4) academic work experience credit not linked to educational curriculum, and (5) devaluation of formal education.

"We, the undersigned, therefore strongly urge the Ministry of Education to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders - parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers - are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is being provided."

I agree with this petition and I am affixing my signature.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have another petition today. This is signed by 596 people in my riding and near to my riding. I will summarize the petition by saying that it indicates that these people feel the present funding for chiropractic care in Ontario is inadequate.

I would like to file that today.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SMALL BUSINESS AND CHARITIES PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES PETITES ENTREPRISES ET DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 16, An Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others and to make other amendments respecting the Financing of Local Government and Schools / Projet de loi 16, Loi visant à alléger les impôts des petites entreprises, des organismes de bienfaisance et d'autres et à apporter d'autres modifications en ce qui a trait au financement des administrations locales et des écoles.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm happy to resume debate from yesterday on this item. I had indicated yesterday that I would be splitting the time with my colleague from Cochrane South. In fact, he will be speaking later on, so I will be dividing the balance of my time with the member for Fort York. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I'm going to take a couple more minutes to just touch on a couple of areas that I didn't have time to go into yesterday. I was speaking yesterday about the fact that, on the one hand, we were happy with the government moving to reduce the impact of the tax changes on small businesses. The 2.5% cap will certainly be an improvement over the kind of devastation that many small businesses would have faced had the system remained as the government had said. Even though the government is not prepared to admit that they made a mistake in terms of the words that they speak, certainly their legislation is a clear admission that they had made a big mess of the whole situation and are prepared at least to go some way towards rectifying that.

Of course, as I pointed out yesterday, one of the problems that we know continues as a result of this legislation is the people who are going to be left to make up the difference for any increases. For municipalities, whether it be the city of Toronto or any other municipality that opts into this capping system, the difference will have to be made up by increases on homeowners. This again from a government that says it does not want to raise taxes. It is clearly raising and forcing municipalities to raise property taxes, and in this case it's going to force them to raise property taxes for homeowners.

As I indicated yesterday, in the city of Toronto certainly many homeowners are looking at excessive increases which, even if the municipality decides to phase in those increases over the full eight-year period, will still mean significant year-by-year increases. That, coupled with the big question that remains as to what happens when these caps come off, if municipalities adopt these caps, three years down the line, will still create and will still leave a major problem to be addressed. The only certainty, quite frankly, that is there for people is that three years from now will be after the next election. We know that's been one of the driving forces behind the government coming up with this particular answer to a major problem they have caused.

I want to touch briefly on the business occupancy tax issue, because the government is again here through the legislation, if not through the words, admitting they made a mistake in the changes they put forward before. They prided themselves on saying that they were getting rid of the business occupancy tax, but of course forgot to tell people that they were simply adding that to the property tax bill, so somebody still had to pay.

The only change they were making was that the municipality, instead of collecting from the business operator, be that the owner of the property or someone renting the property, now would be collecting that money from the owner of the property. That left landlords particularly in the situation where, depending on the arrangement that they had in the lease, they would have to pick up that amount. Now the government has finally come back and said, "We'll correct that. We understand that's a problem," so there will be an ability for landlords to pass through the business occupancy tax.

However, I still have some concerns and I know people still have some concerns about what that means, because what we see in the legislation is that landlords will be able to pass through an amount which is based on the average of the new business occupancy tax, which is about 42% of the rest of the tax rate. Under the old business occupancy tax, small businesses were being taxed at a much lower rate than, say, the big commercial ventures like the banks. By averaging all of this in, it still is going to mean that again when you take the caps out of the system, you're going to have small businesses picking up a much higher percentage of the old business occupancy tax than will the banks.

That's something that needs to be clear, needs to be put on the record, because I heard the parliamentary assistant yesterday indicate that was not the case. While that may not be the case in some instances, it certainly is going to take place in some. That's an issue that we'll certainly want to pursue.

The last comment I want to make is with another change that I find a little peculiar. Those are the changes that this bill is making to Bill 60. Under Bill 60, you will recall that one of the changes the government made is that it took upon, the government particularly gave to the Minister of Education essentially the right to decide by regulation, the collection of some $6 billion - in this case we're talking about half of that, the $3 billion that applies to commercial and industrial assessment - to set that by regulation, without any debate here in the Legislature, without any public discussion, without any approval by the Legislative Assembly.

An interesting thing is happening here, because by amending this legislation, what the government is now doing is that they will simply tell the municipal government, "This is how much money we need to raise from the commercial and industrial assessment," and then they will request the municipality - not the school board but the municipality - to then set the rates that apply to that. I think it's going to be of great interest to the education community and to school boards that it's now municipalities that are being given the option, rather than school boards, of suddenly setting education tax rates.

I suspect one of the reasons that has driven the government to this is because they know they are on thin ice when it comes to justifying the setting of $3 billion worth of taxes on the commercial side and another $3 billion worth of property taxes on the residential side for education funding purposes simply at the whim of a regulation. I believe they know they are on thin ground on that and they are trying now to give the pretence that the municipality, that is, an elected body, is going to have the ability to make that decision.

I think it will be interesting to see how this one plays out, because it is not really giving that body a real power but it is giving the semblance of giving them a power because they are an elected body. In this case it means that they will be able to say, "They are setting it; we aren't setting it by regulation." It's a kind of a roundabout way to resolve a problem that I think is going to still remain and that we will have an opportunity to deal with.

I want to conclude by just talking for a second about the process of this bill. When we began debating this bill, we were under the understanding, on the basis of what the government had told us through the House leader's office, that this bill would go to committee. We were now told this morning that this bill would not go to committee. I want to say to the government that they are making a major mistake. They are making a major mistake and, if nothing else, they should just simply recall the mistakes they made with the previous property tax bills, which they then have had to come back and correct with subsequent legislation. It would be in their best interests, let alone in the interests of good policymaking and good lawmaking, to let this piece of legislation go to committee.

I understand the time pressures the government is under. We all understand the time pressures that they have caused for themselves and, more importantly, that they are causing for municipalities out there because the determination of the assessment amounts is crucial in determining what's going to happen with the tax rates. We know that whole process has been delayed, so I understand the pressures the government is under. I want to just say to the government, on by own behalf and on the behalf of our caucus, that I believe there are ways in which this bill can get to committee, particularly even in the week that we are back after the break next week, and still allow the decisions to be made in time to have the bill, if the government wants to proceed with this bill, done so that municipalities will still be able to make the decisions they need to make, realizing that they are already behind the time line that they were adopting.

I want to just say to the government, don't make the mistake of trying to ram this bill through in the week after next and then have to discover, a couple of weeks after that, that you've got even more mistakes in this legislation that you will have to correct with a further piece of legislation. Take the time to have the bill go to committee. I would prefer that we spend less time at second reading debating it in the House and that we have more time at committee to deal with it. I think that can be accommodated in a way that allows us to do the kind of clause-by-clause analysis and discussion that we can only do in a committee setting, and then allow us to come back.

Our basic position is that the government is fundamentally wrong in what they're doing, that they should just freeze the whole current value assessment scheme. Obviously they are not prepared to do that, so if they're going to proceed, we believe that some of the changes that are in this bill are useful but that there are also some mistakes and some problems that will come back to haunt the government during the course of the summer. We think there are some changes that could be made and should be made to the bill, and we think that the bill going to committee will allow us the opportunity to try to fix some of those problems and make the kinds of decisions that will at least, if not be acceptable out there, be easier to implement, be more appropriate to implement and be fairer than what the government is suggesting so far.

1550

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Before our friend from Fort York begins, we should have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It is my pleasure indeed to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 16. There is a great deal to say on this bill, as indeed with so many other bills.

I remember yesterday's debate, with the comments made by the members for Nepean and Scarborough East. To hear those two members speak, you would think that this is annus mirabilis, the year where people are literally digging gold from their backyards. You would think from their speeches that we're in that kind of a year, annus mirabilis, but we have been in three consecutive annus horribilis, and we see it repeated year after year. These people don't give up.

If the members from Nepean and Scarborough East want to know the definitions of "annus horribilis" and "annus mirabilis," I'll be happy to provide them after my remarks, because I need the time to be able to make other points.

We have seen the degradation of the democratic process in this province unlike any other period of the history of many other governments that we have seen. We have seen the degradation of the democratic process with respect to the vote on the megacity, with respect to the download, with respect to the hospital closures, to the mergers of schools and so many other issues. That is why I speak of it as annus horribilis, for good reason, and people in the new city of Toronto understand what I am talking about. I suspect even the members from this new Toronto understand as well. Perhaps M. Harris doesn't, because he is from a faraway place.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind the member for Fort York to refer to the members by their riding, and in Mr Harris's case, as the Premier.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, I have been very diligent in referring to the members from Nepean and Scarborough East, and I'll try to remember about the Premier as well. From time to time we mention him by name so the people remember him by name, because they need to associate these years, these horrible years, with the man, the Premier, who is associated with those things.

To quote Zorba the Greek, we've had "the full catastrophe" in this province, and we continue to feel it today when one of the ministers announces that she and her government are going to prohibit people on workfare from unionizing. The dictatorial nature of this government continues. It doesn't let up. They speak of the new compassion of this government, and they come up with a bill today that again is an intrusion into people's basic rights. We thought they had made this fine U-turn to a more pristine nature, a more compassionate nature, and yet we don't see it. I certainly don't see it.

We're dealing here today with Bill 16, a bill designed to correct two previous mistakes. We are not here today to deal with a bill that's called the Small Business and Charities Protection Act on the assumption that these people have created something new for small business. We are here because they have made egregious errors in the past and they've come up with this bill to correct them. That is why we're here - not on the basis of something new, but on the basis that this government says: "Oh, small business is the engine of our economy. Thus we've come up with something new. We're going to cap property taxes for those people." Why didn't these people, these fine, thoughtless Tories, think of it before?

It seems that these people again want to press ahead without hearings. You'd think they might have learned something from the error of past practice, but they're going to continue; they're going to dispense with future hearings because there's nothing for them to learn. We've had Bill 106, we've had Bill 149 and we now have Bill 16. People want to be able to comment on that bill, and I'll speak to that at the end of my remarks. I hope they will provide taxpayers an opportunity to be heard, unless they want to continue with their degradation of the democratic process, continue with their dictatorial approach to people and taxpayers. If they want to do that, I suspect they can. They are politically entitled to do those things. Perhaps people like that sort of Tory flagellation; I'm not sure. I hope not. I certainly don't enjoy it. I know that a lot of people in this city don't like it.

But we're here because of past mistakes. We talked about the problems of the two bills they introduced. We said, "Current value assessment is going to create chaos across the province, but in particular in the city of Toronto," and they didn't listen. We said: "Current value assessment is unstable; it fluctuates from year to year. What people want and need is stability to know what to expect. But the current value assessment scheme doesn't give them that stability." We said that.

But these fine people with big ears didn't hear it, these fine Tories who have been saying, "But we listen; we've got big ears." They didn't hear us when we said, "Give us some impact studies so that you can protect yourself."

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Who's got big ears? That's a personal attack.

Mr Marchese: Monsieur - I'm not going to say his name, Madam Speaker. Member for Lambton, we said: "Protect yourself from the error of your ways. Do the impact studies. If you've got them, show them to us." You said you had them. "Show us the impact studies so that we know, so that you know and you can appear to be competent before you pass bills."

They didn't produce them, because Tories don't like to think; they like to act and think later. That's why we have Bill 16, because it is the afterthought of the egregiousness of their error of the past. They didn't do the impact studies. Then we said, "Property tax assessors: What have you done to train these people?" I remember many a time saying to these folks across the way, "What training have you done?" The training was almost laughably inadequate.

They literally picked up people from the street saying, "Do you want a job?" We needed to assess four million properties across the province. They had a year or a year and a half to do the job. In British Columbia, we were told, to do the job properly you need at least three or four years. These guys did it in a year, a year and a half, with inadequate training - and not only inadequate training for these assessors, but obviously not enough of those people to go out and do a proper job.

1600

That is why in the last four months that I've been around in my area and beyond, the former North York, people were telling us: "We don't understand. It isn't clear to us how they assessed my property, because a property of similar value next to me is paying $500 less or $1,000 less than what I'm about to pay under this reassessment scheme."

We said to them, "If you do this reassessment of properties, you will have neighbours spying on neighbour." In fact, I've had people come into my constituency office saying: "But I don't have an air-conditioner in my house. In fact, some people have air-conditioners in the back, so if an assessor might have possibly dropped by, he would not have seen it, but if I have my air-conditioner in the front, I get reassessed at a higher rate. Is that fair?" these people are saying. Or there's some other person saying: "But my neighbour has an extra room at the back. If the assessors haven't gone to the property, that means I pay the same as or more than someone who has an additional room at the back."

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Again we have no quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I am pleased that more people are here to listen to this discussion, because I want to have the benefit of their two minutes in response to what we've said.

We said to them, "Is this the kind of market value system you want, where neighbours are spying on other neighbours, saying, `I don't have an air-conditioner, somebody else does; I have an extra room, somebody else doesn't; I didn't renovate my house, somebody else did'?" That's the kind of behaviour the market value system encourages.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It was always like that.

Mr Marchese: It doesn't mean the system is good if you've had it in some communities and you don't have it in others. I'm saying the market value system - the current value system, under different names proposed by this government because they want to avoid the term "market value" because some of these folks were opposed to it - by the way, prior to their election some of these people said "No way" to market value assessment. But when they got elected, of course that was a different matter. A promise made, a promise kept, I guess.

But the market value system fluctuates in ways that create problems. It encourages people to spy on each other. It is not the right way to go. I'll talk about what the right way to go is towards the end of my remarks.

We mentioned that the business occupancy tax was again a big mistake. They touted it as something that was of course outdated. "From 1904? My God, we've got to get rid of this system." But did they put any thought into what the elimination of the business occupancy tax would do? They didn't. They did not put any thought whatsoever. What the elimination of the business occupancy tax did was transfer the weight of property taxes on small business. You will recall that banks, insurance companies and the big towers here in downtown Toronto, in my riding essentially, were paying a little more than the small business sector, because it made sense. If you're making millions and billions, it makes sense that you should pay more than someone who's a barber or owns a little vet store or a little grocery store. It makes sense.

I always love that smile from the member for Etobicoke-Humber, as if he's so smug in his knowledge. I don't know what knowledge he has, but when they and he eliminated the business occupancy tax, it caused tremendous shifts from the towers and the big businesses to small business. That's why small business went crazy, member for Etobicoke-Humber. Your small business buddies went berserk. That's why they rioted in the streets in protest, because they said: "Your incompetence has brought me to the streets to protect my livelihood because the elimination of the business occupancy tax, smug member for Etobicoke-Humber, is going to put me, a small business, out of business."

That's what we heard from small business across Toronto. We had people saying, "We're going to get increases of 100%, 300%, some 500%." It is no joke. I don't come up with these numbers. Small business came up with these numbers at our meetings in the former north Toronto, in Etobicoke, where this fine member comes from, in Scarborough, in Toronto - all over. The riots had immense effect on this government, because these guys had to surrender eventually. They surrendered. They would have nothing of it in the beginning, because they said: "We gave the tools to the city. We gave them lots of tools. We've got chainsaws in that toolbox; we've got hammers in that toolbox. Man, they could use any one of those instruments if they wanted to. But the city fails to use this chainsaw and the big mallet that we gave them. What are we going to do?"

The city, through Mayor Lastman, a fine Tory friend of these people, working diligently on behalf of the city of Toronto against the evil interests of this empire across the way, did us a fine turn by fighting them to the very end, where he said: "We can't fix this Tory catastrophe. We cannot deal with the full catastrophe of this Conservative initiative. The tools they have given us do not work." Then M. Ernie Eves comes up and says, "If they can't do it, I'm going to do it myself." I thought to myself, let John Wayne do it, because if the whole of this new city of Toronto, with its insight and power and available tools, can't come up with it - John Wayne said, "I'm going to fix it." But we knew that John Wayne - and I wish he had, because my answer to that was: "You do it. You caused the catastrophe; you fix the problem. I'm not going to solve it for you."

Bless M. Lastman, he didn't give in to his Tory friends, in order to protect the interests of Torontonians. I have to tell you I was proud of him. Eventually, they dealt with the sheer incompetence of the Bill 106 that these people brought in, and 149, with something they called caps. Small business, under tremendous pressure from them, urged these fine people to come up with something new, and they did. They said, "We're going to cap property tax increases for small business." That's why we now have Bill 16, called the Small Business and Charities Protection Act. They now have come back to correct the incompetence of the past with a new bill that protects small business.

But this cap is a temporary gap measure, a temporary solving of the matter, but I tell you, it hasn't gone away. Three years from now those small business people are going to have to face a new government with a new solution. We don't know what is going to happen three years from now.

1610

These Tories came up with the idea of reforming property taxes, and what have you got? You've got a system that is continually broken, that continually needs mending, which is what they call "reform." "Reform" means, "We have broken the system that worked. We didn't fix it through one bill after the other and now we've got to reform it again with another bill," and these fine Tories are saying, "We're not going to listen to people because we're not going to take it to public hearings.

I don't know how to deal with the incompetence of this government. I certainly don't. Other than having the liberty here - thank God they haven't taken this away from us - to be able to speak for 20 minutes or so, we've got no other tools. They give the opposition no tools. How do you fight back except through these comments that we're allowed to make, that people are allowed to hear, and hopefully through them are able to take sides.

Mr Spina: You were in government for five years and you didn't do a thing with it.

Mr Marchese: This guy says we were there for five years and we didn't do anything. We didn't implement MVA. Under pressure from people, we did not implement a market value system because we realized it would have been a ruinous problem for many. So we said, "We've got to think this through."

Under this scheme, homeowners are not protected by any cap. Homeowners in my riding are facing incredible tax increases as a result, not of the business occupancy tax per se but of the reassessment of their properties. Many seniors in my riding are saying: "My income is very low. I am the only person in this house and I'm facing $600 increases." Some are saying: "I am facing $1,000 increases. Where am I going to get the money?"

To hear these Tories, from every sector in Toronto and beyond, they say: "It doesn't matter. These people have not been paying their fair share." The fair share issue needs to be dealt with. We New Democrats argue that we need to get housing out of the property tax system, we need to be able to get child care out of the property tax system, we need to get education out of the property tax system and we need to get welfare out of the property tax system so homeowners do not have to shoulder $6 billion worth of money that they can't afford.

Mr Spina: Where are you planning to get the money to pay for all that?

Mr Marchese: You need to shift away from property taxes because, we argue, it's profoundly inequitable, on to an income tax scheme, M. Spina, the member from Brampton. We need to get money from an income tax scheme and we need to do it progressively. You can't do it overnight.

Homeowners in North Toronto, where meetings were held in the member for Eglinton's riding, were saying, "We are about to get hit in a very serious way, and some might believe we're wealthy, but we are not." The people came to those meetings saying, "We will not be able to sustain these increases because we are not rich people." They're seniors, many of them, with low incomes. How do you deal with that?

They might argue that the city has the ability to be able to defer those costs for those people. They don't want that to be deferred. They want that load to be taken away. I tell you, the city is not going to have the means to help those people out. Why, with the downloading of housing, welfare, child care to the municipality, the city doesn't have the money to protect seniors.

Who is going to protect seniors? The new, compassionate M. Harris, these fine people here who have given us nothing but one catastrophe after the other over the years? Are they going to protect seniors? They are not. We need to shift away from property taxes by taking education progressively away, over an eight-year period, welfare out, child care out, and things of that nature. Then what is left is an easy burden to bear. What is left would be a small amount of money.

I'm urging people watching this program today to call their Conservative members and demand hearings on this bill because there are repercussions that will affect each and every one of them. If they can't get hold of them and they need advice on how to reach their fine members, please call me: 325-9092. I will tell them how to reach these honourable ministers and these other members of this government.

We need hearings. This government wants to escape scrutiny and criticism. We cannot allow them to do that.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): There has been a considerable amount of public consultation, of debate, in this place on property tax reform over the last 12 to 18 months. You look at some of the input this government has received on this issue. We are listening. I will use a few examples. I've got some correspondence here.

From the city of Toronto: "We ask you to listen to the voices of your voters," with respect to charitable organizations. This government is listening. We want to amend the bill to protect charities.

Another letter, from Weston: "I urge you to bring in legislation in order to save charitable organizations from a harsh financial effect that would force a reduction in our services." Again, this government listened.

To show the importance of this, the cover on this letter says it all: "This is an urgent memo and requires urgent action." This government has listened and we are putting forward some proposals to act in this area.

This legislation would help to deal with gross leases. I have here a resolution from the city of Ottawa signed by the mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, "Therefore be it resolved that council urges the province to take swift," and "swift" is underlined, "action to correct the problem of increased cost to commercial landlords with gross leases." This government takes the time to listen. We've put forward Bill 15 and, as Mayor Jim Watson says, we want to take swift action. I know the deputy mayor, Allan Higdon, supports that initiative as well.

A letter from Don Mills from another charitable organization asks that this government take action. We have listened, we have consulted and we want to ensure that small businesses are protected in terms of these much-needed transitions in our property tax system. It is extremely important that we hear those voices, that we bring them here and that we ensure these changes are made in a timely fashion so that they are protected.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish there was a provision in this bill, as the member does, that would control gasoline prices in this province. Today there was a big public relations press conference held where three of the Conservative backbenchers who have nothing to do this weekend are going around with cameras to take photographs of the price of gasoline.

I crashed the press conference because I wanted to reveal what the true position of the government was. I quoted my good friend Bill Saunderson, who was the honest guy about it. He said: "Look, we're all about the free market system. We'd be the laughingstock of Canada if we were to control gas prices or do anything about it." I quoted that. I thought we could put Bill on the record because he was the honest guy about it. Bill is not going to be out this weekend taking photographs of the gas prices. He knows this government is all about the free market system. I'm surprised that we don't have an amendment in this bill about that.

Some will remember that in 1975 Premier William Davis froze gas prices. He brought a bill in the House that said gas prices were frozen for, I think, 90 days while they had an independent commission look into them. When I hear all the huffing and puffing from our Premier, Mike Harris, about this, I wonder why he doesn't do anything about gas prices.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for London Centre will agree with this. Heaven knows, when it comes to bullying the small people in this world around, the disadvantaged people in this world around, the Premier is not hesitant. He will elbow them aside any time. He will use the bully bill, Bill 26, and other bills to do whatever he can to be able to bring about that change, but when it comes to gas companies he's not prepared to do so.

There is some bad news, and that is that Ab Campion is leaving today. He said, "We have heard much here today in the prepared speeches, which I think have taken a long time to write, and apparently the honourable members have had some help with them." That's Ab Campion, who helped out with these speeches, and I want to pay tribute to him after his long service to the Conservative Party.

1620

Mrs Boyd: Back to the business at hand, which is Bill 16 and the speech of the member for Fort York.

I understood entirely that the member for Fort York was talking about the fact that this bill should never have been necessary. If the government had thought ahead and really looked at what was going to be done, had had the competence to put together legislation that didn't lead them into the kind of controversy they face, they wouldn't have to have this bill.

We had another example this afternoon, because the member for London South fell asleep in the middle of the committee hearing, missed a vote - and he was right to miss the vote, because it was an unconscionable thing that he would have voted on. So this government has had to bring in another piece of legislation, and they can be very sure that this is going to be another piece of legislation that will cause havoc within the province and will call this government further into disrepute.

For the member for Nepean to try and say to the member for Fort York, in response to his speech, that the government has listened and that's why they've done it - if the government had listened in the first place, everybody told you that this was going to be necessary. For the member for Nepean to read out letters from frantic charities, from frantic communities, from frantic small business people thanking them for bringing forward now what should have been there in the first place just brings forward how absurd this whole situation is.

Madam Speaker, I would say to you that I know the member for Brampton North, who is not in his chair, is quite far from you, but when those of us on this side of the House are trying to listen to the speeches, he is constantly nattering, and I would ask you to call him to order.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to comment on the member for Fort York's speech today and to talk about the fact that this government has frozen the industrial and commercial education taxes in various municipalities across Ontario, including the municipality of the city of Toronto, where I'm from.

I think it's very important that businesses know that their property taxes for education are not going to rise by more than 2.5% in 1998, 1999 or the year 2000. Likewise, to accommodate that, no one's commercial and industrial taxes for the education portion are going to be reduced by more than 2.5%. When you look at the years from 1985 to 1995, those people saw average property tax hikes of 8%. Under the Liberal and NDP governments we saw massive property tax increases led by those two governments, so to see members opposite complaining about a maximum freeze of 2.5% is quite ridiculous.

The member for St Catharines was commenting on the consumer watchdog commission that just held a press conference to deal with the high gas prices, which my constituents complain about and that happen every long weekend in this province. From the actions of the members for Quinte, Halton North, Hamilton West and myself, I truly believe that the oil companies will keep the gas prices down, not only this long weekend but beyond, because they'll know we are watching them to see what is happening to those prices across Ontario. I know in your riding, Madam Speaker, it is an issue of concern to you, as it is to all members, and it was interesting to see some members there from the coalition for higher gas prices today.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Fort York, you have two minutes.

Mr Marchese: I want to thank my friends who spoke, and the others as well, and want to say we are here because of the sheer egregious incompetence of this government. The member for London Centre said it well: Had they listened, as they claim, we wouldn't be here. The reason we are here is because they got a big beating, from their friends in particular. They got whacked from one end of the city to the other: north, south, west and east. That is why, because of this beating they got, we're here to correct past problems.

They corrected the gross leases problem. They decided, "Oops, we didn't realize that." They're here because of the inequities in the differentiated business tax rates from small business in Toronto versus the other people in the 905. They are here to deal with charities because they realize that, oops, they screwed up. And we're here because small business was going to get whacked big time - their buddies, who vote Tory. That's why we're here.

We are here, they say, because they're listening. If these fine Tory people here were listening before, we would have corrected their problems in advance and not have to deal with yet another bill. They disguise it in their attempt to beguile the public under a title that's called Small Business and Charities Protection Act and make it appear as if it's a new one.

This issue is going to come back again. The city of Toronto and other communities are going to have to deal with this. This government, hopefully, won't be here to renegotiate that problem, but another government will have to come back and solve this problem. They've only temporarily put it away because they've got an election coming. I urge people to urge this government to have hearings so they can be heard.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's quite interesting to listen to the remarks of the members opposite dealing with this specific act, the Small Business and Charities Protection Act. I was thinking back to the remarks of the member for Fort York, talking about incompetence and that if we had listened, "You wouldn't have to come back with another bill." That's their particular interpretation.

Let me take this House and its members back to about November 29, 1993, on a Saturday, when the NDP were in power in this province and they were still grappling with the very bill dealing with market value assessment. At that time we had a situation of a standing committee of this Legislature listening to people on the virtues of market value assessment, either the full-blown version or one that was modified, and you know what? At the same time, almost to the hour, the NDP members of that standing committee, probably resources development, who were hearing these submissions from all these delegations in the city of Toronto and the other suburban cities within the old Metro, were urging a little courage by the members of the government of that day.

But guess what? While that was going on, the Premier of the province of that time, Mr Rae, and his cabinet, specifically the minister responsible for Management Board, were making a decision to keep the thing the way it was, until we changed it - to keep the status quo. Why? Because members of the Rae cabinet of that day came to a decision in November 1993 that said in effect small business in the old city of Toronto is much more significant, much more valuable, than any equivalent small business in the rest of the old Metro. Whether you were a restaurateur, a dry cleaner or a retailer, it didn't matter - the people in those businesses in the suburban cities be damned.

While we had the charade of a standing committee of the previous government listening to the pleas of people from across the old Metropolitan Toronto area for some form of tax relief, what was happening? The cabinet of the day was making a decision that reversed any recommendations coming out of that standing committee. There's the starting point of what we can call the ultimate incompetence of the previous government dealing with this issue.

Now the member for Fort York has the so-called pretend sympathies for the plight of small business people today. The only reason any of those people were out parading last December, January and February is because there was a lot of scaremongering going on by certain members opposite who were misinforming the people of the side-effects of the changes to the Fair Municipal Finance Act.

They basically said, "Let's keep everything the way it is because it's great the way it is." It leads you to the inequities and unfairness we've had in assessment in this city for the last 50 years. That's just great. That's just fine, that the people in Etobicoke or in Scarborough or in North York can just keep paying the piper forever. That's great. That's what you call equality; that's what you call equity; that's what you call fairness. Think about it. If that were the situation, why is it we had to make the changes we did?

1630

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Is it possible that when a member says something that is really wrong, a member would be able to stand up to correct the record?

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Hastings: You're always making those judgements about us. We don't stand and make those points of useless order, member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: Be nice.

Mr Hastings: "Be nice."

That's the scenario we're dealing with in this whole situation, that the members opposite, of both parties, are members who want to retain the status quo. Everything is just fine the way it was. Don't make any changes.

I have listened carefully and I have gone through the debates. I looked for a scintilla of an alternative to what we're proposing. The only thing I heard weekly from the member for Fort York - I think he may have made his remarks on debate on other of these bills dealing with property assessment reform - was that we revert to the unit value system of measurement. If you go and look at that particular system, I think you'll find it in about two cities throughout the work, Jerusalem being one of them. It certainly is not a widespread methodology of assessing property for assessment purposes so you can come up with the moneys you need for the vital services local governments have to provide today.

Here we are with Bill 16. It is purely a product of the evolution of all the changes that we have had to make because of the legacy of the accumulation of neglect by the two previous groups. Time and time again, they had opportunities to make changes in the fundamental form of property assessment in this Metro area. What did they do? Ignored it every time.

If you go back and look at the budget of the previous Liberal regime of 1989, we had a Nixon doctrine at that time which said, "We're going to impose the commercial land concentration tax." That was a marvellous piece of taxation which this group over here constantly hailed as a virtue. Let's look at the basic effects it had on small business, on hotels, even within the old city of Toronto.

What happened? We were at the height of the prosperity of the 1980s. In about October 1989, with this marvellous new tax coming on hotel properties, what did it do to the usage rate of those hotels, especially out on the strip and in other parts of the old Metropolitan Toronto? If you had a participation rate of about 60%, it plunged. It went right down to about 40%. But they'd consider that a success. It threw a pile of people out of work as we entered that recession. That was that marvellous land commercial concentration tax that Mr Nixon introduced in his budget in the spring of 1989. It was a real whopper in killing off jobs in this economy when it was already sputtering and there were warning marks up in terms of the Bank of Canada's interest rates.

"No, no, we'll ignore it; we'll put this tax on because we need the money." That's what they did, because they were spending at about four times the rate of growth of the economy in those years. When the growth rate was about 3.8% to 4%, our Liberal friends across the way were spending money at 16 times, but that makes good sense in terms of their economics when you look at how they ran government. It was a marvellous opportunity. They spent like there was no tomorrow.

That's why we end up having the problems we have to deal with today. They sit across the way and criticize us for trying to make some specific sensitive responses on small businesses. What did we come up with? What did the finance minister come up with after a lot of consultation, as the member for Nepean pointed out? A cap of 2.5%. Did we ever hear that from the members opposite, as a proposal, as a reasonable alternative for dealing with the situation? No, we did not.

All we heard was, "Let's keep everything the same." Taxes were going to go sky high, people were going to lose their jobs, but they never ever analyse the fundamental reform of the problem that caused this in the first place, starting back on that November 29, 1993, and going back as far as the 65 tax increases that are so laughed off by members opposite, as if a tax increase has a great virtue.

They're always asking us for tax impact studies. When Nixon introduced the commercial tax, were there any studies? No, none. It didn't matter. "We're doing it." This gang across the way talks about going too fast, not reflecting before you act. What happened? We had all that reflection through those years and what did it lead to? More inaction; in fact paralysis.

It's absolutely hilarious, absurd in fact, to listen to the remarks of the member for Fort York trying to reconstruct history when you can't reconstruct realities which bring about the root problems we were facing and which we've dealt with pretty effectively, particularly with respect to capping the small business rate increase to 2.5%. It will apply to those businesses that lease their premises, particularly for office buildings, industrial malls, shopping centres, like the Woodbine Centre, which I have had lots of reaction on. They're saying, "Do something about the problem." We did. We acted. We got the 2.5%.

Charities made many, many submissions. What have we done there? We have made specific commitments and put them into this legislation, commitments that deal with the real problem.

It would be nice for once to hear a public policy perspective from across the way that had some real substance to it, that would deal with the real problems as we see them today. I have to tell you, when you look back on the history of this thing, actually from the formation of the old Metro under Fred Gardiner, who was the first chairman of the great Metropolitan Toronto area in those years, when you look at the benchmark for taxation on property based on assessment back in 1953 and you carry it right through to today and you ask the people who have lived in this area for the last 45 years when they were ever going to get any tax relief - and I have to tell you we never hear or see any demonstrations from people in other parts of Metro who were not paying their fair share based on a revised, updated, sophisticated property assessment system that hadn't been updated in a residential area since 1940, and probably since 1965 with industrial and commercial.

1640

For too long, taxpayers of whatever stripe - residential, industrial, commercial, over all those 45 years - I averaged out, paid at least $10,000 to 15,000 extra through all those years. That's a very conservative estimate of the amount of money they paid to keep Metro going through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s. Not once did we see, in all those years from those two previous governments across the way, any recognition of the problem, hardly any recognition, particularly when you look at Scarborough or East York or York or the old city of Etobicoke on its industrial assessment base.

People would say to me, "Why is it that all the industry we have, all the manufacturing we have in many of those buildings in north Etobicoke, in east Scarborough, why are they vacant suddenly?" You didn't have to be much of a theoretical physicist to figure that out. Your square footage was much higher, probably $1.50 higher, trying to keep businesses in the old Metro Toronto region, compared to so many of them going across to Pickering, Vaughan or Mississauga.

This legislation not only deals with some of those problems, but the previous three bills did. From my perspective, you have here a natural evolution of change, trying to introduce a degree of fairness and equity into a system that had become so antiquated that the industrial health, the very economic vibrancy of communities was being lost all through those years while Nero fiddled, while Premier Peterson didn't deal with the issue, while Premier Rae tried to deal with it but turned and retreated.

Now that we're making some of these changes, what do we hear from the opposition members? "It's a bad system." "You can't do this." "You can't make these changes, because if you do, you'll never resolve the issue."

So you ask them, what is a fundamental policy alternative that they have that would be just as workable and wouldn't have as many of the glitches that you do find in a complex property reform assessment system that this province and this government had to take and redo over the last year-and-a-half, over three million properties?

We hear a lot of criticism about how they weren't properly assessed. If you look at the basic, fundamental concept of how you assess a property under current value assessment, the phrase basically tells you that you're going to take the current values of properties in those areas, whether they be residential, commercial or industrial, and you will compare them on a comparative basis. You can do that using sophisticated computer modelling analysis. You do not have to go out and visit each and every property. Where there are errors, you can have an appeal system, and that's what we've put in place. Not only that, we responded to the business community, to those that felt their assessment wasn't done correctly. We've moved the appeal period to July 29.

Now we're hearing, "You had to do that," but I come back to the basic, fundamental problem that both of these parties have failed to grapple with. If this particular proposal, if these initiatives in these bills aren't sufficiently effective in dealing with the problem, then what do they have as a specific policy alternative that would have done it better? Not the nitpicking we keep hearing across the way, nitpicking in many instances. What would be the fundamental system that they would replace current value assessment with, that would enhance and, have across the whole system, equity and fairness? To me, they must be against that, because they cling to the old system of the status quo.

Finally, let me conclude by stating that not only have we achieved many of the things that should have been done years and years ago - and possibly we wouldn't have some of the major adjustments or readjustments that are occurring throughout this whole change exercise if these two parties had exercised some real courage politically, some real judgement and said, "Let's go for it, let's get some reform into our commercial and industrial areas first at least," so that we would have stopped the bleeding, the loss of jobs throughout the greater Metro region back in the late 1980s and 1990s.

We wouldn't have some of the large areas that have been plowed under because the factory light and the factory height of these buildings isn't sufficiently adaptable to the new economy of the just-in-time ordering system you have in many areas of the economy, whether it be food processing or automotive parts. But no, we didn't even get that kind of response.

As far as I'm concerned, despite some of the problems that we still have in the legislation, we have made a fundamental revision, a fundamental reform that should have been undertaken years ago and we wouldn't have had the massive job losses we experienced in those years. I think this is a good bill that we need to get moving on.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Ruprecht: I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is painting a pretty black-and-white picture. From his perspective, his party is totally right and the opposition parties of course are totally wrong. Just a comment on this.

I think, Madam Speaker, you will agree that he doesn't totally have the wisdom of Solomon. At the same time, let me point out that he's not totally wrong. Nobody says you're totally wrong; there are some things that you are right in. But our job on this side is to try to ensure that the system gets to be better, and nobody should deny us that responsibility or that opportunity. I would think you would agree even with that.

Let me make just two short points. First, you're talking about being fairly sensitive in terms of operating this new law. You're saying, "We were sensitive in our reforms." That's your quote, I think. Let me ask the member, if you were so sensitive, why is it then that, before the changes in Toronto, we had businesses that were facing bankruptcy? Before the changes we had some restaurants south of Steeles and equivalent restaurants north of Steeles, but the ones south of Steeles in Metro Toronto were paying $27,000 more in terms of taxes. I'm not sure that was the right thing for you to do. It certainly was not very sensitive.

Secondly, you raised the whole issue of assessment. We don't want to be nitpicking, no doubt about that, but at the same time you can't start a whole process which is fundamental, as you say, major tax realignments and shifts, and then say, "We're going to have one phone number and just a few meetings in the areas." You can expect the people to make the phone calls and they can't get through.

1650

Mr Marchese: To the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale: This particular bill has nothing to do with jobs but it has a lot to do with taxes. Maybe he'll clarify, who knows?

The market value assessment system is a bad system. It is continually in flux. It will always fluctuate. You can never rely on that system. I argue that a tax regime is bad for business but an unstable tax regime is even worse, and that's what you get with market value assessment. These are business people who say these kinds of things, not me.

Market value assessment is a system that hopefully one day will be eliminated. We need to get out of the property tax system the cost for housing, the cost for education, the cost for welfare and the cost for child care. It should not be borne by the property owner and the tenant. If you eliminate those things and gradually remove them and replace them with an income tax system, which we argue is fair, it will make the property tax assessment system fair and stable.

What Toronto now has is a current value assessment system on the one hand, a tax rate that has nothing to do with it on the other hand, and not a bloody clue about what will happen in three years when this deal runs out. That's what we've got. We have no sense of what we're doing under the guise of this fundamental reform. They don't even know what they're doing. They have no clue what they're doing.

Bill 16 corrects some problems; it will create others. We need hearings. People need to demand hearings of these people so they can get their views heard.

Mr Newman: It's a pleasure to comment on the speech by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I always enjoy his comments and his well-researched speeches. Being a member from Etobicoke, which is in the new city of Toronto, as I am a member from Scarborough, I know he is seeing the positive benefits of the budgetary measures of this government.

In the budget it said that we were going to cut provincial business education taxes by more than $500 million from the current level, starting with a $64-million cut this calendar year. The cut in 1999 will be $128 million and the balance will be phased in over the remainder of the eight-year program.

I think it's important - and I know the member would want to note this; he probably didn't have enough time to mention it - that in Toronto the 1998 tax cut on the industrial side will be $14 million. The cut in the year 2005 - that would be at the end of the eight-year phase-in period - will actually be $112 million over that eight-year plan. That would actually be a cut of 50.6% in education taxes for industrial property taxpayers in Toronto.

On the commercial side within Toronto, the 1998 tax cut will be just a little over $36 million. That figure in 2005 will be $290 million. That's a significant saving to the industrial and commercial property taxpayers in Toronto. That reduction will be 25.3%.

We're seeing that the property taxes with this bill for industrial and commercial property taxpayers are being capped at 2.5% for the next three years. It's important to keep in mind that in the 10 years from 1985 to 1995 average property taxes rose 8% under the Liberal and NDP governments.

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum in the House. Would you check?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Marion Boyd): Clerk, would you check to see if there's a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I also rise to make some comments on the presentation by the member from Etobicoke-Rexdale. I truly believe that every time a member rises to speak in this House on a particular matter, especially on something like Bill 16 - the member spoke with a lot of conviction, believing everything the bill is supposed to do. I don't blame him, because it's a government document.

But I have to tell the member that when members on the government side addressed the opposition side and said, "You never said anything, you never proposed anything," I beg to differ, because on many occasions we did say, "Look, if you're going to do it, do it right." It proved us right and it proved the government wrong, because we said: "How you're doing it is wrong. You've got to take time. You've got to listen to the people. You've got to listen to what we say." Not because we are the opposition; once we are in this House, we are all in here for the same reason.

The actions of the business community, the protests, proved us right and proved the government wrong, because immediately Harris and company said: "Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. We were wrong, so let's try to do it right." What did they do? In haste, they tried to bring in a rush of amendments, and still they didn't get it right.

When we make presentations in this House, we do it with the full conviction that we want to be right. I don't fault the member for espousing the government side of the story. But let me tell you that in its haste the government has created more problems than existed before, and they have only deferred the problem instead of solving it.

The Acting Speaker: Response, member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr Hastings: I'd like to thank the members for Downsview, Fort York and Scarborough Centre for their remarks.

I was quite astounded by the comments by the member for Fort York, that this bill has nothing to do with jobs, that high levels or low levels of taxation have nothing to do with jobs. They have everything to do with jobs. Go back and take a look at Economics 101, member for Fort York. My goodness. The higher your taxes, it's quite obvious it's one of the major overheads for small business people to compete with. If they can't have a reasonable tax environment that's going down, not up, as it was under your regime, no wonder they leave.

That was one of the problems we found when we looked at all the vacant space in manufacturing in a lot of the suburban areas of Metro Toronto, because the square footage was higher than in Mississauga, York region, Pickering. Guess what? When a businessperson makes a decision whether they're going to stay or leave, they're going to stay based on competitive tax rates and competitive rental rates. If it's within 50 to 75 cents, they could probably live with it, but when it's 50% to 800% higher, as I could go back through the material, you'd see why the old Metro Toronto was bleeding to death industrially, why people had to go to the regions for the jobs.

It's basic elementary economics, my man. I can't believe that you lived through it and didn't see it. That's why this bill is part of the rebuilding exercise, to get this province going again.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Parkdale.

Mr Baird: Here's Tony the Taxfighter.

Mr Ruprecht: At one time when we talked about tax fighters I thought it would only refer to one person; that was Mike Harris. Now you're suddenly saying Tony Ruprecht is a tax fighter.

Mr Baird: Tony the Tax Hiker.

Mr Ruprecht: Now he's changing his mind in midstream. No, I think I heard you correctly, but I'm not going to accept that at this time.

We hear a lot about the reforms in taxes, and before us is Bill 16. For the members who are still here and who heard the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale speaking, let me put on record what neither a biased organization nor a biased political party said, because you can always slough that off. You can say, "Well, he's a member of the NDP," or "He's a member of the Liberals and they're in opposition," or "He's got an axe to grind," or "Because there's an interest group out there."

Mr Baird: "You forgot to raise my taxes two times."

1700

Mr Ruprecht: I'm just pointing out to you that when I give you this particular quote, you're not going to be able to say, "That is a biased organization," because we know there are many, in fact there are hundreds of interest groups here right now trying to bias the process. There are hundreds of interest groups here right now trying to change legislation. We all know that. But this group is unbiased and I'll tell you who they are. They are the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. Have you heard about that organization? That is an unbiased organization and I would even think that many of their members are leaning more towards the right than further to the left.

I'm simply saying let's see what they have to say about Bill 16. Let's see what they have to say about your specific tax bills, those fundamental changes you're coming here today to talk about. They say the following:

"The new system on the property tax (1) will be immensely complicated by creating 84 classes and subclasses and up to 156 tax rates."

What does that sound like to you? Does that sound like a reasonable number? Does that sound as though you're doing a good thing? Does that sound like the platform you should be supporting?

"(2) Implementation on January 1, 1998, is a high-risk strategy."

This is from an unbiased group. What do you say about that? I hear speaker after speaker getting up today and praising Bill 16 and saying how wonderful it is and that we've taken the right courageous steps, but how do you answer those questions? How do you answer those points of criticism?

Should we not say, "Look, let's make the process better"? What's the answer to that? Do you know what I hear? I hear absolute silence. Do you know why I hear absolute silence? It's because there is no answer. You don't have an answer. You have nothing to say about Bill 16 when it comes to these criticisms. What's your answer to the charge of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario? What's your answer, my friends? I hear nada, which means I hear nothing from you.

"(3) This new tax strategy will create serious problems."

If you were so organized that you wanted to push Bill 16 through quickly without public hearings, if you wanted to push Bill 16 through without any input from the opposition parties, then why would there be serious problems? Would you not want us, as we have in the past, to make recommendations to you to make the system smooth, to make it balanced, to make it more acceptable to the people of Ontario? Of course you would want to do that. But your answer, again, is silence. There's nothing from the benches when the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario says there will be serious problems. Quietness, nothing.

Their response to this bill is:

"(4) This bill is a recipe" - and guess what? - "for administrative chaos."

That is a serious charge. Can you imagine that? Here is an unbiased organization of treasurers and administrators and they're saying that this Conservative bill is a recipe for administrative chaos.

Why would they say that? Some of them are members of your party. I know a couple of them personally. They're saying "administrative chaos." Again I ask, what's the answer on the other side? What do I hear from the other side? What do I see on the other side? I hear nothing, I see nothing, because you are just like the three monkeys. That's what they said, "We see nothing, we hear nothing and we speak nothing." There is nothing. Look at that, there's nothing. There's no response. Do you know why there's no response, Madam Speaker? Simply because the association is correct when it says there will be a recipe for administrative chaos.

Finally, to conclude what the municipal clerks and treasurers said:

"(5) This is downloading the government's confusion and indecision to the municipalities."

I think these are pretty serious charges. They come from a group of people who are not just receiving increases in their house taxes or a group of people who have an axe to grind. No. They're administrators on a day-to-day basis who have to administer the results of you, of this Legislature, passing this specific bill.

How will they do it? Will they have problems? You bet they will have problems. They will have big, gigantic problems and they're pointing it out to you here.

What is the response? Is the response a sensitive response, as the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale said earlier? "We've made sensitive responses and reforms so that there will be justice and equality in Ontario when it comes to taxes." The response to this is nothing. The response to this isn't going to be changes.

I'll tell you what happened in Toronto. The reason we were accused of being scaremongers is that it's an easy way out for the government: "The opposition, what do they do? They're nothing but a bunch of bums. They're nothing but a bunch of scarecrows. They're nothing but a bunch of scaremongers." That's easy to say. But let's remember where we came from. We came from a recommendation by this government that there will be a number of taxes and increases for businesses that will put them out of business.

The question I have in terms of continuing my dialogue with you is, why did you have to scare the mom-and-pop operations? Why did you have to scare the small business owners of Ontario out of their wits so that they had no other recourse - you wouldn't listen - but to go on the barricades and have demonstrations with Canadian flags, with banners and signs? You know why? Not because you were "sensitive." No. It was because they had no other way to express themselves in the dead of winter. It was cold out there. I know, I was out there walking with them, speaking with them, trying to reassure them that yes, there will be a way that we will be able to put some sense into this government. Of course, I will give this government some credit: They listened. But at what cost?

Applause.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Klees just walked in.

I never said you were totally wrong. I never said that. I've just responded to your being sensitive with these reforms, because you are not. Just remember this: What was your response in the first week to the people on the streets demonstrating in the cold of winter? Nothing. "We hear nothing, we see nothing and we speak nothing." In the second week the pressure mounted. Thousands more joined us in the streets. What was your response in the second week? "We see nothing, we hear nothing and we speak nothing." What was your response in the third week to this government Bill 16? What was your response to the thousands of residents who were demonstrating out there against tax reform the way you wanted to implement it? In the third week: "See nothing, hear nothing and speak nothing."

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): That's consistent.

Mr Ruprecht: That's right. You were consistent, all right. In other words, what happened when the pressure really mounted and they were beginning to have demonstrations in the east in Scarborough, in the west in Etobicoke, in the north in North York? Down in the area I represent there were six demonstrations. You don't even know, and you will never know, how many there really were, because they were massive and even to this point they haven't given up, except that you've mitigated the situation a bit to the point where there have been some changes proposed, that is true. But at what cost, my friends? The cost was - you could have done it sooner. In fact, you could have done it without the imbalances in the system.

Why were they out there demonstrating? Because their livelihoods were at stake, that's why. They were going to go bankrupt. When you walk across some of the streets, on Dupont, on Bloor, on St Clair, you see what the response would have been because you saw the first stages of the development already. What was the response? Windows shut, papers on the windows, businesses closed, that was the response, and you knew it was coming. Then suddenly you became more sensitive? No; because there were thousands of people out there.

1710

We're now talking about the reforms and I'm only hoping and praying, while I would obviously like to freeze it right now - I know that won't be possible because the government has a majority and consequently has a right to make the changes, whatever they prefer to do. But at the same time we have to stop this bulldozer and say: "Hold on. Let's have some reason. Open your eyes, open your ears and then speak. Hold on with the changes because those changes are bankrupting people."

Let's look at some of the issues we want to reform within the system. Let's look at some of these items that can be changed, that can be made more sensitive, that can be made more fair, just and equitable. What are they?

The first thing that needs to be done is the assessment system. What has the government accomplished by this? The government has introduced a bill and said: "Here's the bill. These will be the changes and then we'll have a few forums out in the west end, out in the east end, and here are a few phone numbers you can call." The next thing, obviously, that happened is the people called because they saw their tax bill. They saw the assessment. They said: "Wait a minute. There's a lot of problems here with the assessment."

You remember. You were here before. You can't just get some people into their cars, drive by the properties - they're called windshield assessments - have a quick look and drive away, leaving people holding the bag. Of course that isn't going to take place, is it? I hope that will be straightened out in the future.

My friends, I'm telling you, right now there are thousands of appeals. Why is that? Because the process is backlogged. There are thousands of people appealing and consequently backlogging the process. There are thousands of people right now calling and they can't get a response, calling and they can't get through, calling and there's no one there, calling and there might be, if they're lucky, a tape, calling and nobody answers. That can't be the response of a Reformist government. That can't be the response of a government that wants to be sensitive to the people it represents, and remember the government represents all of Ontario residents.

Obviously, what we have to do is change the assessment system from the way it is organized today. It has to be made more sensitive, more open and have more staff. If you cut, you're going to have to pay the consequences later.

Let me bring out the whole item of why people were really upset when they knew, and they're beginning to find out, that businesses in Toronto, for instance, had to pay three times more than the same and equivalent businesses in other areas outside Metro Toronto. I didn't get through earlier in my remarks when I said that we know of a number of restaurants just south of Steeles Avenue which had to pay $27,000 more than a restaurant just north of Steeles. That's why when you drive along Steeles Avenue today, and it doesn't matter where you are on Steeles, isn't it funny that the businesses are not on the south side of Steeles? Did you notice that? There are very few businesses on the south side of Steeles. You noticed that. The majority of the businesses are on the north side of Steeles. Why is that?

Mr Baird: Because the Liberals didn't do anything about it, that's why.

Mr Ruprecht: No. You would think it would be part of municipal planning that businesses working on the north side of the street would in fact -

Mr Baird: But they didn't.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Nepean.

Mr Ruprecht: You know what happened? The fact is that the tax rate is so much lower on the north side of Steeles than on the south side of Steeles, and consequently they knew. They walked with their feet. Many business left Toronto, went to the municipalities outside our 416 area code and went to the north, meaning the 905 region, or they went out there because the tax rate was lower. Of course any businessperson would agree, if the tax rate is lower, "I'm moving in that direction."

Can I ask you one question? Let me ask you this question: Was that an intended design to push people into other areas? No, I don't think it was an intended design and you didn't tell me yes or no just now. I heard nothing from the other side. There was no intended design. It simply was a question of the tax rates being lower and people moving. Obviously they move away from an area that is higher into a tax rate that is lower. Is that fair? Is that equitable? You still have a choice and that choice is to make it better.

We just remember, when we ask the question, is it fair - even within Toronto - outside Toronto? The answer is simple. Let's remember one thing. Let's remember where we came from. For those people who might have very short memories, I want to remind you, within Metro Toronto there are 43,680 properties that will have tax hikes of over $1,000 - that's massive - and then 7,877 properties with a tax hike between $1,000 and $5,000; in many cases over 100% more than what they paid last year. Think about that.

Think about a person, and it was referenced in somebody's speeches earlier, if someone suddenly were to tax your house at 100% more, double the rate - and in some cases 200% and 300% more - what would your response be? Would you call that sensitive? No. Would you say: "Is there a different way we can assess this? Is there a different way to ensure there's more fairness and equality in the system?" Yes, there is, but it takes thinking and it takes a way to sit down and work it out with all three parties.

My friends, remember, if you want justice in the system, market value assessment or current assessment is not all that efficient simply because there are many ups and many downs depending on the value in that specific tax year. In 1989, when houses had a higher market value, the tax rate would have risen drastically. In 1994, 1993, 1992, the tax rate would have come down drastically. You cannot have an efficient municipal system in Ontario when these tax rates keep changing.

The only way you can have a stable municipal system is when the municipality knows how much money is going to come in on a stable basis. But these rates, based on market value or current market value, are changing like a yo-yo. It's almost like you're betting on the commodities market. It's a question of coconut oil today; it's up and it's down. Or coffee beans today, because the weather changes; they're up or they're down. It's basically a system that is not that fair and does not agree with a stable funding formula for the municipality.

That is important to realize because we all know that for a stable market, for a stable municipality, for stable funding, we need a different kind of tax system so that all of us in the municipalities would be able to know how much money is coming in.

We remember that in 1988 the city of North York and the city of Toronto task force made a recommendation, exactly 10 years ago. What was that recommendation? The recommendation was a unit assessment system because unit assessment system is not based on the yo-yo principle and formula on this current value assessment or market value assessment. It creates a more stable system. That's what you want.

We know that now we have a system that is based on wealth creation. We also know, since when do we have a system in taxes that's based on a wealth tax? The Conservatives have introduced a wealth tax to all of those who are homeowners. It's a wealth tax; it has very little to do with a tax that is just and equitable.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I agree with the first comment that Mr Ruprecht made in regard to what this bill is really all about. This bill's quite simple. It does one thing. It fixes the mistake that this government caused by moving too quickly, not listening to people, not listening to the many deputants who came before this government, both privately and publicly, and said that when you came forward and you made the changes to the tax system in Toronto, you were going to create a huge mess.

It fixes the mistake of this government not listening, not listening to the people who work at the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs who told you, "If you go the way that you are when you created these two bills, Bill 106 and Bill 149, you're going to have all kinds of problems, you're going to create inequity in the tax system to the point that you're going to turn small business against large, large business against small, and residents against whatever else is going on, because we know, in the end, they're the ones who are going to end up paying the price of all of this."

1720

This bill is not about some high principle of the government all of a sudden saying, "We want to do something to create jobs in Ontario," as Mr Hastings said earlier. This is simply a bill that fixes the mess your government created. Why? Because you did not want to listen to the ministry bureaucrats at the time, at the Ministry of Finance and at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, who said, "If you do what you do under Bill 149 and if you do what you do under Bill 106, you're going to create this mess." That's all that this bill does, pure and simple.

The government can't hide behind high principles, saying, "These are high principles about creating jobs and having the courage to move forward and to address the problems of many years." All this does is fix a problem. The government goofed, the government slipped, the government made a mistake, the government made an error, and for once I would like the government to stand up and say: "We goofed. We admit it." Please do so. Then we could move on.

Mr Baird: I want to say two things. First, I compliment the member for Parkdale. He said: "I give the government credit. They listened." He's right. We are listening. We do hear those voices and are here in this chamber to reflect what we hear.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the member for Parkdale. He talked about restaurants being on one side of Steeles and not on the other, and I wondered what that meant. I thought about it for a moment. In fact, he's right. The restaurants all are on one side of the street and there's a reason for that. It's because an inequitable tax environment was allowed to continue for years. For five years under our friends Mr Peterson et al, nothing happened, nothing, and that inequitable tax treatment was allowed to continue. Do you know what the policy advice of the Peterson government was to make tax treatment more equitable for Toronto?

Mr Marchese: The concentration tax.

Mr Baird: The member for Fort York said, "The commercial concentration tax." He's right: the commercial concentration tax, a tax that whacked Toronto. It was such a bad tax that even the member for Fort York and the member for Cochrane South and all the socialists in the NDP government had to get rid of it. It was brought in by the Liberal government, with the support of the member for Parkdale.

I think you've got to acknowledge one thing, that this government is working hard to ensure that we bring more fairness and more equity to the tax system. No tax system is going to be 100% right and zero per cent negative, but we are working to make it more fair and more equitable.

Mr Sergio: I would also like to compliment the member for Parkdale on his presentation. Every time Tony rises to speak in the House, he brings the particular experience and perspective of his constituents, not only the residential but the business community as well. Very few of us have had the experience Tony has had, including at the municipal level, where he has seen it on both sides. When he says he would like to see a much more balanced, much more acceptable tax system, he means what he is saying, because that would be the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, when he has said this government is listening - they are, but they are not acting on what they are hearing. We have been listening. The opposition, individuals, various groups, professional agencies - you name it - even the people on Bay Street have said to the government: "This is wrong. That is not the way to do it."

With all due respect to the last comments - and I can see that my colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, Mr Palladini, is here. He's smiling, because he says, "I watch your riding from the north side of Steeles, and I know why," and it's not the concentration tax of the 1980s or the early 1990s. It is this unfair, un-uniform business tax rate which you people, the government, Mr Harris, Mr Eves - you did say "We are going to bring in," and they refused to do it, because the city of Toronto is subsidizing the business people in Mr Palladini's and your area, as well as in the 905, and that is the problem with the city of Toronto. When Mr Ruprecht says it is wrong, he's right.

Mr Marchese: I just wanted to add my two minutes to what the member for Parkdale has said. I would say to the member for Nepean, it's not a matter of these folks listening. Mr Johnson, the Minister of Education, the Premier and others surrendered. They had to surrender to the riots that the business people engaged in in the streets. They were demonstrating in the streets to be heard by this government; otherwise, they would not have listened. But they convert that into, "We listened."

You recall the finance minister speaking to the issue of the differentiated business tax rate for education purposes on their buildings, and Mr Eves said on February 5:

"Let me be blunt about what Toronto wants us to do. Toronto is asking us to make the rest of the province responsible for the cumulative impact of decades of irresponsible spending decisions and questionable programs approved by successive Toronto councils and school boards.

"Toronto is asking us to make businesses and municipalities in the rest of the province pay the freight for the fact that Toronto politicians raised spending year after year and took the easy way by loading taxes on business."

That's what the finance minister had to say then. He wasn't listening at the time. He said, "I'm not going to listen."

The education folks were raising their own money for education; they got no money from the province. But these people make it appear that they were giving money to the board of education, and they were not. The money that was applied to businesses was going back to the board of education, to the teachers and to those who worked in the board of education. They make it appear different.

But all of a sudden M. Eves is listening. They're listening. No, I say: They surrendered because they had to surrender.

The Speaker: I think that's four responses. The member for Parkdale has two minutes.

Mr Ruprecht: First of all, thank you very much for the comments you have made to my suggestions and my comments. Let me say briefly that the changes in Bill 16 are fairly massive, and I would like to have a response to this: If you agree with the 2.5% cap on businesses, then equally why should there not be a 2.5% cap for residential properties? What about the education portion of the tax? That was also fairly massive, because you recognized there was a very major and massive injustice within the tax rate.

To sum up, you would think that the recommendations you have made, the changes you are now proposing, were a response to a partial mess you left behind in other bills. This is a response to the mess in Bills 106, 149, 160 and 164. It's supposed to fix those bills. In the meantime, Bill 16 has other massive changes and recommendations, and we'll see what happens at the committee stage.

You think what you've done here is mitigate the problem to such an extent that the riots have calmed down. I ask you simply this: You know what happened just yesterday in front of city hall at the city of Toronto. There were 400 to 500 demonstrators saying, "It is totally unfair that I have to pay 100% more for my house than my neighbour." It's not simply a question of the assessment rate problem; it's a question of unfairness. They were not there simply to argue for themselves. They were there because they knew that when they show up and put pressure on the municipal government it reverberates here to Queen's Park, and the recommendations -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to correct my own record. This afternoon, in response to a question, I indicated that learning materials submitted are to be written by a Canadian citizen or citizens or permanent residents of Canada and produced or manufactured in Canada. The appropriate response, I've now found out, is that learning materials submitted are to be written by a Canadian citizen or citizens, or permanent residents of Canada, or produced or manufactured in Canada.

1730

Mr Bisson: I want to take these few minutes that we have now with the change of rules where members have 20 minutes to be able to respond to very, very large policy areas. That's what this is, because to stretch a picture so that people can understand what this bill is all about, quite frankly, would take the better part of an hour because this is such a long story.

Maybe we should try to tell that story. Maybe this is the way to do this. We go back to 1993, and back in 1993, at that time, the then NDP government was moving an order to move to the market value assessment argument. Do you remember that? They were going to put forward legislation that changed the assessment system in the city of Toronto in order to make it match with what was in place in most other places across the province. At that time I remember, because like you, Mr Speaker, and like my good friends Mr Marchese and Mrs Boyd, we were here in this Legislature at the time.

At the time the opposition, then the Conservatives and Liberals, said: "If the government moves by way of market value assessment it's going to create havoc in the city of Toronto. It's going to create a tax shift" -

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I like the way you're pointing: "Not me."

"It's going to create a tax shift from the businesses and communities over to residents. People are going to see their municipal taxes skyrocket to the point that it would be absurd to look at their new tax bills as they come in."

Do you remember the red Stop signs the business community had in their windows across the city of Toronto that said, "Stop MVA"? It was all over the city of Toronto. I remember then as a government member coming back to caucus meetings and saying: "Bob, my Premier, I see these signs in windows. I go to restaurants and I talk to restaurant owners who say that they're afraid their taxes are going to go up tremendously because of moving to market value assessment." I remember those days.

I remember walking down the streets of the city of Toronto and it was the buzz on the street. People were saying: "You have to stop MVA. If you move forward with MVA, you're going to bankrupt businesses in our community and you're going to drive people out of their homes."

You know one of the people who was raising the charge? Do you remember, member for Fort York?

Mr Marchese: There were a few.

Mr Bisson: There were a few. We're not going to talk about one particular individual who I see right now, but there were others in the same caucus. I will not name names. I have to be nice. But there was in the third party, I remember, a huge proponent of stopping MVA at the time, and that was none other than Mike Harris, the leader of the third party.

Mr Turnbull, the now government whip, and a whole bunch of Tory members who were in here along with the Liberals said at the time: "If you go the way of MVA, you're going to raise taxes in the city of Toronto through the roof. You're going to bankrupt businesses. You're going to shift tax responsibility on to residential property taxpayers to the point that people may in some cases have to sell their homes and move into apartments or move into other communities." I remember.

I was at those caucus meetings. I remember the debate that was going on at the time because members like Mr Marchese, Ms Lankin and other members from the Metro caucus of the then NDP government came in and said: "Bob, we can't do this. We've got a problem. If we do this, it's going to be a problem to the people living in the city of Toronto, the people in the downtown."

What happened? The government of the day decided that the member for Fort York, the member from Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Riverdale and other members from Toronto, the member for Dovercourt, were right, and also Mike Harris was right. In fact you couldn't try to turn around a tax system overnight the way it was being proposed under the MVA act.

I remember that debate really well because I remember the Tories were part of the group that was charging an order to not go to MVA. I remember all the debates. They said, "If elected as the Ontario government in the next election, this government will not go the way of MVA." I remember that promise. I remember it well.

Mr Turnbull, the now government whip, was one of the big proponents who said they weren't going to do it, along with a whole bunch of other Tory candidates in the downtown core who then ran on the Tory ticket - the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Leach; the former Minister of Industry Trade and Technology, Mr Saunderson; the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, Ms Bassett and others - ran on a ticket of not doing MVA. What did they do when they got elected a little bit more than a year later?

Mr Marchese: They surrendered too.

Mr Bisson: They surrendered.

They say: "Hang on a second. That was then, this is now. This is not a promise kept. No, we're not going to worry about that. We're going to figure out how we're going to get out of this. We're going to call it `actual value assessment' or `current value assessment.'" They decided on CVA - AVA, CVA, MVA, it's all the same because what you're doing is you're switching the tax assessment responsibility from one group of citizens on to the others.

What you ended up with was a government that said when they were in opposition that they were opposed to MVA and they wanted to get rid of it. They were the big proponents to cancel the initiative of the government of the day and they were going to fight, and if they were to become government, no way, they weren't going to do MVA. They came back and they did something else. They created current value assessment and they created the mess that we're in right now.

At the time the Tories were right. What did they predict? Do you remember what they predicted in 1993? They said that if you go the way of MVA, CVA, AVA or whatever the heck it might be, you're going to end up transferring the tax assessment from the downtown business core, the high office towers, giving them a break, and you're going to be transferring it on to the mom-and-pop operations and the residents of this city. That's what you were saying then. It's not what you're saying now.

Mr Marchese: They didn't know it was going to do that, actually, which makes the incompetence even worse.

Mr Bisson: We could get into that debate, but the point I make is this is a very different position that the now Tory caucus is taking than they took back in 1993.

I remember, because I was in this chamber not more than two weeks ago when we had the throne speech. Ernie Eves, when he read his budget - remember that? - five or six times in the budget said, "A promise made, a promise kept." How come the Tory government has a problem in not understanding that this is not a question of a promise made, a promise kept? This is a case of a promise made, a promise broken. You broke the confidence of the people in the downtown core in the city of Toronto who voted for you, in part, on the basis of your opposition, what you did when you were campaigning against MVA.

They did the same thing with rent control. I don't even want to get into that debate. Do you remember rent control? They were all opposed to cancelling rent control and they were going to fortify rent control and make it really good. A promise made, a promise kept? No, a promise made, a promise broken. We've got no more rent control, but that's for another debate.

Mr Marchese: They just called it a tenant protection package and that's how they solved that.

Mr Bisson: They changed names. It's like AVA, CVA, MVA, rent control, tenant protection. They figure it's all the same, but people aren't fooled by that.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, this is not a conversation.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The member for Fort York is trying to be very helpful, I thought, but point well taken. He's here to help.

What we have here is a government that said one thing while they were in opposition, another thing when they got the government.

Where are we at? This government decided that they were going to break their election promise and they were going to come in by way of Bill 106 and create what ended up being CVA. They've done this and they created a problem. We told them at the time, as they had told us when we were in government, "If you do this, you're going to have a whole bunch of problems."

But never mind that they didn't listen to the NDP. The part I really find fascinating is that I know the people who work at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the people who work at the Ministry of Finance would have given the government the same advice they gave us: "Don't do this. You're going to have a problem. If you create this thing that you want to call AVA, CVA, that is MVA, what you're going to end up doing is creating the problems you talked about when you were in opposition."

No, they didn't want to listen. They weren't going to listen to the bureaucrats, because one thing about this government you learn really quickly is they do not trust people who work for the civil service; they are called "bureaucrats." They don't think those people can ever give any kind of good advice to this Tory government because the Tories have the answers for everything.

I'll tell you something. There are a lot of competent people who work in the government service of Ontario who are there to give very good advice to the government of the day, let it be NDP, Liberal or Conservative. They're there and they're a very non-partisan group, by and large, and they give you good advice. But this government doesn't want to take it half of the time, so they end up introducing legislation, as they did when they introduced Bill 106 and later Bill 149, that created the mess we're in now. The government has to come back in and introduce this Bill 16 to fix the mess they created

What did you do? Did you manage to fix the problem with the tax assessment system in downtown Toronto? I would say not. I was listening to Mr Hastings, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who was here saying: "We're doing this because it's going to fix it and it's going to create lots of jobs in Toronto. The reason you never had lots of jobs being created in Toronto before was because of the assessment system that was in place in the city of Toronto."

What nonsense. It's as if there had never been a job created in the city of Toronto in the past 100 years if you were to listen to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. Toronto has been known for how many years as the economic centre of Canada?

Mr Marchese: Still is.

Mr Bisson: Still is, has been and was under the old system of tax assessment. Do you think that this new tax assessment system is going to change the position of Toronto when it comes to being the economic leader it is?

Mr Marchese: Only if you listen to them.

Mr Bisson: If you listen to the Tories, you might even believe in Santa Claus. There is a Santa Claus, for little people watching.

Interjections.

1740

Mr Bisson: That's real parliamentary language, I'll tell you. You have to listen to the heckling in this chamber to really understand. I can't say the words he's saying. He's saying something along the line of, "It's because you didn't have the - blank - to do it." It says everything about this government because they think having intestinal fortitude is what it takes to be a good government, but that's not what it takes to be a good government. What it takes to be a good government is being able to develop sound policies with the work of the people who work within your caucus, the people who work within your ministries, the general public and the opposition, and coming up with good policy that works.

But this legislation you put before us, Bill 106 and Bill 149, doesn't work. You created a mess by removing the business occupancy tax and you created a mess by trying to change the system of assessment in this province to the point that now we're going to get how many appeals because of how quickly you put together the assessment system and did the assessments in this province.

I look at what's happened across the province. The government of Ontario, when they did Bill 106, said: "Oh, we want to fix this thing. We don't want to do MVA, we're going to do CVA." Then they charged the assessors of this province, good people that they are, "We want you to go out and do the reassessment of the entire province of Ontario in one year."

I know what was said to you by the Ministry of Finance, and I know what was said and the advice that was given to your cabinet by the people who gave you advice about that plan. People within the Ministry of Finance said: "We can do it, but it's going to be full of mistakes. We'll give you numbers in a year, but don't rely on the numbers that we give you because there will be lots of mistakes made." Mistakes cost money because we're going to have appeal after appeal and it's going to cost us probably more money to try to deal with that mess as a result of trying to fix the one mess.

But again they didn't want to listen: "No, don't listen to bureaucrats. They don't know anything. We know everything. I'm Mike Harris. I'm the cabinet. Bureaucracy can't give any good advice."

Experts in the field, people in the private sector, your own buddies told you: "You can't do a reassessment in one year. You can't do it properly." How many properties do you have to assess in a period of a year? You can't do it. There are too many buildings and too many properties to be assessed properly in a period of one year.

What ends up happening is the government, because it rushed, did all of this assessment in one year and we're starting to find right now, as we speak, that people are lining up in droves at the assessment offices across Ontario and are saying, "Hey, my assessment is wrong."

They're picking up their assessment and they're saying: "Okay, I have a three-bedroom house. This is about the year I bought it and this is what I've got in it. I've got an attached garage and I have so many square feet and I paid so much money for it." They say, "Okay, I've got to pay $2,500 in assessment." Then they sit down with their neighbour and they say, "Neighbour, did you see your assessment?" The neighbour says, "Yeah, I've got a house just like yours and I'm paying $1,800 in taxes." "I'm paying $2,500. What's going on?"

So they start looking. They've both got an attached garage; they've both got a three-bedroom house; they both have brick in the front; they all have siding on the side; they all have interlocking brick in the driveway; they have no pool in the backyard; they built the fence together, they share the same fence and they say: "How come? Why? What's going on? You're paying $2,500 and I'm paying $1,800. What do I do?" So what do they do? They often call the office of the MPP.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: They call the office of the member for Nepean and they say, "I've got a problem. My neighbour's paying less taxes than me and he has the same house. What do I do?" What advice do we give them? "You must appeal. Go and appeal. Go to the Ministry of Finance office, the assessment office and launch an appeal." We told them that was going to happen, but they didn't want to listen.

On the question of the business occupancy tax, much the same issue. The part that really galls me about this whole issue - before I even get to the BOT - the part that really gets me about changing the tax system in the city of Toronto, because I didn't agree with our own government when we were doing it, is that there is a historical and a financial reality to how the system of taxation was set up for the people in the municipality of Toronto, and that was really simple.

In the city of Toronto you have a lot of office towers, a concentration of businesses and business offices in the city of Toronto like nowhere else in Ontario. Can you imagine the city of Timmins or Nepean or Kapuskasing or Sarnia or anywhere else having the kind of commercial concentration, business concentration, in their downtown that we have here in downtown Toronto? I know my municipal council would love to have that amount of assessment, because that would mean that the taxes that would have to be collected from residents in the city of Timmins would be a lot lower.

The point is simply this: In the city of Toronto they set up an assessment system and they kept it the way it was for years because they are very different than anywhere else in the province. They have a large amount of commercial and business assessment downtown. They have multi-unit office towers. What they're able to do is spread the tax burden throughout all of that commercial assessment in a way that means that residents in the city of Toronto pay lower taxes. What's wrong with that?

The business owners and the people who work in the towers and the corporations that rent the offices in the business towers utilize the infrastructure of the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto provides a good system of transit and roads and everything else that's needed to run a dynamic city. They say: "We've got this huge amount of assessment, so rather than taxing our individual property owners" - they made a decision years ago - "we will tax at a certain level the businesses within the commercial area and we will make sure that Mrs Smith who lives on Cumberland Drive doesn't have to pay $3,000 worth of taxes. Maybe she'll only have to pay $1,100." What's wrong with that? What's wrong with the city saying, "We have an assessment base that is rich commercially and business-wise, and we will give our residents a tax break"?

That's why they never went to MVA. That's why Toronto said, "Hey, hang on," when the MVA tax system was devised. That's why they didn't go to MVA, because they said: "Listen, we like the way it is. We have a huge amount of concentration of business and commercial tax and we want to be able to give a break to our residents."

Mike Harris has changed that. Mike Harris says, "No, no, everybody's going to be on MVA," or CVA or AVA, because it's all the same thing. Now everybody is going to pay according to market value. What a mess that has created. We're going to see residents who own property in the downtown area of Toronto have huge tax increases over the next number of years. Businesses, without this particular bill, Bill 16, would have seen their taxes skyrocket as well.

What this bill does is create a cap for those businesses that are going to get tax hikes and create a cap for those people who get tax decreases at the amount of 2.5%. Why do you do that? You do that because of the mess that you created when you created Bill 149. It was Bill 149 that did the BOT.

For the members of the government to come in here and say to us, "Bill 16 is because we listened and we're adjusting the system, we're doing all those wonderful things to help people out there," what this bill is about is simply this: fixing a mistake you made when you created the system.

If I have the time, I just want to go through the dictionary to describe what the word "mistake" means. There are four different definitions. Mistakes are caused by bad judgement or disregard to rules of principle; or it's a blunder, which is a careless, stupid or gross mistake, an action suggesting awkwardness, pettiness or ignorance; or you did an error, which means it was unintentional, wandering or deviation from accuracy; or you made a slip, usually a minor mistake made through haste or carelessness. Which one was it?

Did you make a blunder, did you make a slip, did you make an error, did you make a mistake? I would tend to say they all apply.

This government has always moved in haste. Because of moving in haste, they didn't listen to good advice. Because they didn't take good advice, they made a mistake. Now we're having to take legislative time to come back and fix the mistake the Tories made because of moving too quickly and not listening to people. Now they're trying to put a spin on it. They're trying to say, "Oh, we listened." I don't think so. This is a question that you made a mistake. You're having to come back and you're having to fix it. Let's get on with the business of fixing the problem for the people of the city of Toronto because, God knows, they need it.

1750

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Baird: I listened with great interest to my colleague the member for Cochrane South's remarks.

"To give them credit" - this government - "they've listened." Those aren't the member for Nepean's words. They are not the minister's words. Those words come from the Liberal member for Parkdale who said that this government listened and that we deserve credit for that, and I agree with him. I thanked him and acknowledged that when he was here earlier.

I listened with great interest. He said that here in the city of Toronto the local council said, "Let's give our residential taxpayers a break and whack business." And they wonder why the businesses go to Vaughan, why they go to Clarington, to Ajax, to Pickering, to Mississauga, to Oakville. Because they were taxed out of business. That's why these changes are so important.

This government has said that we will bring the municipalities with commercial-industrial taxes and education taxes higher than the provincial average to that average. For my home region that will mean a 12.7% tax cut for industrial taxpayers. Here in Toronto it will mean 50% for industrial and 25% for commercial to end that problem.

The NDP's policy and the Liberals' policy said, when it was broken: "Don't fix it. Go away and leave it alone. The status quo rules." That is something those of us on this side of the House were simply not prepared to allow to stand. We're not prepared to leave this broken system. That is something that is very important: that we pursue a fair and equitable plan.

To give the member for Cochrane South credit, he disagreed with the Liberal concentration tax on Toronto, the Liberal tax that drove jobs out of Toronto, and even he voted to get rid of it.

Mr Sergio: I want to congratulate the member for Cochrane South for his usual good presentation and knowledge of the issues when we debate them in the House.

Let me relate a particular situation I encountered yesterday with the new proposed, revised, amended system. There's a small coffee shop on Weston Road, just behind my constituency office. He said yesterday, "How come business taxes went up $840?" I said, "What are you talking about?" He said, "I have this letter from the landlord that my business taxes went up $840." Unfortunately, the letter didn't say if that was business taxes or realty taxes.

This is a big problem. This is what this government has been unloading on to the local municipalities. It's pitting tenants versus property owners, because now they have no idea what the business portion is, if there is indeed an increase or not. As a matter of fact there could be some landlords out there who are getting an increase in their realty property taxes, and now they want to pass that on to the tenants and make it appear as a business tax, which is totally unfair.

It is one of those problems that we knew would be happening. We said to the government, "If you do it, do it right." As my colleague from Parkdale was saying, "They are listening but they are not acting," and now we have the proof. They have been saying: "Mea culpa. We were wrong. We have to rectify it." So what do they do? They bring in another rush of amendments - wrong again. Why? Because they are not listening. We are giving good advice, but unfortunately they have their agenda. That's the way they want it. They want to continue to divide and -

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Marchese: I thank the member for Cochrane South for adding his perspective to this debate and would add several things.

Bill 16 corrects the incompetence of this government vis-à-vis Bill 106 and Bill 149. That's what this bill does. It corrects a problem they have caused with other bills. It corrects issues of gross leases, and there isn't enough time to get into that. It corrects the issue of the differentiated business tax on education, which they have created by taking control of education. They now need to correct that particular problem, and they're doing that. They have also solved in part the problems that charities would have faced, caused by the two previous bills, and they have somewhat solved the problem for small business by putting a cap on the tax increases they otherwise would have faced. I say "corrected partially" because this issue will come back to us three years hence to be dealt with again.

Bill 16 is not a permanent solution, but a part-time solution to get the Tories through this year and through the next election. We are coming back to this issue later because once the cap is removed three years hence, we've got a problem again to deal with, but it solves it for them temporarily. So they have surrendered to the public, based on the incompetence of the other bills, but they have caused problems in the small business capping, which will come back. They have caused serious problems by way of appeals that are in the thousands, because the assessors they used were simply inadequately trained and too few to do the job of assessing four million properties. That is why we need hearings, so the public can be heard.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I listened with interest to the remarks of the honourable member opposite. I've listened also to the questions and comments that have followed those remarks. It seems that our friends opposite are members who just won't take yes for an answer. This bill responds to the concerns that have been raised by the people of this province over the last few months on various areas of policy, and very neatly brings about solutions to each one of those areas of concern.

I met with groups in my riding over the past few months and discussed with them the concerns they had over the possible consequences of the imposition of current value assessment in their businesses. I heard from them that in particular cases it could result in unreasonably high tax increases on certain storefront businesses and on other businesses.

My colleagues throughout Toronto met with their local businesses and heard the same message. We met with the minister; we met with the Premier. We brought those concerns to the minister and to the Premier and we got quick results in the form of the bill that we are debating here this evening.

We knew that the education taxes on Toronto businesses have historically been higher than elsewhere in the province. This government has moved to correct that first by taking control of education finance away from the school boards, where the education taxes were spiralling throughout the province, but in Toronto more than anywhere else. The province took control of the education tax and now in this bill has started the process of bringing Toronto's commercial-industrial education tax down, where it will equalize the rest of the province.

The Speaker: Response, member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I want to thank all the members for their comments. Specifically to the member for York East, you say it's a question that the opposition can't take yes for an answer. It has nothing to do with us not wanting to take yes for an answer. This bill has everything to do with the fact that you are now fixing mistakes that you created when you did previous bills that dealt with municipal assessment, pure and simple. That's what we're pointing out.

The role of the opposition is to tell the government where they've done wrong and where they've done right, and in this particular case you did wrong. You made a mistake. You wouldn't listen to the ministry people when you drafted the legislation; you wouldn't listen to the people when they made submissions. You only found out that you had a problem when people came back and showed their actual tax bills and said, "Hey, we've got a real problem." Then you decided to do something about it.

It's not a question of not taking yes for an answer; it's a question of fixing your problem. But don't believe me. I'm just one member of the opposition. Believe the students from Frank P. Krznaric school, who came here earlier today. When they found out that we'd be debating this bill and I told them what it was all about, they said, "People in our society, in the society of Ontario, deserve better." They deserve better from a government that in this particular case is always picking on those people who are less fortunate and less able to get for themselves in society what others who are more fortunate are able to get. They deserve a government that says to young students at Frank P. Krznaric school, looking forward to college or university later, that they should be able to look forward to having good tuition fees that are affordable and are not climbing and going through the roof. They're worried that when they get to college and university, because of the decisions this government makes, tuition will be unaffordable and many of them will not be able to go on to some of the professions they would like to.

The other thing the students from Frank P. Krznaric told me today was, and I thought it was very telling because it's in keeping with this bill, "This is a government that is always picking on the middle class." That's exactly what's happening in this bill, because what you're doing by way of this bill is transferring a tax burden on to the residential property owners.

1800

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS / FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to standing order 37, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made. The member for Cochrane South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given Tuesday by the Attorney General on Bill 108. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : L'autre jour, le 12 mai, j'ai posé une question au procureur général qui était très claire. J'ai dit que présentement dans la province de l'Ontario, si une personne est accusée d'une offense provinciale, elle a le droit d'avoir des services en français dans les cours. C'est garanti, le procès, et le procureur de la cour assigné doit être capable de parler français pour donner l'information à la personne qui est en cour pour qu'elle puisse comprendre et avoir une cour qui est juste.

J'ai demandé, avec l'amendement que le gouvernement a mis en avant, l'amendement qu'ils nous ont donné à la Loi 108, si le même droit va être garanti une fois que l'amendement et le projet de loi seront acceptés.

Le procureur général m'a répondu, «Oui.»

Moi, j'ai dit - écoutez, c'est intéressant : «J'ai ici une décision du bureau des conseils législatifs datée le 12 mai où ils disent, et je veux la lire exactement comme c'est écrit dans la lettre, l'opinion que j'ai reçue :

"Failure to provide a bilingual prosecutor in accordance with an agreement might not invalidate a proceeding in every case, but it would invalidate a proceeding if the failure resulted in prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair hearing.

"This issue of whether the right to a fair hearing was prejudiced would depend on the particular circumstance of the case." C'est ceci qui est intéressant : "It might be relevant, for example, whether a French-speaking defendant was also fluent in English. It might also be relevant that in a province like Ontario, with residents who speak many different languages, it is not unusual for a defendant to be prosecuted by a prosecutor who does not speak the defendant's language."

Quand on voit cette opinion-là, le monde dans la communauté francophone se demande des questions. La question est très simple : Pourquoi est-ce que le gouvernement refuse d'accepter un amendement qui est clair et qui dit qu'un francophone, une fois qu'il se trouve dans une cour municipale, va avoir les mêmes protections sous la loi qu'il aurait dans une cour provinciale ?

La question est très simple. Le gouvernement essaie de patiner et de nous dire : «Écoutez. Ayez confiance en nous. On va vous donner cette garantie.» Mais j'ai eu la chance de parler à l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario. Je leur ai envoyé cette décision et j'ai dit: «Donnez-moi votre opinion sur ce que ça veut dire. Regardez et dites-le-moi.»

Ils disent dans leur lettre : «Il est essentiel que les trois dernières phrases» de la personne qui écrit l'avis «soient clarifiées avant le vote sur l'amendement du gouvernement.» Même l'Association des juristes, qui a négocié cette entente, a des «concerns» faisant affaire avec l'amendement que vous avez fait.

Ma question est très simple : Est-ce que les francophones de la province de l'Ontario vont avoir les mêmes garanties qu'ils ont présentement sous la loi, une fois que les services juridiques seront transférés aux municipalités de l'Ontario ? La réponse, est-elle oui, et comment ?

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): The member for Cochrane South has registered his dissatisfaction with the government's proposed amendment to Bill 108 and with the Attorney General's response a couple of days ago to the question of protecting French language rights in relation to the transfer of the Provincial Offences Act services to municipalities.

We are confident that our proposed amendment to our legislation and our memorandum of understanding protect French linguistic rights. The Courts of Justice Act guarantees trials in French. Even after the transfer of the POA it will continue to apply to all areas of the province.

We have set out in the memorandum of understanding all provincial principles of justice and standards of services that municipalities will be required to maintain when they take on POA responsibilities. That includes current provincial standards of services in French. Any municipal partner that takes on POA responsibilities will first need to demonstrate their ability to meet provincial standards.

Bill 108 authorizes the Attorney General to actively monitor municipal performance, order compliance with standards and impose standards where standards are not met. Bill 108 authorizes the Attorney General to set up a review committee to assist with monitoring performance and resolving disputes and to recommend sanctions if necessary.

Both AJEFO and AFMO, as well as other key stakeholders in the transfer, have agreed to participate in the review committee. These associations have also expressed their willingness to provide support to those municipalities with fewer bilingual resources.

Also the l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario has noted in a recent communiqué that "It is quite encouraging to note that linguistic rights and basic principles of law will be preserved" as part of the proposed transfer of the POA responsibilities.

The amendment reinforces the right to a fair hearing and clarifies the intention of the section. The intent of that section is to prevent court proceedings from being invalidated solely on the basis of technicalities.

I quote from a recent letter from the president of AJEFO to the Attorney General regarding the text of the proposed amendments to Bill 108 and the memorandum of understanding:

"I would like to thank you for the successful result we have achieved. By protecting existing language rights in this way as part of the transfer to Ontario municipalities of prosecution responsibilities with respect to certain provincial offences and certain federal contraventions, you are the first government to clearly specify the right to a French-speaking municipal prosecutor. I am also pleased that the wording used will ensure the delivery of counter services in French.

"Finally, I would like to thank you for your personal intervention in this matter and for your suggestions which allowed us to protect language rights, which are so important to our Canadian identity. I am very happy that we were able to work together to amend this bill in so positive a manner."

AFMO has also written in support of Bill 108, stating that by participating in the review committee, "both associations can ensure that current services in French will be maintained."

I am confident that this reply satisfies the question of the member for Cochrane South.

The Speaker: It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned till 1:30 of the clock May 25.

The House adjourned at 1809.

14 mai 1998