Journal des débats 1998-juin-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Projet de loi 17, Loi confirmant que les droits liés au français ne sont pas touchés par le transfert de programmes et services provinciaux / Bill 17, An Act to confirm that French language rights are unaffected by provincial downloading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : J'aimerais premièrement expliquer pourquoi ce projet de loi est important.

Comme on le sait, le gouvernement provincial est, et sera dans les années à venir, dans la situation de transférer beaucoup des services provinciaux aux municipalités à travers la province. Comme on le sait, on a présentement dans la province la Loi 8 sur les services en français, qui a été établie il y a 12 ans, qui nous donne une garantie que, quand on est un francophone qui demeure dans une région désignée de l'Ontario, on a le droit sous cette loi de demander auprès de la province les services en français, sous les services provinciaux.

En d'autres mots, si je vais à l'hôpital dans la ville de Timmins, d'Ottawa, de London, Toronto et autres, j'ai le droit, comme francophone, de demander ces services en français auprès de la province, des agences provinciales ou des services en français directement reliés à la province.

Mais comme on le sait, le gouvernement provincial est présentement en train de transférer beaucoup de ces services aux municipalités. Par exemple, on sait que le gouvernement provincial veut transférer le système de logement aux municipalités ; on sait qu'ils veulent transférer le système d'ambulances aux municipalités, pour n'en nommer qu'un couple, et une gamme d'autres services qui vont être transférés.

Le problème qu'on a, c'est qu'une fois que ces services seront transférés aux municipalités, les droit des francophones sous la Loi 8 seront perdus. En d'autres mots, la Loi des services en français garantit seulement les services provinciaux qui sont livrés par la province ou une agence de la province, non inclues sont les municipalités.

Le gouvernement provincial nous dit, quand on écoute le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones : «Ne vous inquiétez pas, les francophones. On va vous protéger. Quand on fait le transfert de tous les services», dont j'ai nommé quelques-uns tout à l'heure, «on va garantir les services en français dans des ententes que l'on va signer avec les municipalités à travers la province.»

En d'autres mots, si la ville de Timmins ou Hearst ou Iroquois Falls ou n'importe quelle ville signe une entente avec un ministère pour avoir un service, le ministère va exiger à ce qu'il signe un contrat qui dit que la municipalité doit garantir des services en français. Le gouvernement prend la position que c'est adéquat et que cela respecte les services en français et donne les garanties aux francophones telles qu'on a présentement.

Moi, je ne suis pas d'accord, parce que quand on regarde ce que ça veut dire dans la loi, une entente n'a pas le même poids qu'un droit garanti dans un statut législatif. C'est pour cette raison que je veux être capable de faire passer ce projet de loi pour nous assurer et mettre au clair que les services en français vont être garantis.

On a l'exemple dont je viens de parler que les services ne peuvent pas être garantis dans une entente tels qu'il sont garantis dans une loi. On a justement une instance d'un projet de loi qui est présentement devant l'Assemblée, le projet de loi 108 sous le procureur général. C'est un peu la même situation. Le gouvernement transfère certaines responsabilités pour des offenses provinciales du procureur général des cours provinciales aux municipalités, aux cours municipales. Le gouvernement prend la même position avec cette loi quant aux transferts qu'il va prendre avec toutes les autres : «Ne vous inquiétez pas. On va faire une entente, on va signer une entente, puis ça va nous donner, les francophones, toutes les garanties qu'on voudrait jamais avoir avec les services en français.»

Le problème est que, quand on examine cette loi, quand on examine les ententes et quand on examine même l'amendement que le gouvernement nous a donné, les opinions légales qu'on a du bureau des conseils législatifs de l'Ontario, de Racicot Maisonneuve Labelle Cooper, de Genest Murray DesBrisay Lamek et d'autres avocats et compagnies qu'on a contactés nous disent que le gouvernement ne peut pas garantir d'une manière adéquate les services en français tels qu'on a présentement dans la loi si on les met dans une entente.

C'est pour cette raison qu'on demande au gouvernement de supporter mon projet de loi, sous mon nom mais un projet de loi qui est mis avant par le caucus NPD, pour dire : «Mettons au clair cette question. Les francophones ont travaillé trop fort, trop longtemps, trop dur pour avoir les petits droits qu'on a. Ce qu'on a, c'est la Loi sur les services en français qui nous garantit qu'on a, au moins dans les régions désignées, la capacité de demander des services en français de notre province. On ne demande pas au gouvernement de nous donner des droits qui n'existent pas à ce point-ci. On sait que le gouvernement n'est pas interessé. Mais quand ça vient aux services en français, on demande au moins qu'on ne fasse pas un recul. On demande au gouvernement qu'on garde au moins ce qu'on a et qu'on garantisse sous le projet de loi mis en avant par moi et mon caucus NPD les services en français qui existent présentement.

Pour le gouvernement de nier cette demande, pour le gouvernement de voter contre ce projet de loi, dans mon opinion, ça me dit que ce gouvernement n'est pas engagé au point qu'il a besoin d'être engagé quand ça vient à la protection des services en français. C'est pour cette raison qu'on met en place ce projet de loi.

Je répète, on a travaillé trop fort dans la communauté francophone, on a oeuvré, on a travaillé, on a tout fait pour être capable d'avancer au point qu'on est. Je regarde les actions des groupes comme l'ACFO, je regarde l'ouvrage du père Thériault dans mon coin, je regarde l'ouvrage de M. Grandmaître, qui est ici aujourd'hui, qui est le père de la Loi 8, je regarde l'ouvrage que tous les francophones ensemble ont fait les dernières années pour être capables d'avancer les droits des francophones au point qu'on les a comme c'est là.

On demande au gouvernement de ne pas prendre un recul. On sait que le ministre va se lever tout à l'heure et il va me dire : «Inquiétez-vous pas. On n'a pas besoin de voter pour ce projet de loi parce que nous, le gouvernement conservateur de Mike Harris, allons garantir les services en français dans les ententes.»

C'est ça que le ministre, qui est ici, va nous dire, parce que c'est ça qu'il me dit quand il me parle en privé. Mais je veux lui dire publiquement à travers cette Chambre que ce n'est pas une garantie législative. C'est ça le problème. Et ce qu'on demande au gouvernement, c'est de nous donner au moins une garantie à travers un projet de loi et non une entente signée entre les municipalités et le gouvernement.

Non seulement une entente n'a-t-elle pas le même poids qu'un droit législatif ; l'autre problème qu'on a c'est que, quoiqu'il arrive, supposément, une municipalité signe une entente avec la province et dit : «Oui, on va signer une entente, pour trois ans ou cinq ans, qui dit "nous la municipalité X ou B allons garantir les droits des services en français tel que dans l'entente"».

Mais cinq ans plus tard, trois ans plus tard, à la fin de l'entente, ils reviennent à la province et ils disent : «Monsieur la province, on n'a plus d'argent. Le gouvernement nous a coupé. Ils ont transféré une gamme de services qu'on ne peut plus payer. Les coûts du bien-être social, du logement, des ambulances et tous les autres services nous coûtent trop.» Et ils disent : «Monsieur le procureur général - ou madame la ministre de la Santé, ou n'importe quel service qui a été transféré dans l'entente - on ne veut plus avoir l'obligation de donner des services en français.»

Et ce n'est pas un processus public qui arrive à ce point-là. C'est un processus privé entre la municipalité et la province. Et à ce point là, il va y avoir assez de pressions des municipalités parce qu'on sait la direction où le gouvernement s'en va avec les coupures et le transfert des services aux municipalités. Il va y avoir beaucoup de pressions par les municipalités sur les ministres de la Couronne dans les années à venir de demander de réduire ces droits qu'on a présentement et d'ôter cette garantie dans l'entente. C'est un des points que je veux faire.

Le deuxième point : Qu'est-ce qu'on fait avec des municipalités comme Thunder Bay et autres qui ont présentement dans leur livre municipal une motion qui dit «Nous sommes anglais seulement» quand ça vient à livrer des services en français ?

Comment est-ce qu'on peut transférer un service provincial à une telle municipalité qui nous dit par entente qu'elle ne veut pas donner des services en français ? Le ministre va dire : «On ne va pas transférer les services dans le cas où les municipalités comme Thunder Bay disent "On est unilingue anglais." On ne les transfère pas.»

Excuse-moi. Penses-tu pour une seconde que la province ne va pas transférer tous ces services aux municipalités ? Eh bien oui, ils vont les transférer, parce que s'ils ne le font pas, toutes les municipalités à travers l'Ontario - une bonne gang, pas toutes - vont dire : «Tout ce que j'ai besoin de faire c'est de passer une motion pour dire que je donne seulement des services en anglais.» Il va y avoir une gamme de municipalités qui vont passer ces motions pour se protéger contre le dévoluement des services provinciaux aux municipalités.

Quand le gouvernement va se lever tout à l'heure, il va essayer de nous répondre sur ces points-là en nous disant : «Inquiétez-vous pas. Ayez confiance en nous autres, fiez-vous sur nous. On va vous protéger.» Mais c'est bien trop dangereux et c'est bien trop sombre, toute cette affaire-là.

Premièrement les ententes, ce n'est pas une garantie législative ; deuxièmement, l'entente est quelque chose qui est signée entre la municipalité et le ministère et elle peut être changée dans le futur sans aucun procès public, ce qui veut dire qu'une municipalité peut revenir et demander à un ministre d'ôter cette section-là de l'entente, et les droits des francophones seront oubliés ; troisièmement, et ce n'est pas la dernière assignation, mais j'ai seulement 29 secondes, c'est comment traiter des municipalités qui disent : «On a passé des motions pour dire qu'on est uniquement anglophones» ?

1010

Or, je demande aux membres de cette Assemblée de tous les partis de faire comme on a fait quand on a passé la Loi 8, et que l'on envoie ensemble un message positif à la communauté francophone pour dire que tous les partis - ND, libéral et conservateur - votent en faveur du projet de loi parce que c'est le même projet de loi qu'on a eu sous les services en français et on veut envoyer un message positif à la communauté francophone.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 17, introduced by the member for Cochrane South. First of all, I want to say we have a slight problem with the title of the bill. I think the member's purpose is to deal with the realignment of services between the provincial and municipal governments in relation to the Provincial Offences Act. I would point out that some of the transfers generate revenue and some reduce revenue to municipalities. This is one that increases revenue to municipalities, and I would say that municipalities would likely have some concern with its being called downloading. I think they appreciate the ability to raise funds.

Having said that, the goal of this bill is admirable: to confirm that the existing language rights protected under the French Language Services Act are unaffected by the provincial-municipal realignment of services and responsibilities. We support that goal. However, the government prefers an approach which will incorporate the flexibility to meet the needs of both the francophone community and those of the municipalities which will be providing services in French.

As a government, we believe services in French are important. Early in the local services realignment process the potential loss of acquired rights to services in French was recognized as a major issue. The government realizes that the francophone community is concerned about the transfer of provincial services and its impact on the delivery of these services in French.

We are certainly aware of the importance of maintaining French language services in the province's designated areas. That's why we will work in partnership with municipalities to develop options for the delivery of these services in French. In the transfer of provincial programs to municipalities, all service levels, including linguistic ones, will be negotiated on a program-by-program basis. There are obvious benefits to this approach. It allows the flexibility to choose the method of providing French language services for each program or service that is transferred.

Municipalities in designated areas are aware of the needs of their francophone residents and already provide a range of municipal services in French. In fact, a quarter of the municipalities located in the province's designated areas have either passed resolutions declaring themselves bilingual or have stated that they are in favour of minority language rights. Sixty-three percent of the francophone population in designated areas reside in these municipalities. I think this shows that Ontario's municipalities in designated areas recognize and serve their francophone residents.

Our government believes our current course of action is the right one. It means that the provision of services in French will be rationalized based on the francophone community's needs, and builds on the existing services currently offered by municipalities located in designated areas.

In closing, the government will not be supporting this bill as we believe the strategy that we have developed will meet the needs of the francophone community. I would like to commend the member for Cochrane South for bringing this bill forward simply because it once again brings the importance of French language services to our attention.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): The government shares the member for Cochrane South's concerns that French language services be protected as the province proceeds with the realignment of local services.

The Attorney General is pleased that the proposed transfer of Provincial Offences Act responsibilities provides an opportunity to enhance the provision of French language services. The framework provided by Bill 108 and the transfer agreement ensures that municipalities will be able to demonstrate their commitment to provide Provincial Offences Act French language services. Combined with monitoring and clear sanctions, francophones are assured that they will have access to the same level of bilingual service in the provincial court system as they do currently.

The Attorney General has consulted extensively with two major francophone associations: l'Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario, l'AFMO, which represents 45 municipalities serving 85% of the province's francophone population; and l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario, l'AJEFO, which represents French jurists in Ontario.

L'AFMO, l'AJEFO and l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, l'ACFO, support our approach to protecting French-language rights in the POA transfer.

L'AFMO has stated: "We accept your offer to participate in the review committee.... By participating, both associations can ensure that current services in French will be maintained."

L'AJEFO has written that "the government ensures respect for the basic principles of justice and for language rights by municipalities interested in signing an agreement with the Attorney General."

L'ACFO commented that "...linguistic rights and basic principles of law will be preserved when Ontario municipalities are transferred the responsibility for lawsuits and some provincial infractions." Further, they state, "We say kudos to the Ontario government."

Both l'AJEFO and l'AFMO will continue to work with us to ensure that our approach is effective. They have agreed to participate in the review committee that will monitor municipal performances and assess disputes. Our partnership approach ensures that French rights will be maintained in a flexible, cost-effective way.

We believe that this cooperative approach will do much more to foster the understanding between anglophones and francophones in this province than legislation possibly could. Our approach to protecting French-language services necessitates training and education, cooperation between levels of government and between francophone and anglophone organizations.

We believe that, in the long run, working together in this way will benefit Ontarians' access to French-language services more permanently and more profoundly than any attempt to legislate these rights could ever achieve.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Premièrement, je dois vous dire que c'est le début d'un grand débat, parce que le gouvernement de l'Ontario est déterminé de dévoluer plusieurs de ses responsabilités au niveau municipal. Comme vous le savez, la Loi 8 n'oblige pas les municipalités d'offrir la même qualité, les mêmes services qu'au niveau provincial.

Pourtant, en 1986, lors de la présentation de la Loi 8, tout le monde était d'accord. Ils ont voté de façon unanime : le ministre actuel des Affaires francophones, M. Villeneuve, le premier ministre de l'Ontario, M. Harris, tout le monde était d'accord avec ce modèle.

Mais, par contre, aujourd'hui, le gouvernement de l'Ontario change le modèle. Comme l'adjoint parlementaire aux Affaires municipales, le député d'Oxford, a mentionné tantôt, «We prefer a different approach.»

Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire ? Ça veut dire qu'on veut détourner la Loi 8. On veut la détourner et se satisfaire. Quand je dis «se satisfaire», satisfaire le gouvernement, et c'est ça qui nous fait peur. Ce n'est pas que je n'ai pas confiance en le procureur général lorsqu'il parle de la Loi 108 et aujourd'hui du projet de loi de mon collègue Bisson. C'est que j'ai peur de ce gouvernement. Ça me fait peur, parce qu'on parle seulement d'un service aujourd'hui, les infractions.

Alors, voici que, comme mon collègue Bisson a mentionné, tantôt nous allons parler du logement, nous allons parler du service d'ambulance, nous allons parler d'une grande gamme de services qui seront dévolués au niveau municipal.

1020

On peut parler de l'ACFO, on peut parler de l'AJEFO, on peut parler de l'AFMO, on peut parler de toutes les «FOs», mais laissez-moi vous dire, j'ai confiance en ces gens-là, mais je n'ai pas confiance en la sincérité du gouvernement d'aujourd'hui, pour la simple raison que je me suis fait dire, en Chambre, après une question posée au ministre des Affaires francophones et une question semblable posée au premier ministre de l'Ontario : «Inquiète-toi pas, Grandmaître, les services seront en place.» Mais, par contre, lorsqu'on pose la question au procureur général, «Est-ce que les municipalités de l'Ontario auront l'obligation d'offrir les services au même niveau que sous la Loi 8 ?» le procureur général nous dit, et je cite, le 1^er juin, «This is a compromise which, in my opinion, benefits all parties. The government ensures respect for the basic principles of justice and for language rights by municipalities» - écoutez bien - «interested in signing an agreement. »

Qu'est-ce qui va arriver aux municipalités qui refusent de signer une entente ? Est-ce que le gouvernement va obliger ces municipalités à respecter la Loi 8 ? La Loi 8, comme mon collègue d'en face vient de mentionner, n'oblige pas les municipalités à la prestation de services en français.

Monsieur le Président, j'ai peur du premier pas, du premier geste du gouvernement de l'Ontario, et ce n'est pas fini. Un jour, on se retrouvera en cour, chose dont je ne veut pas entendre parler. Je ne veux pas me retrouver en cour. Je veux que le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui reconnaisse que les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes ont un droit acquis par la constitution du Canada, et on veut que ces droits-là soient respectés en Ontario et à travers le Canada.

M. Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Je suis content d'avoir l'opportunité de dire quelques mots sur ce sujet, un sujet qui, je crois, touche d'une manière essentielle une question très importante, parce qu'il s'agit d'une question de principe.

Le gouvernement est en train de réduire, selon nous, selon mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud - et je le félicite pour l'initiative qu'il a prise de présenter ce projet de loi et le fait qu'il l'a fait après avoir essayé de convaincre le gouvernement, le procureur général en particulier, de faire des amendements au projet de loi 108, chose que le gouvernement refuse de faire, pour assurer qu'il y aura dans ledit projet de loi les mêmes protections pour les francophones de l'Ontario qui existent maintenant.

C'est ça la question essentielle. On sait que le gouvernement est en train de transférer du niveau provincial au niveau municipal beaucoup de services. Il s'agit ici de questions qui touchent aux tribunaux. Dans ce contexte, on sait que maintenant, dans la loi actuelle, comme on l'a déjà décrite, la fameuse Loi 8, il y a des protections, il y a des droits que les francophones ont demandé, en effet. Ils ont maintenant le droit absolu, on pourrait dire, je crois, à un procès en français, parce que dans le présent contexte, comme le bureau du conseiller législatif nous indique, une personne francophone qui tombe sous la protection des provisions de la Loi 8 a le droit à un procès qui serait conduit en français et en anglais. Donc, on a ce droit actuellement, et ce que le gouvernement est en train de faire, c'est simplement de réduire ce droit.

La protection qui existe maintenant est essentielle, est une protection de base, est un droit auquel on est arrivé à travers des discussions, à travers un consensus politique parmi tous les partis représentés ici à l'Assemblée de l'Ontario. Ce que le gouvernement de M. Harris est en train de faire aujourd'hui, et d'une manière particulière à travers la position qu'ils ont prise sur la Loi 108, c'est de réduire, de diminuer les protections et les droits de nos concitoyens francophones ici en Ontario. C'est donc une question de principes, une question sur laquelle il faudrait réfléchir sérieusement.

Si on commence ici à réduire, comme le gouvernement est en train de faire, les droits essentiels qu'ont les Franco-Ontariens maintenant, on pourrait se demander jusqu'à quel point le gouvernement de M. Harris est prêt d'aller. Si on est prêt, comme le sont M. Harris, M. Harnick et le gouvernement de M. Harris, à diminuer les droits qui touchent les questions essentielles comme le droit au procès, qui font, comme vous le savez, la base de notre système démocratique, alors on pourrait vraiment se demander jusqu'à quel point le gouvernement est en train d'aller.

Ici il s'agit clairement de noter ce que le projet de loi 17 présenté par mon collègue M. Bisson de Cochrane-Sud est en train de faire. C'est d'assurer que si le gouvernement veut transférer certaines responsabilités du niveau provincial au niveau municipal, il faudrait avoir dans ces transferts et dans la loi qui permet les transferts de certains services, les mêmes protections pour les Franco-Ontariens qui existent maintenant. Il ne devrait pas être question de réduire, ou même la possibilité de réduire, ces droits.

Or, nous savons que le procureur général nous a dit plusieurs fois qu'ils allaient régler ce problème à travers une entente. Ils sont maintenant retournés ici à l'Assemblée législative en nous disant qu'ils étaient prêts à faire un petit amendement au projet de loi 108. Mais selon nous et d'une manière particulière selon les avocats et selon le bureau des conseillers législatifs, on sait que même avec l'amendement que le gouvernement veut présenter à la Loi 108, il n'y aura pas la même protection qui existe maintenant. Actuellement il y a, comme j'ai déjà dit, le droit absolu à un procès en français, mais même avec l'amendement que propose le procureur général à la Loi 108, il n'y aura pas la même protection. Il s'agira, comme nous disent les conseillers législatifs, à travers cet accord, et je le cite en anglais : «In other words, if an agreement required a municipality to provide a bilingual prosecutor and the municipality failed to do so, the failure would not by itself invalidate the prosecution.»

Il y a donc là un changement dans le niveau de protection qui existe. Même avec l'amendement proposé, le bureau des conseillers législatifs nous dit : «The failure to comply with the agreement results in prejudice to the defendant's rights to a fair hearing." That's essentially the proposal, the amendment of the government. In other words, 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 rights to a fair hearing.

1030

Donc, on change essentiellement la base de protection qui existe maintenant et les droits qui existent maintenant pour les Franco-Ontariens. Maintenant, ils ont le droit de demander que le procès soit en français. C'est simple, et ça devrait être les droits qui devraient continuer avec n'importe quel transfert de service de la part du gouvernement, du niveau provincial au niveau municipal. C'est une question simple. C'est une question de principe et donc, il n'est pas question de dire, «Avec des ententes on va régler le problème avec des autres amendements.»

Donc, ce que le projet de loi 17 de M. Bisson est en train de faire, c'est franchement ce que le gouvernement devrait faire : d'assurer que, dans ce transfert de services, il y aura pour les Franco-Ontariens de l'Ontario la même protection, les mêmes droits qui existent maintenant, droits qui, selon le projet de loi 108, ne seront pas au même niveau qui existe maintenant, et droits qui, selon de projet de loi 17 de M. Bisson, seraient garantis au même niveau qui existe maintenant. Donc, j'appuie certainement le projet de loi, parce que je vois dans ce projet de loi la prise de responsabilité de la part de M. Bisson qui, franchement, n'est pas là de la part du procureur général et du gouvernement de M. Harris. Chose que je trouve troublante, c'est que le gouvernement Harris est en train de commencer ici ce qui pourrait être le premier pas dans la réduction, la diminution des droits des Franco-Ontariens en Ontario. C'est quelque chose qui devrait nous préoccuper sérieusement.

Donc j'invite, j'encourage, les députés de l'Assemblée de tous les partis à appuyer la proposition de loi de M Bisson, parce que ça donnerait un message clair au gouvernement de l'Ontario, à M. Harris, à M. Harnick, de dire que vous devrez réexaminer la question et être prêts à accepter cette proposition. Et certainement l'acceptation de ce projet de loi donnerait aussi à la communauté franco-ontarienne l'assurance que nous, comme députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, sommes sérieux dans notre appui des droits des franco-ontariens ici dans cette province.

L'hon. Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Ça me fait plaisir de participer au débat en deuxième lecture du projet de loi 17.

En 1986, je veux tout simplement vous rappeler que, sous un gouvernement de David Peterson et sous la direction de mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est, les trois partis ont voté en faveur du projet de loi 8, la Loi sur les services en français. La section 1 exclut les municipalités, de même que conseils locaux, au sens de la Loi sur les affaires municipales. Cette section décrit clairement que des municipalités ne sont pas assujetties à offrir les services en français. Par contre, même s'il était bien inscrit dans la loi, les municipalités se sont déclarées unilingues anglaises, unilingues françaises, bilingues, etc, si elles étaient dans une région désignée ou non.

Puis en 1990, nous avons même eu dans cette Assemblée deux débats sur les motions de l'opposition touchant sur les services en français, une motion de mon parti, ainsi qu'une motion du Nouveau parti démocratique. Dans la motion du parti NPD, une section s'inscrivait, et je cite, «qu'aucune municipalité n'est tenue de fournir des services municipaux en anglais et en français à moins d'une décision prise par ladite municipalité.» Je ne suis pas ici pour rouvrir des débats linguistiques, mais pour informer l'Assemblée qu'en tant que ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones je peux assurer que mes collègues au sein du Conseil des ministres et au caucus reconnaissent l'importance des municipalités dans les régions désignées s'offrir des services en français de qualité dans la livraison de leurs nouvelles responsabilités.

Ces incidents linguistiques ont quand même apporté un peu de lumière sur le sujet. Cinquante-huit municipalités se sont déclarées bilingues, ou ont exprimé qu'ils étaient en faveur des droits linguistiques minoritaires. Ceci représente environ 63 % de la population francophone en Ontario. Trente-six autres municipalités n'ont aucune objection à offrir les services en français. Cela représente un autre 23 % de la population, pour un total de 86 % de notre population francophone représentée par ces municipalités. Voyez-vous, ces municipalités ont su reconnaître l'importance de desservir leurs communautés et de répondre aux besoins locaux sans l'implication directe du gouvernement provincial.

Pour le reste de la population francophone, notre gouvernement est persuadé que les municipalités vont respecter les ententes et nous avons confiance en eux. Ces municipalités seront les mieux placées pour livrer les services de qualité de façon efficace et responsable à leur communauté, qu'elle soit anglophone, francophone ou bilingue. Les municipalités gardent leur autonomie, tout en respectant leur responsabilité linguistique. C'est pourquoi chaque programme - et je répète, chaque programme - sera négocié sur une base individuelle avec les gouvernements locaux et régionaux.

Par exemple, mon collègue le procureur général, sous son projet de loi 108, qui attend présentement le débat devant le comité plénier pour proposer officiellement son amendement, a consulté et négocié avec l'AJEFO, l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario, et de l'AFMO, l'Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario. Ensemble, ils ont conclu une entente qui favorise le transfert d'infractions provinciales aux municipalités.

De même, l'ACFO, l'Association canadienne française de l'Ontario, les appuie haut la main dans leurs démarches.

La lettre du président de l'AFMO, M. Jean-Marie Blier, le maire de Hearst, exprime clairement à M. Harnick l'appui des municipalités francophones :

«Les outils et les moyens énumérés dans les annexes sont perçus par l'AFMO comme un ensemble de ressources indispensables pour la mise en oeuvre efficace de ce projet de loi et l'appui de nos municipalités membres. Les révisions au projet de loi 108 que nous avons discutées le 21 avril dernier vont persuader celles et ceux qui n'étaient pas encore convaincus, de l'engagement de votre gouvernement à la préservation des droits acquis linguistiques en Ontario. Le conseil d'administration et les municipalités membres encouragent le gouvernement et l'Assemblé législative de l'Ontario à approuver dès cette session le projet de loi 108.»

M^e Tory Colvin, président de l'AJEFO, suite aux négociations indique dans sa lettre du 7 mai à mon collègue l'honorable Charles Harnick :

«Le gouvernement assure le respect des grands principes de la justice et des droits linguistiques par les municipalités intéressées à signer une entente avec le procureur général. La communauté franco-ontarienne bénéficiera du fait qu'en Ontario, les droits linguistiques sont associés aux droits statutaires et de la "common law". Je tiens à vous remercier pour le résultat heureux auquel nous arrivons. En protégeant ainsi les droits linguistiques existants dans le cadre du transfert aux municipalités ontariennes de la responsabilité de poursuite en matière de certaines infractions provinciales et de certaines contraventions fédérales, vous êtes le premier gouvernement à spécifier clairement le droit à un poursuivant municipal d'expression française. Je me réjouis aussi que la formulation retenue assurera la prestation en français des services aux comptoirs.»

Nous voyons certainement que nous avons l'appui de la communauté francophone. L'intention du projet de loi de M. Bisson est conforme aux objectifs de notre gouvernement. Nous y avions même pensé. Mais apres plusieurs consultations avec nos partenaires communautaires et municipaux, nous avons tous conclus que notre approche est plus pratique, plus flexible et même plus efficace à mettre en oeuvre. Vous pouvez comprendre que cette réforme est majeure et complexe. Le tout doit être bien planifié et détaillé afin de s'assurer que les francophones en Ontario aient accès à toute la gamme de services en français.

Depuis quelques semaines, M. Bisson est convaincu que les francophones vont perdre leurs droits à un tribunal en français. Notre gouvernement croit, au contraire, que les francophones de l'Ontario gardent leurs droits d'accès à des tribunaux en français dans le cadre de notre approche.

Je veux simplement rappeler à tous mes collègues, si le gouvernement Harris, qui a donné la gestion française et le financement équitable qui avaient été promis par les NPD, par les libéraux - le gouvernement Harris ont accompli ce qu'ils avaient promis.

Interjection.

L'hon. M. Villeneuve : C'est exactement ce qui c'est produit, monsieur Grandmaître.

Nous avons présentement plus de 184 organismes qui sont désignées à offrir leurs services en français. Le tiers de ces organismes ont été désignés sous notre gouvernement depuis 1995.

Le collège d'Alfred maintient son mandat comme le seul collège francophone agro-alimentaire en Amérique du Nord hors Québec.

Interjection.

1040

Le Président suppléant : Alors, s'il vous plaît, monsieur le Ministre. Le député d'Ottawa-Est, s'il vous plaît.

L'hon. M. Villeneuve : En terminant, je peux vous assurer que les services et les besoins de nos francophones vont être bel et bien rencontrés et comblés.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : C'est avec grand plaisir que je prends la parole sur ce projet de loi 17. Je peux dire que nous allons définitivement appuyer ce projet. Pourquoi ? C'est que je suis vraiment désappointé d'entendre la position que prend notre ministre responsable des Affaires francophones au sujet des francophones au-delà de la langue française ici-même en Ontario.

C'est qu'après le dépôt et après avoir participé au débat de la Loi 108, M. le ministre responsable des Affaires francophones ainsi que son collègue nous ont dit que les services francophones et les services linguistiques seront protégés à l'intérieur de la Loi 108. On nous dit que l'AFMO, l'ACFO ainsi que l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario on dit qu'ils supportaient le gouvernement. Mais c'est bien beau de dire que «nous supportons le position du gouvernement.» Mais le gouvernement n'a jamais dit que ça ne ferait pas partie de la Loi 108.

Donc, c'est facile de dire, «Nous allons nous assurer à ce que les droits linguistiques soient protégés pour les francophones de l'Ontario tel que stipulé dans la Loi 8.» Mais d'après moi, le projet de loi que mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud vient de déposer ce matin, c'est pour protéger les droits linguistiques des francophones hors Québec.

Lorsque nous analysons la position que ce gouvernement prend envers les francophones hors Québec ou francophones de l'Ontario, nous avons raison d'être inquiets parce que, à chaque fois que nous essayons de dire - nous avons ici des lettres d'avocats qui s'y connaissent en droits linguistiques, et ils disent clairement que la langue française des francophones de l'Ontario n'est pas protégée à l'intérieur de ce projet de loi-là.

Nous savons qu'actuellement avec le dépôt du projet de loi - c'est pour ça que nous débattons le projet de loi de notre collègue de Cochrane-Sud - nous n'avons aucune garantie que les droits francophones seront respectés par ce gouvernement. Nous n'avons qu'à regarder. C'est le début de la fin de la Loi 8. Quand je dis «le début de la fin de la loi 8», M. le ministre vient de mentionner : «C'est laissé à la discrétion des municipalités si elles veulent donner le service aux francophones de l'Ontario.»

Mais rappelons-nous que le gouvernement à décidé de mettre en place un service aux francophones assuré dans 23 régions de l'Ontario. À l'intérieur des 23 régions, cela veut dire que nous avons rencontré des critères établis afin de reconnaître les services en français aux citoyens et citoyennes de l'Ontario. Mais le gouvernement n'est pas prêt à respecter la clause de la Loi 8. Avec ça, encore une fois c'est le début de la fin de la Loi 8. Nous regardons la Loi 108, et actuellement nous reconnaissons que beaucoup de services seront transférés aux municipalités.

Je n'ai qu'à regarder dans mon secteur en l'est ontarien, Prescott et Russell, pour savoir que souvent des services ambulanciers ne sont donnés que par des anglophones lorsqu'il vient le temps d'apporter des services additionnels si des ambulances sur place sont déjà partis avec un autre service ailleurs.

Donc, actuellement dans mon comté nous avons au-delà de 20 % de la population qui ne dit pas et ne parle pas un mot en anglais. Lorsqu'on va parler de services de santé, c'est très difficile de dire, «J'ai mal à la tête», ou «J'ai mal à l'estomac» si on ne sait pas le dire. Donc, l'ambulancier va essayer d'apporter des services aux patients selon les mots qu'ils vont mentionner.

Mais nous regardons le service policier. Actuellement, oui, c'est bien. Je les encourage, les municipalités, d'aller acheter des services de la Sûreté provinciale de l'Ontario. Mais par le temps qu'on va pouvoir arriver à s'assurer à ce que tous les policiers de la sûreté provinciale, qui devient sûreté municipale, plus parler dans les deux langues, on doit s'assurer un service de langue française à tous les citoyens et citoyennes de Prescott et Russell, mais aussi dans le reste de la province. Il n'y en a pas que dans mon comté qui ne parlent que le français. Il y en a certainement dans le nord et dans le sud de l'Ontario, mais ces deux points.

Ensuite, nous avons les services de santé. Le bureau de l'est de l'Ontario actuellement qui dessert cinq comtés - on nous dit dans la rapport de restructuration des soins de santé de SDG et Prescott et Russell que nous avons seulement 14 % ou 18 % de francophones. C'est encore faux. On dit en Ottawa-Carleton 14 % ; on a complètement oublié Prescott et Russell dans la restructuration des soins de santé à Ottawa. Est-ce que c'est fait exprès par ce gouvernement pour s'assurer à ce qu'on ne continue pas les services aux francophones de l'est ontarien aussi bien qu'a travers la province ?

Lorsque je regarde l'ACFO, l'AFMO, l'Association des juristes, ils ont dit au gouvernement : «Oui, c'est très bien. On l'accepte». Je me rappelle un matin à Radio-Canada où on disait que tout était beau et clair, que le gouvernement avait consenti à s'assurer que des services seraient donnés dans les deux langues. C'est faux. Il n'y a aucun garanti. Lorsque nous avons eu le débat de la Loi 108, les deux ministres se sont levés ici en Chambre et ils ont dit : «Oui, c'est assuré.» Mais quand on ajoute donc à la Loi 108, on n'en est pas capable. C'est parce qu'on essaye de dévier afin qu'un jour on puisse dire : «Les francophones de l'Ontario, si vous êtes prêts à apprendre l'anglais, allez-vous-en ailleurs qu'en Ontario. C'est ça que j'ai dit lorsqu'il est arrivé le débat pour l'accord de Calgary. Encore là, on s'en va dans le même sens.

Je trouve regrettable que ce gouvernement n'accepte pas de mettre ces clauses dans la Loi 108. Définitivement, j'espère que la Chambre en entier supportera le projet de loi 17.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to congratulate Gilles Bisson, the member for Cochrane South, for putting forward Bill 17 this morning. However, I'm dismayed that we're even here debating this today.

In 1986, Bill 8 was introduced in this House and was supported by all three parties. Mr Speaker, I know you were here at that time, and if you were in your seat today - I know you're neutral now - you would be speaking, I'm sure, in favour of Mr Bisson's bill, because I know how strongly you feel about it. We've talked about this.

Bill 108 cannot guarantee French services as they exist today. We know that. The government is trying to find ways around that in the way they're speaking today, but we know exactly what it means: This is an erosion of the rights guaranteed under Bill 8. Mr Speaker, as I think you said to me, it hurts no one. Why start eroding that? At the end of the day, once that erosion starts, it may be small now but it will grow over time.

In my view, it's a very dangerous thing we're doing here today and it should be taken extremely seriously. It seems perhaps like a small thing, but it's a very dangerous move since the all-party support for Bill 8, which guarantees these services.

I was appalled when the member for Oxford said that all it means is flexibility to reflect the needs of the francophone community and the municipalities that provide for them. Well, "flexibility" can be a very dangerous word. In this case, it could mean certain rights for some people in some municipalities and no rights or not the same rights, equal rights, for people in other municipalities.

The minister himself said it. He said that he has faith in the municipalities, essentially. Well, let's talk about what happened in Thunder Bay. That is one example, isn't it? The council there proclaimed Thunder Bay as unilingual. Recently, I know the new council tried to overturn that, and they couldn't get the votes to do it. Is this the kind of province we now have under the Tory government, where we're allowing the rights of the francophone community throughout Ontario to be eroded because of their downloading?

Let's really get real about what's happening here. This has to do with downloading. We know that municipalities are under a great deal of financial stress, and we know that certain services are going to have to be cut. We know there are going to be more user fees, we know there are going to be tax increases and we know there are going to be services cut. Our fear, when we talk about flexibility to the municipalities, is that some municipalities are going to cut some of those services. The province, in my view and I think in the view of most Ontarians, has the responsibility to make sure that the rights of all our citizens are upheld. I think it's a disgrace that this is happening. Over the years, as my colleague Gilles Bisson said, and some of the other members from both the Liberal Party and the NDP, in the past the Tory party, the francophones of the Tory party, have fought alongside the people from the francophone communities all over the province for their rights.

1050

To see a party, any party, come into this House and start literally eroding those rights is dangerous, and I think it should be fought vigorously. Given all the issues people are having to face across the province these days, this one is getting lost; this is getting lost in the mix. But in my view and certainly in the view of my caucus, and I'm hearing it from the Liberal caucus today, this is a pretty big issue. I think, as with many of the services that people, various minority groups, have fought for across the province for a number of years, we're seeing the erosion overall across the board.

I'm speaking in English about this. I would ask that English-speaking people be aware in their communities that their francophone friends and neighbours may soon be losing some of those services they fought so hard over the years, with the support of their anglophone neighbours, to get, and start writing letters, start faxing, start demanding that this government pay attention. It appears as though they're not going to support Mr Bisson's bill today. I think that's a disgrace. He's not asking for anything new, just to keep what we've got; don't even open the door to the possibility of some of those rights being taken away.

I would urge people to support this bill today. It's very, very important.

M^me Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview) : Je veux ce matin appuyer catégoriquement le projet de loi 17 de notre collègue néo-démocrate, Gilles Bisson de Cochrane-Sud. C'est un projet de loi très important parce qu'il clarifie de nouveau la position de beaucoup dans cette province.

C'est très important de reconnaître que c'est la Loi 108 qui est le problème. C'est une loi qui vraiment réduit les droits des francophones, des Franco-Ontariens dans cette province.

J'ai entendu ce qu'a dit le ministre des Affaires francophones, et le procureur général avant lui à une autre occasion, et c'est clair que nous sommes d'accord que ce n'est pas nécessaire de réduire les droits des francophones. C'est pour ça que je ne comprends pas leur obstination à ne pas clarifier la situation. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi ils ne disent pas une fois pour toutes que les droits linguistiques des francophones qu'ils ont dans cette province depuis la Loi 8 soient garantis une fois que les services seront transférés aux municipalités.

Je me demande si c'est une question de préjudice, de vrai préjudice d'une position en faveur de certaines municipalités et contre les droits d'une minorité dans ce pays, dans cette province, la minorité francophone. Je ne veux pas croire qu'on parle de racisme mais il est vraiment très difficile de comprendre la position de ce gouvernement aujourd'hui.

Le ministre des Affaires francophones a cité la position de certaines organisations francophones, et je dois lui dire que ce n'est pas complètement honnête, ce qu'il a dit. En fait, si l'on regarde la position de l'Association des juristes d'expression française, ils sont très clairs. Permettez-moi de citer la position des juristes. Ils disent en effet dans une lettre au procureur général qu'ils appuient la Loi 108 dans la mesure où il y aura incorporation par référence des droits linguistiques des francophones.

Mais si on regarde la Loi 108, il n'y a pas cette incorporation par référence. Alors c'est un support, mais un support qualifié de la part de ce groupe. C'est la même chose avec l'Association francophone des municipalités parce qu'ils sont reliés un peu à la position des juristes. Alors, on ne peut pas croire en la position de ce gouvernement dans ces choses.

We have numerous letters and critics of this government's position. All they need to do is clarify that linguistic rights in this province are guaranteed.

I just want to cite a couple. I won't go through the whole body of evidence against this government's position, but I just want to read from the London Free Press, a Tory bastion at best, and what they have to say about this:

"French-speaking Ontarians deserve to have their day in court in the official language in which they are most comfortable.

"It is not a favour to francophones to provide that service. It is something they are entitled to."

Now is not the time to weaken official language rights in our province. To do so would be to open the door for Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard to gain more fuel for his separatist fire. Ontario should not be a party to that, nor should it be a party to denying francophones their rights in this province.

Je veux dire simplement au gouvernement que c'est le temps d'agir de façon noble et de respecter les droits de la minorité francophone dans cette province.

Le Président suppléant : Monsieur le député de Cochrane-Sud, vous avez deux minutes.

M. Bisson : À tous mes collègues des partis néo-démocrat et libéral qui ont parlé en faveur du projet de loi et qui vont voter en faveur ce matin, je veux dire merci. On voit que les deux partis d'opposition comprennent et ont gardé une position qui est consistante avec la position qu'on a prise ici il y a 12 années, c'est à dire qu'on doit donner des assurances législatives aux francophones quand ça vient à la protection des services en français dans la province.

Je veux dire deux affaires à deux membres du gouvernement ; premièrement au député d'Oxford. Dire qu'ils veulent garder une flexibilité pour les municipalités et qu'ils veulent prendre une approche différente me trouble et me fait peur. Cela me dit que c'est le commencement de la fin quand ça vient aux services en français. On sait bien qu'avec les changements que vous faites, les municipalités vont avoir le droit d'éroder les services en français.

Au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, je veux dire seulement ceci. C'est une tradition que les ministres de la Couronne ne viennent pas se prononcer sur un projet de loi d'un membre privé. Aujourd'hui, le ministre des Affaires francophones, le ministre nommé à siéger au Conseil des ministres afin de parler pour les francophones, est venu dans cette Assemblée pour nous vendre et essayer de nous faire passer un sapin faisant affaire avec ce que son gouvernement a fait à la communauté francophone. Il vient ici comme un vendu pour nous dire ici que ce gouvernement -

Le Président suppléant : Monsieur Bisson, ce n'est pas un mot que j'accepte. S'il vous plaît, le ministre est un honourable ministre, et je vous demanderais de rétracter, s'il vous plaît.

M. Bisson : Je le rétracte. Je dis que, pour le ministre de venir ici aujourd'hui et de parler d'une telle manière dans cette Assemblée et nous dire qu'il est en train de protéger nos services en français, c'est, comme on dit en anglais, «a stretch».

Que le même ministre essaie de prendre le crédit pour les affaires que notre gouvernement a fait quand ça vient à protéger les services en français, je pense, dit des volumes de ce ministre.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

Mr Colle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 20, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve Safety at Highway Intersections by providing for the installation and use of Red Light Cameras / Projet de loi 20, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'améliorer la sécurité aux intersections de voies publiques en prévoyant l'installation et l'utilisation de dispositifs photographiques de feu rouge.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I am here today basically trying to get the provincial government and the members of this House to support the installation, really, of safety devices which are normally called now red light cameras.

What the bill is really asking for is that the government give permission to municipalities which so choose the right to install these safety devices. It's not forced upon different jurisdictions, but if they wish to have these cameras installed at high-collision intersections, hopefully this legislation will allow them to do that.

Just to give you the origins of this bill, about two years ago there was a very unfortunate accident in my own community at Dufferin and St Clair, where a red light runner ran through an intersection at high speed, crashed into a streetcar island and hit and injured 10 people who were standing waiting for a streetcar and killed a gentleman, a constituent of mine. At that point we approached the municipal officials and looked for ways of making sure this would never happen again.

1100

What came up basically was that there was one technology or one approach that helped to stop this red light running, as they call it, happening. They recommended that this technology, which was being used in the United States, Australia and many European countries, could help prevent red light running. That's where this bill really germinated from.

Over the last couple of years I've worked with members of the Metropolitan Toronto council; I've been working with police chiefs like Julian Fantino, the police chief of London, and Chief Boothby here in Toronto, who have been supporters of this technology, along with community groups and school groups that feel this is one part of the answer in terms of ensuring this epidemic of red light running doesn't continue.

In terms of how these devices work, essentially the camera only takes photographs of vehicles that cross into the intersection after the light has turned red. That's when it's activated, when the light has turned red. If you're typically caught in an intersection sometimes trying to make a left-hand turn, that isn't considered a violation. It's the direct running of a red light, red on red, and that is who they're trying to stop.

If you look at this red light running, as you know, we are hearing more and more about it. At first it seemed it was maybe an exception, but it seems it isn't an exception. There are a growing number of violations where people are running through red lights and it's reached, as some people have said, epidemic proportions.

I know that in the city of Toronto there are about 1,800 intersections. The estimates are that every 12 minutes one of these red lights is run. The problem with the red light running is that usually it's associated with high speed and it's usually associated with catching other drivers or pedestrians unaware. It's a total surprise. Usually these accidents that occur at intersections are much more severe in terms of personal injury and fatalities, and also in terms of damage to vehicles etc. They are generally more serious accidents than your normal accident because of the speed and the right-angle collisions that take place.

In looking at this technology, it's quite clear that wherever it has been installed - in Queensland, Australia; in San Francisco; in the UK; in New York City - it has acted as a deterrent. The incidence of red light running has been reduced and the number of collisions generally are reduced at those intersections by about 30%.

That's not to say you would have a camera at every intersection. These are for high-collision intersections. In all our communities, in all our ridings, we usually have one or two intersections that are considered dangerous. The police know about them, we know about them, and our constituents ask us to do something about them. This is where those cameras would be deployed, at the high-collision intersections. Generally speaking, the police officers in our communities know which ones they are. These cameras would act as a way of making us think twice.

It's ironic. In talking to people recently about this issue, one of the things they're saying is that because there has been more awareness about red light running, people are starting to think twice, as I am. What I've been told by a number of people recently is that as they're now slowing down for the red, they're being almost rear-ended by people behind them because they're stopping for the red.

There have been reports given to me about people being passed when they stop for the red. This is what we've come to. It's not just a Toronto or a Hamilton situation. This is all over North America, and I think international, because of, I guess, pressures in the workplace and the increasing number of motor vehicles. There is what they call road rage.

I know they were saying that 20 years ago in Toronto people used to actually stop when the light turned amber or orange. Now, as you know, that's very seldom the case. People not only don't stop at the orange lights, they don't stop at red lights, surprisingly enough. The worrisome thing is that we have grown accustomed to thinking that green means okay and that red means stop, but that is changing. It is becoming a situation where, as one of the police officers in Toronto said, one of the most dangerous things we have is a fresh green light. People, by instinct, think when the light turns green they can go.

It's important that we do something to bring back some civility to our roads, and especially at intersections, where red has to mean stop. These cameras have worked. They have made people become more cognizant of the severe penalties for bodily injury etc. They have worked all over the world where they've tried them.

I know the technology is sometimes debatable. I know the Premier mentioned the fact that he would prefer the frontal technology that takes a picture of the driver's face. That's available and it's used in San Francisco. They take a picture of the licence plate plus the driver's head. The problem with the frontal technology is that generally it's more expensive and there are all kinds of variations with weather, with light, with what the driver is wearing or not wearing, and it's not as effective.

If we could get this bill to committee, those kinds of changes and pilot projects on various technologies could be worked out. I'm not saying there's just one technology, but the one that universally seems to work, according to police forces in Australia, the UK and the United States, is taking a picture of the licence plate.

I know there are privacy concerns, but the privacy concerns would probably be greater if you took a picture of the driver. Taking a picture of the licence plate would be less intrusive and, generally speaking, it's much more enforceable in terms of issuing a fine.

The number of accidents involving red light running is increasing. The Toronto police report there's been a 30% increase in the incidence of red light running over the last three years alone, so it is not an issue that's going to go away. We have to have a comprehensive program and education. We can use all kinds of other means of promoting safety at intersections, but I think the cameras are one integral part.

I know some people say, "We can have extra policemen." The problem is, there aren't the resources. I know police chiefs across Ontario said they don't have the resources to be at all these intersections. You can imagine a city like Toronto with about 1,800 intersections. You can't have them. If we can get more police officers, fine, but the police need technological support.

This is a technology that makes the police do their job better. It allows them to do other things, and it goes hand in hand with good road safety. That is why it's a complement to what the police are doing and what I think the public is demanding.

1110

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I am standing in support of Bill 20, Mr Colle's bill. This is private members' hour and because of that I'm not going to take a lot of time ribbing the Liberal Party for not supporting the NDP's photo-radar. I think if Mr Colle had been here he would have, given his passion for this issue and particularly what happened in his own riding.

We're talking about a safety issue here. We're talking about the fact that somebody died in Mr Colle's riding. Of course we know that's not the only incident over the past while where people have been killed or maimed, standing innocently on street corners, by drivers who have gone through red lights. It's a very serious issue.

This is a private member's bill. As I look around, I would say that all of the members in the House at the moment - except perhaps for myself and the Speaker - weren't here during the time we brought in photo-radar. I know the arguments of the time. Some of them were, quite frankly, just political, because we were doing it and the opposition said, "Because you're doing it as a government, it's bad." But there were some concerns expressed about privacy and individual rights and that sort of thing.

I keep coming back to this situation, as I did with photo-radar, that we're talking about safety and we're talking about people's lives. We're talking about the fact that when people get behind the wheel of a car, it can be a weapon. It kills people. Vehicles kill. It's not the vehicle, of course, it's the driver. But that is the reality and we all know that. We have to take it very seriously.

I would say to those government members who have said they oppose this, that they want to put more police officers on street corners, that that's ridiculous. We don't have the resources to do that, and even if we had the resources to put more police officers out there, why would we do that? When we need police officers in so many situations these days, why would we do that when sophisticated technology exists? We are in the 1990s. This is what it's all about. We can use this technology to our benefit and this is a perfect example of where we should be doing that.

I would like to speak personally for a moment. I ride a bicycle. I've been riding a bicycle for many years now in the city of Toronto.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Tell us.

Ms Churley: I can't even remember when - since I was a kid in Labrador but the roads were pretty safe there. Here in Toronto, for a number of years now. I ride my bike everywhere. I ride my bike downtown. Some of you have seen me here at Queen's Park with my helmet. I like to ride my bike, but I'm riding it less and less these days because I'm scared. There have been a number of deaths of cyclists, not particularly at red lights but in unsafe traffic.

I am scared. I recognize what Mr Colle is saying personally, both from driving my car and from the fact that I do stop at ambers. I have had almost that same situation he described, of somebody nearly running into me, people beeping their horns angrily because I stop at an amber. They're mad because I didn't go through that red light so they didn't get the opportunity to go either. People get very angry about it. It's happening more and more.

We don't ever get to make a left turn any more on an amber. It's always on a red, absolutely always now. It is common. That's the way it is. That is dangerous, and it's happening more and more. You see the car just boot it as the light is starting to turn red, and you see it more and more, just going right through the red light.

As somebody who rides a bicycle, I am getting more and more nervous about doing so. This road rage is very real. When I was on Toronto city council I chaired the city cycling committee for a while and we worked, at least here in Toronto - I know there are other such committees across urban areas - to educate drivers about cyclists, and yes, cyclists about safe riding, safe cycling, as well. But the reality is that there are a lot of people out there now when I'm riding my bicycle who don't want me on the road and they make that quite clear.

I try to obey the road rules as a cyclist, but there are times, even when obeying those rules and having my place on the road, when I feel I'm in danger, quite frequently now, because drivers are getting more and more impatient. If you're a cyclist and you're out there on the road, they often see you as an impediment.

These are the kinds of conditions we're facing more and more, either as we walk as pedestrians - I think the bill before us today deals more specifically with that, with the fact that we could have children standing at bus stops on corners, and it's happened and they have been hit by cars.

Before I close, I want to pass on a little tip I heard on CBC Radio the other day. Andy Barrie was talking. I had forgotten all about this but it's true. It reminded me that when we're sitting at street corners sometimes, waiting to make that left-hand turn, waiting for the light to change, we turn our wheel ready to make that turn. He made a very good point, that we shouldn't do that because if you're rear-ended from behind and you have your wheel turned to make that left turn, what'll happen is your car will go up on the curb, it'll go in that direction, whereas if you keep your wheel straight ahead, if you're rear-ended, you will just go out into the traffic.

I know that has been something that years ago I heard and I forgot all about, and as soon as he said that, I thought, yes, I do that sometimes, that impatience, just to be ready to get going. Part of that is because often when you're waiting to make that left-hand turn, you know you're going to be waiting until the light turns red because the other traffic will keep on going, and you know you're going to really have to boot it to make that left-hand turn at all. I thought that was a very good tip and something people should think about as they're waiting on that corner to make that turn. I would like to thank Andy Barrie for that tip.

I would like to close by saying to all members of the House that we should pass this bill today. We should get it out to committee. We should then at committee stage deal with the kinds of concerns that some of the government members have expressed. This would be a good step forward. I see this as the kind of bill that we can work together on in a non-partisan way, all three parties, because we're talking about the safety of our citizens and the safety of our constituents.

This would give us an opportunity to work together to make sure we do what we can as legislators to try to protect people and to do what I think we're here to do, and that is, if there's a problem within our society, we see it and try to find ways to fix it.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's my pleasure this morning to join in the discussion on the member for Oakwood's bill regarding the issue of installation of red light cameras.

I don't think there's any question the government is committed to working with municipalities to solve this problem. This is a problem, though, that reflects the deterioration of society's respect for rules, a society that's in too big a rush. This is more than an issue of installing red light cameras.

We've already talked about the fact that we're prepared to look at raising fines for running red lights, that we're prepared to look at the idea of community safety zones, municipalities being able to designate community safety zones where fines could be doubled. But the real solution of course is to have more police officers patrolling those areas where there are known problems, and in actual fact providing a fine to the operator of the vehicle and thereby demerit points, impacting their right to drive.

The member for Oakwood identified 15 problem intersections. If they are that easily identifiable, I don't understand why the city of Toronto would not increase enforcement at those intersections as they did in a blitz not that long ago. The increased income they would generate from the fines could then be used to pay for those police officers, because obviously they would expect that the increased fines would pay for the red light cameras.

It's interesting that the Liberals have this idea that we should fine vehicles. Mr Hoy, the member for Essex-Kent, had an idea about people who pass school buses: Let's just fine the cars; to heck with the drivers if we can't identify them, we'll just fine the cars. I wonder where this would all go. What Mr Colle would suggest is a further proliferation of this. Should we use those cameras to fine jaywalkers at intersections, because that's a danger. Should we use the cameras to take pictures of people who go against the "Don't Walk" signs, because that's an issue. There are lots of issues.

There's nobody who is more of a danger on the road than drunk drivers. Technology is there to have ignition air lock systems to prevent drunk drivers from driving. I guess if we want to target something, maybe we should target that rather than red light runners.

If you want to get really silly about this, you could say: Should we set up cameras to monitor houses? Then, when we can't identify the people who are participating in the illegal activity, should we find the owner of the house? That would be the next step we would move to.

1120

I'm certainly in favour of increased law enforcement. We have lots of rules and regulations on the books and we should enforce more of them. It scares me, though, as I see us, and the members of the opposition especially, flirting with photo-radar and then flirting with Mr Hoy's bill about finding cars that pass school buses regardless of whether we can identify the driver: we'll just find the car on the word of the school bus operator. Now we're talking about red lights set up in intersections to find cars that go through intersections.

I would hate to think that we live in an Ontario where George Orwell would be right that big government will be looking over our shoulder in every single thing we do. We need to make a determination as a society: Do we want to educate people and do some societal things to recreate that sense of respect for law and order? Or do we want to set up a monitoring system that is so oppressive that every move we make is monitored day in and day out?

I don't think that's the direction in which we should be going. My Ontario, as I envision it in the future, is not an Ontario like George Orwell described. I believe that Mr Colle's bill will continue to lead us down that slippery slope of government monitoring all the activities of our lives because we, as citizens, are not prepared to obey the rules of the province. For those reasons, I will not be able to support the bill from the member for Oakwood.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to rise today in support of the bill introduced by my colleague from Oakwood. I think it is a progressive piece of legislation. It's a bill that's long overdue. I want to commend my colleague for the hard work and effort - this is not a one-day issue - that Mike Colle has put into this and the drive he has started across Ontario in support of this bill. This is not a question of being Orwellian or a question of invasion of privacy; this bill is a question of public safety and nothing else.

In my own community, just in the last eight months, we've had two tragedies: a 12-year-old girl was killed in December at an intersection as a result of someone going through a red light; a week ago, an individual driving a vehicle was killed in a collision in the middle of an intersection as the result of someone going through a red light. In my community the increase in violations of cars running red lights at intersections went up by 27% last year.

The evidence is overwhelming that it is a deterrent. The evidence is overwhelming that it works. Frankly, I'm astonished that government members and the minister, who has not had the courage to come out and take a stand in favour of this, would somehow play politics and play games with this issue of public safety.

The member for the government spoke about policing at intersections. Yes, in an ideal world, if you had a police officer at red lights, you could cut down dramatically. Police departments have many things to do. Traffic enforcement is one of them. But it's ironic that the government would speak about this at the same time as they've cut police budgets across Ontario. Municipalities can't just pick police officers out of the air. You cut police budgets, you reduce the funds available and then you say, "The answer is to have more police officers out there." Talk about doublespeak.

The member for Hamilton Mountain, Trevor Pettit, one of your own members - but I know this government's not going to allow him to speak to the bill today - has had a petition in Hamilton with over 2,000 signatures in favour of this. I'll quote what Mr Pettit says, "I disagree entirely with their philosophy on this particular issue," in regard to your government's position on cameras at intersections. Mr Pettit won't be allowed to speak today, interestingly enough. You've muzzled him because he supports this bill.

What we're talking about here is giving municipalities the power to choose to install these cameras at intersections where they believe the greatest dangers occur. It has not been imposed on anybody. You've given municipalities that choice and they best know where the dangers exist, where the most problems are and where they can improve public safety. But it really is a question of public safety. It is a question of public safety here and, yes, the owner of the vehicle has to bear some responsibility. Yes, you go after the owner, because if I am going to loan my car - or someone else is - to an individual, then I've got to take some responsibility that comes with that. So there is going to be some mechanism so we can deal with the driver and the owner.

This bill may have some changes that are necessary. We can send it to committee and make the necessary changes if we want to make sure that we crack down on the driver rather than necessarily the owner, if that is the will of this government. There is room to move here, but there is not room or time for the government to kill this bill today. The message you'll send out to Ontarians is that you talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. You're the big, tough, law-and-order guys. You've got your crime commissioners, you know, the Mod Squad, running across Ontario talking about crime. Here you've got a clear opportunity to act, you've got an opportunity to take a responsible step and to say to the people of Ontario: "We want to protect you. Public safety is foremost in our minds."

Ontarians support it. Polls have shown that over 70% of Ontarians support this, the vast majority of drivers support this, but you are bent on some philosophical kick of yours that you're going to block it today and you're going to block it from coming forward. I find it absolutely astonishing that you allow blind ideology to dictate and rule over public safety. I think it's irresponsible, I think it is bad public policy decision-making, but I think, most of all, you are risking the lives of Ontarians every single day at intersections across this province by refusing to act.

Again, I urge the government members who have been whipped into shape by the Minister of Transportation on this issue, having been read the Riot Act by the Minister of Transportation, to look at their own communities and ask themselves how many intersections they can think of in their ridings where this would help public safety. I'm sure you can name intersection after intersection. I ask you to think of those people. I ask you to think of the 12-year-old girl who was killed in December in Hamilton when you are speaking to this issue. I ask you to think of the safety of your constituents and to move away from really playing, as I said earlier, cheap philosophical politics with this issue. This is an issue that goes beyond political lines.

I ask you to look at the results. If it was proven that it was not going to be a deterrent, then I don't think any of us would be sitting here today saying, "Let's do it for the sake of doing it." This is not here to be a revenue-maker for municipalities, for police departments. This bill is there to work as a deterrent, because I can tell you if individuals know that at certain intersections there are red light cameras and they're going to get nabbed, they are going to slow down, they are going to stop, they are not going to go through a red light.

But if you take that away it's hit and miss. If a police officer happens to go by an intersection or be there when it happens then, yes, you will do it, you'll stop if you see him, and you'll get nailed if you go through it. But in most cases police officers do not have the time to sit at intersections or to blitz, as they did a few weeks ago, here in the city of Toronto. They don't have that opportunity, they don't have that time, they don't have that resource, because you've taken that away from them.

I want to commend my colleague the member for Oakwood for the leadership he has shown in this and I want to ask the government members to look at this from the point of view of the safety of children, of pedestrians, of the elderly, of people in your community and to do the right thing. Put aside the gamesmanship here, put aside the political games; do what is right, what is good for the people of Ontario. Protect them and approve this bill today.

1130

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise in support of this bill from the member for Oakwood. I want to say that it's always a brave man, it's always somebody who has a certain amount of courage, who can change his position on something at certain periods of time. We know at one time the Liberal caucus was opposed to the photo-radar technology. It seems they've changed that position, and I commend them for that. I'm not going to take the political shot that I can take. I just want to congratulate the Liberal caucus for changing their position and now endorsing the photo-radar technology approach as they start to realize that technology such as photo-radar can play a very important role when it comes to making our roads safer for both the motoring public and those pedestrians who walk along the sidewalks and cross streets in their municipalities.

I want to say, however, I'm a bit disappointed in the government's position on this. I think when individuals cannot change their minds in the face of reason, it says something about the capability of those individuals when it comes to making good decisions for Ontario. We know from example after example after example, through jurisdictions across North America and outside North America, that technologies such as red light radars or photo-radars, whatever you want to call them, usually work. We have seen over the period of time that technology has been put in place that it saves lives.

I ask a very simple question: What is it that the government doesn't like about saving lives? Why are they opposed to an initiative that would ensure that somebody in this province who is alive today will not die in a car accident because somebody ran a red light? Why would they not want to put in place legislation that would protect that life? I can only think that (a) it's an ideological position that the government is taking, or (b) this government just does not want to be seen as changing its mind on anything.

We know the Mike Harris government, then the third party in opposition to the NDP government, had opposed photo-radar on our highways when the Bob Rae government, under the leadership of Mr Gilles Pouliot, had put in place photo-radar. Let me go back and revisit that a bit, because I think it's quite telling.

Just recently I drove from St Catharines to Toronto. I had an aunt of mine who passed away on the weekend and I had to drive to St Catharines and back. I'm just amazed that, as a driver on the Queen Elizabeth Way or on the 427, on one of those major highways, I could be driving at the speed limit of 100 kilometres an hour and have cars passing me on both sides, inside lane and outside lane, zooming by me at 130 kilometres and 140 kilometres per hour. The medium speed on those highways is 120 kilometres to 125 kilometres per hour. We know that speed kills, but this government chooses to do nothing about it.

We had an opportunity for a short period of time, when photo-radar was put in place, to have certain highways patrolled by photo-radar. What was the effect of that? I remember the first time I came out of the airport parking lot in Toronto and pulled on to the 427 after photo-radar was put on, coming on to the ramp that leads eventually on to the 427 from the airport, I had to put my brakes on. In the past when I got on to a major highway, I was so used to the traffic going at 120 kilometres an hour that, just by instinct, I came on to the freeway at a speed I would normally do, and the speed was actually down to what it should be at about 100 kilometres per hour.

The point I make is that we know photo-radar worked. Why? Because the medium speed of people driving on those highways when photo-radar was in place was slower than it is now.

The other thing that's interesting, if you go back and look at the stats, the stats will demonstrate there were fewer accidents under photo-radar, which means we saved injury and death to the motoring public in Ontario, saved money to our health care system and, as well, we found there were actually fewer problems with traffic when people drove at a reasonable speed.

When people were driving at the speed posted on the speed limit, you had far fewer traffic jams on the QEW and the 401 than you have now. What causes a traffic jam on those highways is that people are coming along at 120, 130 klicks down the QEW, they get to the old Humber bridge, before they did the fixing, and people slow down. They put their brakes on, just touch them, all the traffic behind them slows down and you end up with a traffic jam.

The point I make is, we know that initiative worked. This member, the member for Oakwood, is saying, "We want to take that photo-radar technology as it was applied under the NDP government, put it on street corners and capture people who are rushing through red lights and putting people and themselves in danger when it comes to being struck by a car." I think that is a good idea, and I commend the member for Oakwood and the Liberal caucus for having brought this forward. They've changed their position from when we were in government, and for that I give them full credit because we know that initiative would save lives.

There was one member, the member for Hastings-Peterborough, who spoke earlier and I really thought it was interesting because he went on to talk about how this initiative was something Orwellian. He was quoting George Orwell and felt that somehow government introducing photo-radar was like Big Brother moving in to tell people what to do. He gave analogies that the government would then put cameras on people's houses to take pictures of people as they walked out the door, and they'd have cameras all over.

Give me a break. Do you think the people in the province of Ontario are silly enough to believe what the member for Hastings-Peterborough said? This initiative is strictly about capturing people as they -

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Chatham-Kent.

Mr Bisson: I correct the record. It was the member for Chatham-Kent. Those photo-radars being used on intersections are only going to capture those people who are running a red light. It's not going to be put outside your front door to capture you and spy on you as walk out of your house.

It brings me to the point that this government makes a big thing about being tough on crime. They've got their crime bosses they have travelling around the province through this crime commission, trying to give people the impression that they're tough on crime and, oh, boy, this government's just going to whack all those criminals and whip `em right into line.

But every time this government gets an opportunity to do something that's progressive and something that will have an effect, they run the other way. That tells me they're not serious, it's nothing but fluff, it's smoke and mirrors, and when this government have the opportunity to do something concrete, they run in the opposite direction because it is not in keeping with the message they're trying to give to the Reform base they're trying to appeal to in Ontario.

I urge all members in this House, Tories, New Democrats and Liberals alike, to support the resolution from the member for Oakwood. It's a positive step that will save lives in the end, and to vote against it says: "I don't care about those lives. I'm willing to see them go."

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would like to address this issue of red light running in its broadest perspective. I want to make sure we have on the record the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario's and the government of Ontario's position on red light running, and the specific set of solid policy initiatives that we have already made with regard to this issue.

First off, with the Road Safety Week which is now going on in at least 24 municipalities throughout this province, the folks in the various communities that are involved in a whole set of activities involving Road Safety Week and the ministry itself have already set out the top priority of red light running or amber light running - either, if you want to look at it - in stressing the importance of preserving public safety on our highways and in our municipalities through the public education initiative that we have already taken.

That is ongoing in terms of trying to ensure through public safety the importance of preserving safety on our roadways for our younger children and for all the citizens of Ontario. That is one of the key ways in which this government sees that you can deal with the issue realistically instead of posing.

The second specific way we've already taken action and have provided leadership far in advance on this issue is that the government has committed itself to working with the municipalities to improve intersection safety in Ontario. We have announced our intention to raise the current minimum fine from $60 to $150. That is another clear way in which we are demonstrating action and leadership on this issue in a realistic way.

Third, that can be followed up, and already is, by effective police enforcement on this whole situation. We have already announced through various initiatives and through the budget $150 million over five years to enhance policing initiatives for dealing with a whole set of public safety challenges, including this particular problem.

Fourth, the acting Solicitor General has introduced legislation through the Community Safety Act to ensure that municipalities that so wish can designate community safety zones for which furthering, doubling fines for red light running offences will apply. So here are again, looking at it in terms of the penalty provisions of the $60 minimum to $150 for red light and amber light running, we're looking at it through the Community Safety Act and through increased initiatives in terms of $150 million for policing.

Furthermore, I want to set on the record a letter that was sent to Chief Boothby, the chief of police of the Toronto Police Service, on March 19 this year. I want to quote from the minister our position regarding this particular situation:

"Unfortunately, it is our understanding that current technology does not allow this goal to be achieved. We are, however, willing to consider proposals to introduce red light cameras if a municipality can demonstrate the following three criteria:

"(1) The program identifies and charges only the driver with the offence, not the vehicle owner.

"(2) The program is acceptable in terms of satisfying Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner's concerns.

"(3) The municipalities pay for provincial services required to assist in the administration of the program on a cost recovery basis."

Here we have on March 19 a letter sent under the signature of the minister, Tony Clement. I think that clearly sets out what we are doing in dealing with this issue. I hope that people, members of this House, will look at what we have already accomplished and at what is required in terms of satisfying criteria when you're dealing with emerging technologies.

I will wind up and conclude that putting together these types of initiatives is one of the key, effective ways of dealing with this ongoing problem; not only that, but when you link it up with convictions in the courts, you will ultimately have demerit points on the driver's record. That is key and important when you link that up with potentially higher rates for insurance to drive a vehicle in this province. Hence, those ranges of initiatives are effective ways of responding to this issue.

1140

Mr Cullen: I'm very pleased to join this debate on Bill 20. I want to applaud my colleague the member for Oakwood for this initiative. I have to tell the members here that I served on the city of Ottawa municipal council and on the council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and at both those councils there has been strong support for the introduction of red light cameras so we can control the carnage that's occurring at our intersections.

Everyone in this hall knows that all politics is local. When you go door to door, sure, people may want to talk to you about the big-picture things, but everyone wants to talk to you about what's happening on their street. I want to let folks know what is happening on their street.

Recently the Ottawa Citizen ran a letter to the editor from Linda Wagar of Ottawa. Linda Wagar is the mother of Sophie, aged 3, and five-month-old Justin. I'm going to read this letter into the record because I think it establishes the case why we should move forward with this bill, why we should be doing something to protect the lives of innocent people when they walk out in good faith to cross the streets in our own communities.

That's what we're talking about: public safety. How best can we deal with public safety? How can we stop the terrible loss of life, the unnecessary loss of life because of some few thoughtless people? We have this problem. We as a government ought to be addressing it.

She begins her letter by saying:

"I can't sleep because in the last four months I have twice been a victim of motorists who run through red lights.

"In one incident, my husband and I drove with our two children to Conroy Pit to walk our dog. I remarked on how little traffic there was. After walking our dog with both children in their respective strollers, I decided I would take a longer walk with our son, who had by then fallen asleep.

"My husband drove home with our daughter and dog. I walked to the corner of Hunt Club and Conroy roads with the intention of returning home along the nearby bike trail.

"As I proceeded to cross the road with my son in the stroller, I remember feeling the impact of a car swerving to avoid hitting us. I remember thinking that I was not going to be hit, but my five-month-old son was about to be. I also remember looking at the light to see if it was indeed green and it was green. I remember looking at a dirty red sporty car driving away, and then slowing down a bit, but choosing not to stop.

"I remember thinking my baby is alive, I am alive. I ran across the road, even though the light was still very green and there was technically no need to run.

"A couple in a van, obviously shaken by witnessing the event, stopped to see if I was okay. I was surprisingly calm and told them yes, of course I was all right. They informed me that the car had missed the stroller by no more than a foot. The woman gave me her business card in case I needed a witness.

"I don't, however, need a witness. I am lucky. I am lucky because my son is alive and sleeping upstairs. I don't need a witness because there was no blood, no ambulance ride, no emergency trauma unit, no little casket for my little one.

"If what I write can make a few people slow down and maybe even stop running red lights, this will be good. I hope that with time I will stop reliving the stress this has caused me. Meanwhile, I remind myself that my son is alive, my three-year-old daughter has a brother, my husband and I still have a son."

That was written by Linda Wagar from Ottawa.

This is what we're trying to deal with, the safety of our citizens as they go about their business, their lives, and cross our streets. This is what the city of Ottawa, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and many, many other municipalities have asked this government: to give them the authority to put into place these red light cameras. Why is it we can put parking tickets on cars but we cannot photograph them when they violate the law? Why is it you can drive on Highway 407 and pay for your toll because someone took a picture - this government took a picture - but you cannot take a picture of someone who has run through a red light and endangered all our lives? It is wrong.

I want to read to you the motion that was passed by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton at a regional council meeting:

"Whereas there are over 55,000 motor vehicle collisions at intersections throughout Ontario every year; and

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas the installation of red light cameras at dangerous intersections has proven to be successful in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore and the UK; and

"Whereas there is a shortage of police officers; and

"Whereas the collisions at these intersections are resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on Highway 407; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to utilize red light cameras;

"We, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, request that the government of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

This is what we ask. We ask that this government approve this bill at second reading. Send it to committee. We can work out the kinks, if there are any kinks. Quite frankly, I think the member has written an extremely responsible bill.

I cannot accept the comments from the members opposite who say, "Simply better public education, higher fines, more police officers." I have to gag at the comments made by the members opposite. Why did they cut $8 million from the regional police budget from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton if they believe we should have more police at the intersections safeguarding the safety of our citizens?

I ask them now to stand up and support us. Don't simply talk it, walk the walk. The lives of our citizens in our communities, people you know, are at risk. Please support Bill 20.

1150

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I've been listening to this debate very intently and I think the Liberals have finally lowered themselves to an all-time low in flip-flops on this particular issue.

First, the original resolution that we were going to debate at this time was brought in by the member for Hamilton East and was going to be one on the environment, and he has exchanged and is now in position 96. I gather, because of the length of the term, his will never now never come up. He indicates how committed he is to the environment, but yet he steps out and isn't even going to use it. I was really looking forward to that particular debate.

Listening to the member for Ottawa West who was speaking just a few minutes ago, he was the only person in this whole assembly to vote against the Calgary accord because it didn't enshrine the charter of rights. He was talking about there was nothing to ensure due process. And now what is he speaking on? Something that doesn't support due process.

Interjections

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. Order, members.

Mr Agostino: How many more people have to get killed?

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I want to warn you to come to order. Thank you. The member for Northumberland has the floor. He may speak to the bill as he sees fit. Please allow him that opportunity.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for being able to return to this important bill that's been brought forward. I do compliment the member for bringing this forward and for expressing his real concern about this particular issue, but you have members in his own party who are flip-flopping, and of course this is a flip-flop in position.

I was interested in hearing the member for Riverdale when she spoke. She was talking about enjoying biking. Her name was on the list for kickoff for bike week and I was really disappointed that she wasn't there to take part in the kickoff for bike week. Unfortunately, I guess she wasn't able to make it.

Ms Churley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: That was a really low blow. As you are aware, a very good friend of mine died recently and it was a very difficult week for me. I think that was inappropriate. It's the first year in nine or 10 years that I have missed that Bike to Work Week. I wasn't doing too well that day. However, the member might like to know that I did ride my bike to work that day and rode it home that night, and continue to ride it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, that's out of order. You must withdraw the comment you made.

Mr Colle: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, those words are out of order. I said that yesterday. You must withdraw those comments.

Mr Agostino: Withdraw it.

The Speaker: Member for Northumberland, you have to be very careful about commenting on members' whereabouts. I don't know where they are and I don't want to start getting involved in trying to determine where they are. It would be helpful if you would stick to the crux of the bill. I would appreciate it.

Mr Galt: My apologies to the member for Riverdale and the present circumstance she's in. I was unaware of that.

In connection with this particular bill, has anyone ever really asked, what is the problem? Is the problem related to road rage or is it related to the competitive nature of Canadian drivers, our hurry-up lifestyle, or it is related to trying to escape from the squeegee kids, and rather than stopping and being attacked by them, are we trying to get through these red lights? Why do normal, law-abiding, average citizens run red lights? Nobody has really ever asked to have a good look at this.

I'm told that drivers here in Toronto are probably the worst in North America. What indeed is the root of that particular problem? I would suggest that this proposal is about trying to treat the symptom, not looking at the real disease problem. What we're going to do is treat the symptom and let the patient die, and that's not in order whatsoever.

I suggest that what's needed here is some sort of modification of our social behaviour, as people are driving and it's certainly not acceptable behaviour. In the past some things like education and enforcement have been very successful; things like enforcement, the recent test that was run in Toronto where some 1,400 people were charged for running red lights. It really changed the driving attitude, the driving patterns here in the city of Toronto. I was very impressed with that particular change. That would appear to be the route we really should be going.

There's been tremendous reduction in the serious accidents here in Ontario, and I would suggest that has been related to things like the RIDE program reducing drinking and driving, the use of seatbelts and also the graduated licence for beginning drivers. This is all about education and enforcement. I suggest that is the proper approach to take with getting rid of and helping with the running of red lights here in Ontario, and particularly in the city of Toronto.

There is no question that our government is committed to working with municipalities if they have some suggestions on how the driver who is running red lights in an illegal manner can be identified and can be properly charged. Once a municipality comes forward with this - and at this point in time we have not had a municipality come forward - we will address it in the most thorough manner.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I can't understand why anybody in this House would not support this legislation. Aren't we in Ontario supposed to be about saving lives, protecting our neighbours, protecting those things that we find precious, which are life, limb and property? Isn't it important that everyone in Ontario understands that their elected members want what's best? This legislation is what's best for the people of Ontario. I cannot believe that anyone in this House would be voting against it.

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, to summarize.

Mr Colle: I want to thank all the members, on both sides of the House, for participating, except for the member for Northumberland. I thought that low comment about the member for Riverdale was the worst comment I've ever heard in this House. I think it was disgusting.

I'll just wrap up by saying that I think the comments made by the Reform-a-Tories on that side - not all of the members of that side, but the Reform element of the Mike Harris government - just show that they're about stupidity and ideology when it comes to this bill.

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, that's out of order. It's not parliamentary.

Mr Colle: I will take it back.

The people of Ontario are worried about safety at intersections. There are 55,000 collisions at intersections; 80% of these accidents that occur as a result of red light running are serious accidents that maim and kill people. They're asking their government to do something that other jurisdictions are doing that works. That's all they're saying. Municipalities are asking for it. The mayor of Ajax today faxed me and said: "You have my full support. I have been personally dismayed at the adamant refusal of the government not to take the appropriate action on this matter." Police chiefs want this to take place, because they know they don't have enough police officers.

For this government to vote against this bill, what they're saying is that they're going to put their Reform ideology ahead of basic public safety. They really are putting, as I said, politics ahead of something that makes sense, something that will save lives. I really wonder what's going to happen when you do cross an intersection.

/ LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRANSFERT DE PROGRAMMES ET DE SERVICES ET LES DROITS LIÉS AU FRANÇAIS DOWNLOADING AND FRENCH LANGUAGE RIGHTS ACT, 1998

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Bisson has moved second reading of Bill 17.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Colle has moved second reading of Bill 20.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

/ LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRANSFERT DE PROGRAMMES ET DE SERVICES ET LES DROITS LIÉS AU FRANÇAIS DOWNLOADING AND FRENCH LANGUAGE RIGHTS ACT, 1998

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour of Bill 17, please rise and remain standing to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Carroll, Jack

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sheehan, Frank

Tilson, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You know what? I need some order, members.

Should the bill be referred to the committee of the whole?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Speaker: Is there a majority in favour?

All those in favour, please rise.

The majority is in favour. It is therefore referred to general government.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds between the votes.

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We're now dealing with second reading of Bill 20.

All those in favour, please rise all at once and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Fox, Gary

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Johns, Helen

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ross, Lillian

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Bob

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise all at once and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Carroll, Jack

Ford, Douglas B.

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Tilson, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 40; the nays are 14.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall this bill be referred to the committee of the whole House?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker: Is there agreement to refer the bill to the standing committee on social development? Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This Progressive Conservative government's administration has been cutting funds to our education system. One area that's hardest hit is that of the English-as-a-second-language program for adult learners.

In Toronto, the school board used to fund adult education at $7,000 per student per year. Under the new provincial funding model, under $3,000 is allotted per adult student. This drastic cut will likely decimate adult day school and its valuable ESL program.

Last week I visited a graduation exercise at Iroquois public school in my riding where adult students had completed their ESL program under the instruction of Hedy Baker-Graf. These students were optimistic about their future and confident that with their improved English-language skills they would be able to compete for jobs and provide for their families.

I have received dozens of letters from students in various schools telling me what this ESL training has meant to them, asking me to urge the government to continue funding for students who will follow them.

I have a package of letters from the Agincourt community English program in my riding. Graduates of the class of 1998 wrote:

"Closure of ESL classes and programs, such as the community English-language programs, is an end to all that we as Canadians, you and I, have worked so hard to keep - independence, access, multiculturalism and equality. Do we now want our government to erect language barriers so that the gap between the `haves' and `have-nots' shatters dreams of the future?"

SENIORS' MONTH

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): June is the month we normally celebrate the contributions of seniors in our community. I'm pleased to have a few seconds to talk today about the seniors in my community of London and to salute them for their actions.

They are active as citizens, as volunteers, as social activists, as participants in local events. Seniors are an essential ingredient in every aspect of life in London. From the Forest City to the Hamilton Road seniors' centres, from union retirees' associations to third-age activity groups, seniors gather to discuss the issues of the day, to participate in recreational activities, to plan collective action and to make their wisdom and influence felt by all of us.

One example of senior power is the very strong effort made by the CAW retirees and a group called Side Effects to alert themselves and other members of the community to the misuse and overuse of medication.

This project is essential if we are going to deal with some of the very serious effects that happen when medications are not used appropriately. One of the things that we salute our seniors for in our community is their concerted action to ensure that this problem is understood by the community and that action is taken to end it. I'm very proud to salute the seniors of London today.

GIOVANNI CABOTO

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): On June 24 we will be marking 501 years since the formal discovery and founding of Canada by the Italian explorer Giovanni Caboto, known to us by his anglicized name of John Cabot.

Giovanni Caboto, a citizen of Venice, Italy, was employed by King Henry VII of England, who supported Caboto financially in his travels to the New World.

In 1497 Caboto landed on the eastern shores of Canada in what is today Newfoundland on his own festa, St John's Day. Evidence is strong the Italian words "bona vista," meaning a wonderful site, were first uttered by Caboto himself in his admiration for the new country he was about to land in.

And so it was an explorer of Italian and not French or British background who formally founded Canada. Giovanni Caboto is also the founder of Canada's multicultural community and way of life.

In honour of Giovanni Caboto and in tribute to the many ongoing contributions of the Italian community of Ontario, early next week I will be tabling in this House my private member's bill to establish June 24 in Ontario as Giovanni Caboto Day.

I ask all my colleagues in the House, and especially those who share our founder's Italian ancestry, to support unanimously this bill to help promote greater awareness of our history and multicultural traditions, especially among our youth. Viva Canada. Viva Italia.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today to make a statement to the government, to bring them a message from the province's nurses which was delivered today by some of the representatives of nursing in the province, specifically the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, who are with us in the gallery.

I think, to some dismay of the members opposite, they will learn that the things they've been hearing from the nurses in their constituencies, that firing qualified nurses is no way to provide qualified care, that the kind of assumption you've been making - that nurses are simply going to stretch and stretch and stretch and be able to cover things - cannot stand, that nurses simply can't do it any more and can't be presumed upon by this government.

In fact today the nurses tell us that fragmented and potentially dangerous mistakes can result from the policies that have substituted for well-trained nurses, who intuitively and through their training can provide the best possible care, with undertrained and not regulated workers. That kind of effort has been what this government has put forward.

But what we heard today is even more significant, because we heard that the government is offside with the public, that more than 68% of the public see the quality of their hospital care being determined by their nurses. More than 65% of them strongly agree that the government should put funding aside specifically for nurses in hospitals, in home care and in their new roles as nurse practitioners.

If this government, which met with nurses long ago and so far hasn't acted to meet their standards, thinks they're going to get away with diminishing care, they're going to have to reckon with the nurses of this province. I can tell you that the answer the nurses are giving them is that it's simply not good enough.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, I rise today to inform the House and respond to an article in the Hamilton Spectator dated Wednesday, June 3, by columnist and former Hamilton Mayor Jack MacDonald, wherein Mr MacDonald chastises the member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino, and myself for not supporting the resolution last June of Hamilton Mountain MPP Trevor Pettit.

I think it's important to remind the House that at that time it was not just the Liberals and New Democrats who voted against it; there were not enough Tories who voted for it. There were enough of them in fact who voted with us that that resolution went down to all-party defeat.

The reality is that resolution came on the very last day of the House, if you will recall, in June before we would break for the summer holidays. Second, it was only five months away from the actual municipal election. Anyone else who's been in municipal government will know that changing the whole, complete structure five months before and imposing it while you're doing that is totally unreasonable and would create nothing but electoral chaos. The last thing is, there wasn't this $27 million, the cheque waiting to be signed, to be handed down if we should get this done.

So I think it's fair to reflect on the history of how this happened and would remind members that's the important thing here.

SPORTS IN BRANTFORD

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): As many of my colleagues know, the city of Brantford has enjoyed a long tradition of association with sports. Brantford is the home town of a number of prominent athletes, including hockey legend Wayne Gretzky, and each year hosts more than 100 significant national and international sporting events, attracting thousands of visitors to my riding.

Some of the more notable competitive sports include minor hockey, where we have the Wayne Gretzky Hockey Tournament every year, curling, wrestling, basketball and swimming, to name but a few.

In recognition of the increasing numbers of young athletes drawn to the community each year to compete in these events, and due in no small part to the efforts of a group of dedicated people in my riding, including Pat Shewchuk, Dean Falle, Bill Page and Paul Stillman, the city of Brantford on May 25, 1998, proclaimed itself by a resolution of council to be the Tournament Capital of Ontario.

It is with great pride that I rise in the House today to share this announcement with my colleagues and enter into the record for future generations that Brantford, in addition to being known as the home of Wayne Gretzky and the telephone city, will from this day forward also be known as the Tournament Capital of Ontario.

I offer my congratulations to the city of Brantford, to its elected council and to the aforementioned group who brought this idea forward.

1340

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In a media piece from the Wall Street Journal, there is coming to be quite a bit of consensus that across three nations, Mexico, the US and Canada, we're having a significant problem with infrastructure in our transportation system. Specifically, our transportation at border crossings is having a great deal of difficulty.

What I'd like to see from the Ontario government is a leadership role being taken specifically to address this issue. I'd like to call on the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism and the Minister of the Environment to come together to strike a working group. This working group ought to sort out levels of responsibility that actually address the issue of transportation.

What we think should be a priority is development of a state-of-the-art, safe, clean, automated superhighway that ensures the smooth, fast transportation of goods between Canada and the US.

I am asking them specifically to talk about the roles and responsibilities of all three levels of government. In Windsor, on July 23, 1997, we did strike a working group, a task force to look and study and call on all three levels of government to discuss the creation of a north-south superhighway. What we know is happening today and will continue in the future is that much of our economic boom is based on trade and the increase of trade. I'd like to see the Ontario government play a lead role in this.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Harris government has once again demonstrated its disdain for the rights of women to be paid what they deserve. The Harris government has also demonstrated its disdain for the value of health care workers in the home.

People may remember this issue from a little while ago. About nine months ago there was a crisis in home care. This particular crisis was announced by the impending demise of Red Cross homemaker services. At the time, you'll remember, the Harris government tried to blame this on pay equity legislation. The Red Cross, on the other hand, stated that because of the competitive bidding process in home care, they would be forced out of business, unable to compete with the private sector providers who pay the lower wages. Well, that's exactly what's happened, and now all of a sudden the Red Cross pay equity has been recalculated, manipulated, and the problem recalculated out of existence. A little math fix and women who were told seven years ago that they would get pay of $14 an hour are now being told that was a mistake. Whatever the homemakers now earn has been deemed to be in line with the provisions of pay equity.

These people provide some of the most important services we can think of in the homes of our elderly, our sick and our vulnerable. This is a disgrace. I would ask the government today to go back to the drawing-board and pay these workers the moneys they deserve.

OPTIMIST CLUB FESTIVAL

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Today, I rise to inform my fellow members of the Legislative Assembly about the fourth annual Optimists in Action for a Better Day Community Festival which will be happening this Saturday, June 6, at Chinguacousy Park in Brampton. This year's theme is "Friends Towards the Future."

The purpose of this event is to celebrate the abilities and achievements of young people in our community and those organizations which assist them in reaching for their dreams and achieving their goals.

Local youth and community groups will be organizing displays and demonstrations for visitors to the park. Puppet shows, a children's penny carnival, a barbecue - all of these provided as a free service to the community, at no cost to the participants.

The Optimist Club of Brampton has been serving the citizens of the city for over 15 years and this festival is just one way in which they strive to fulfil the spirit of their motto, "Friend of Youth." They have contributed to many projects, including building the Optimist Community Care Centre in Chinguacousy Park, helping found the Ogada Wilderness Camp CARE program for troubled teens, running bicycle safety rodeos and recognizing graduates from many of our schools for various achievements.

I'm proud to have the opportunity to relay to you, Mr Speaker, and to the members of the assembly, the good works of the Optimist Club in my community and invite all members who may be in Brampton this Saturday to join us at Chinguacousy Park from 9 am to 3 pm for a fun day.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

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

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.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday, June 1, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 31, An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.

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 1346 to 1351.

The Speaker: We're voting on first reading of An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Clement, Tony

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 31.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm pleased to introduce the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, designed to increase investment and job creation in Ontario's construction industry and improve workplace democracy to help ensure stable labour relations. This legislation is part of the government's plan announced in the speech from the throne to continue building a strong economy and to create more and better jobs.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act is designed to increase investment and job creation in Ontario's construction industry and improve workplace democracy to help ensure stable labour relations.

It is part of the government's plan, which was announced in the speech from the throne, to continue building a strong economy and to create more and better jobs. If passed, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would form part of the government's commitment to keep Ontario's labour relations system flexible, fair and efficient, which in turn creates even more opportunities for investment and jobs.

Over the past few months, small and large businesses have responded in many ways to Ontario's more favourable economic climate. Many have said they are considering major job-creating capital investments.

But actually making those investments, getting shovels in the ground and people on the job, depends on the competitiveness of our construction industry. The simple fact is that Ontario has to create innovative ways to attract outside investment. This legislation demonstrates yet again this government's commitment to attracting secure, high-paying jobs to the province of Ontario.

The bill I have introduced today would enhance competitiveness in the construction industry. It would create a framework to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects in Ontario. Such a framework has been the subject of lengthy discussions among construction employers, various trade unions and ministry officials, as we have collectively worked to resolve competitiveness issues.

This legislation would bring about project agreements that would help businesses compete for economically significant projects with the potential to bring thousands of construction and spinoff jobs into Ontario's communities. These projects might include those contemplated by the multibillion-dollar petrochemical sector, as well as other innovative, high-technology-based industries.

I want to compliment my honourable friends and members of this assembly the member for Sarnia and the member for Lambton, who have worked long and hard to accomplish this proposed legislation which will benefit the Sarnia-Lambton area in particular.

Passing the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would also address a long-standing issue. It would ensure that only employers in the construction industry are covered by the special construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act. This means that employers whose primary business is not construction, for example, retail employers, municipalities and school boards, can negotiate agreements specific to the circumstances of their sector. This corrects the situation of these employers being bound by province-wide agreements that they have little opportunity to influence.

In addition to the construction industry competitiveness initiatives I mentioned earlier, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would also amend a variety of labour relations and other legislation to meet some key goals.

First, this bill would make the union certification process more democratic so that the wishes of employees are sought and respected in all cases. The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would ensure that union certification can only occur when a majority of employees vote in favour of the union in a secret ballot.

1400

The bill would also let employers provide evidence to verify a union's estimate of the number of employees in the bargaining unit described in the application for certification without compromising the timing of a representation vote.

Investors and employees need to have confidence in the certainty of Ontario's labour laws. These amendments would ensure the democratic rights of employees are respected in the certification process. If passed, these amendments would send a message to all investors that Ontario is open for business.

Second, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act deals with miscellaneous amendments to the Labour Relations Act, the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that create greater efficiency in adjudication procedures.

Specifically, this bill would implement the merger of the office of adjudication with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It would also let the board fully recover the costs for construction industry grievance arbitrations.

In summary, the new, innovative reforms in the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would make our construction industry more competitive, stimulate growth in a number of key industries and improve workplace democracy. This job-creating legislation would make Ontario more attractive to investors. Above all, Ontario will be even better positioned to attract economically significant construction projects and create jobs with the passage of the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You can see that the creative headline writers in the Premier's office are at it again: the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. Somehow that term doesn't seem to apply generally when we look at Bill 26, at Bill 22, at Bill 136, at the rule changes and at Bill 103. I hope it is true that indeed you really are talking about a more democratic situation than has been there in the past, because that certainly is not the feeling of the people who are working in the trades in the unions in this province.

This bill, which I just had a chance to look at and of course will need some time to scrutinize, if passed, I believe will have a major impact on the construction industry and the way in which business is done in special areas.

I know you've had discussions, Minister, with trades and with big firms on possible projects and that some of those meetings have taken place over the last several months. I remind you, however, that the trades still have some major concerns about this. Some of the ideas you proposed are some of their proposals; this isn't just one way. Some of them made some of these proposals you announced today.

Our bottom line is really, will we truly have a situation where we will have a more competitive situation to attract projects and investment to Ontario? I'm told that in the construction industry alone you've got 19,000 fewer workers than there were seven months previous to that, which is a heck of a lot, so there's a need for a lot of activity.

Our bottom line is fairness. Our bottom line is real jobs with fair wages and opportunity for all the partners to play together and work together and put together something of substance. I know the concerns of people in Sarnia for an industry that is in deep trouble and may have, and I know have, some ideas for something of this nature. This may be able to address that particular issue.

It's got to be a win-win situation for everybody - for the people of Sarnia, for the investments, for the workers, for the people who are spending their time and their skill working on such projects - so it is not a divisive element.

I'm concerned, Minister, just on the surface, looking at the bill - I want to spend more time scrutinizing this and consulting more widely, which I have not - about some of the unilateral authority that is now vested in your office. I'll want to take a close look at that. Construction projects under your new proposed contract negotiations format, will this be in your office only? What kind of power is that? Why is it not in regulations? Why not assign this power to the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

This bill assigns a number of new powers to the labour relations board as well, and yet this is the same board this government cut back by millions of dollars; I forget how many staff it was, but several staff, a high percentage of staff a year and a half or two years ago, and now they have new responsibilities. Will they also get the concurrent resources to do the job that you're now asking them to perform?

Your system seems to give every union in negotiations one vote. If you have a union that has 100 members in one trade and you have one that has maybe 5,000, how does that work in terms of the 60% factor you're dealing with on accepting a particular project by a proponent? How is that going to work for the individual members and employers on that? It may on the surface look like one vote regardless of size, so I'll be interested to see how that plays out and the reactions of the trades on that.

You say that the new system will only apply to major industrial construction projects, but so far I haven't seen a definition of what is a major industrial project. Is it one over $15 million? Who determines it? Is it the employer, the proponent, the labour relations board, the ministry? How is this developed?

We want to take a closer look at allowing companies to exempt themselves from construction provisions if they're not primarily in the construction area.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Responses, third party.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I also want to begin by pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the title of the bill, calling it the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. Why don't you just `fess up and come clean and call the act exactly what it is: Further Gutting Ontario's Labour Laws so that Our Already Rich Friends Could Make Even More Money? That's the name of the game here.

For instance, the notion that the government now is going to exclude non-construction employers from the Ontario Labour Relations Act provisions that apply to construction workers so that these companies can be even more competitive is hard to swallow when one of the most high-profile cases involving this issue was the TD Bank. Are you trying to tell us the TD Bank isn't competitive already? That's the nature of exactly what the minister said standing in his place. He said, "We have to make it more competitive and this is why we're making these changes," and one of the most high-profile cases involves the TD Bank.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the employer lost its case at the labour relations board. You're making this change because you don't like those kinds of decisions. Any time there's a decision that goes in favour of the workers, you do everything you can to try and change it, up to and including changing the rules.

Let's take a look at one of the other provisions that you're doing. This is also a major one and resulted from another high-profile case that went before the Ontario Labour Relations Board: Wal-Mart and the Steelworkers. The board ruled that the employer's act of misconduct was so severe during the run-up to an election for certification that the board set aside that decision and said, "Wal-Mart, you have poisoned the workplace to such a degree that a fair, democratic vote cannot take place. We deem that the certification provisions have been met," and they approved it.

It requires an awful lot, regardless of who's on that board, to make a case that the workplace was so poisoned that you can't conduct a fair, democratic vote, yet in this particular case that's exactly what happened. Surprisingly, when we search, we find that there have been 15 of these in four years. What that suggests is that there are a lot of instances where democratic votes, contrary to your name for the bill, can't take place. The notion that you're going to clear things up somehow and allow another vote to take place doesn't wash.

1410

One of the key reasons that a board would rule against an employer is if they were intimidating their employees. If you've intimidated employees to the point where they are fearful to exercise their right to vote to join a union and to the extent that the board has now said there is no democratic climate in which to hold a vote, you have to have scared people pretty significantly. That's not going to go away in a matter of a few weeks just because you say so. That poisoned environment and those intimidations are still there and it's still going to affect the outcome.

But once again you don't like the fact that in a fair, open, democratic, quasi-judicial atmosphere your friends lost the decision, so you're going to change the rules to make sure that your friends win the decisions 10 times out of 10, and somehow you have the nerve to stand there and say this is democracy.

Let me also mention that we are glad to see that the government isn't, as was rumoured, removing the words "reasonable efforts" from the OPSEU collective agreement. But I want to say that, given the fact that there's a pattern here, a pattern that when you don't like the decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board you change the rules of the game, and if you don't do it in one piece of legislation you just wait for a few months and introduce it into another, we'd like to hear from you, Minister, very clearly that you're not ever planning to introduce a piece of legislation that removes the "reasonable efforts" clause in the OPSEU agreement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last week I raised the issue of a government regulation which you and your cabinet authorized that compromises both patient care and small business competitiveness in the medical laboratory industry. The regulation, you'll remember, forces successful small labs to pay their larger competitors some of the money they've earned over the last two years because you've decided they shouldn't have it.

When you answered this question on May 25, you said you would protect access to lab services. I have here an internal memorandum from Gamma Dynacare cancelling lab services at 344 Bloor Street in St Andrew-St Patrick, at 172 Queen Street in Brampton South, at 99 Avenue Road in St Andrew-St Patrick. In other words, all the people who depend on those services no longer have good access except from a temporary service that you intend to cancel.

Minister, will you guarantee these communities that are affected by the closure of those collection centres that they will be able to have -

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

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I think if you take a look at the locations you will know that there are other lab facilities in very close proximity. We have indicated that in areas where there is difficulty accessing lab services we will ensure that lab services are provided.

Mr Kennedy: Severely ill patients are depending on much more than that glib response, because in real life there are people affected. Doctors Wolgelernter and Charlebois in Scarborough state: "Patients do not have the funds for extra travel. Others simply choose not to have the blood work done, which is dangerous." They mention blood sugars and electrocardiograms, which have to be done promptly.

Patients are affected by your reckless decision-making here. Mrs Hall of Thornhill writes about her husband, who is a stroke victim and 90 years old. It's very difficult for him to travel for blood tests. The labs that you want to favour stopped providing the tests at home and it was taken over by the lab that you want to put out of business.

Minister, for Mrs Hall and for a whole range of patients all across the province, will you stop this chaos, will you withdraw the regulation and will you stand in the House today and guarantee they will have the same high-quality lab services in future?

Hon Mrs Witmer: This certainly was not a reckless decision that was made. This is an attempt to ensure that we have the adequate financial resources to ensure that everybody throughout this province, no matter where they live, has access to lab services.

We're all aware that there has been pressure on the system. We are aware that there are systemic problems. This was first identified by the NDP government, who introduced the industry cap on lab billings, and now, in response to the need to take a look at how lab services are provided, the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories brought forward this proposal to us last spring so we could ensure that accessibility to service could be maintained, as well as ensuring that we could keep those services funded in a way that could be sustainable into the future.

Mr Kennedy: Let's review this one last time and let's look at what you're hiding behind. Fourteen of the lab companies voted against this versus 10 who voted in favour. You've decided to favour four large companies that control 80% of the market. Let's see. Why are you giving this corporate preference? The competition bureau of the federal government says it's conspiratorial behaviour, and that's what you're endorsing, Minister.

Patients are not protected. There's chaos for doctors who won't be able to have their samples done in a timely manner. We have another doctor here talking about the profound risk for geriatric patients. Companies will be put out of business. You're taking some $3 million from companies that have earned it and giving it back to these larger companies, and to top it all off, you don't save any money out of this.

Minister, will you stand in this House and withdraw the regulation or explain? Is this Harris government health incompetence or is it something worse?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I just remind the member opposite that it was his own government and the previous NDP government who have always worked collaboratively with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories in a way in which they could ensure that services could be provided to people in this province. If you're saying that someone's showing favouritism, then obviously you have demonstrated favouritism in the past as well.

You referred to the federal competition bureau. They have acknowledged that the province has the authority to prescribe a threshold amount payable to each medical laboratory. The corporate cap, according to them, is authorized by valid provincial legislation. This is a proposal which has come from an association with whom all stripes of government have already engaged in dialogue in past years. This was a discussion, this was a proposal, and we are cooperating with the labs to ensure that people have equal access to lab services throughout the province.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. The controversy continues to swirl around the determined effort of the Harris government to expand gambling activities in Ontario and around the selection process for the operation of the Niagara casino. Allegations of political favouritism, inside connections and improper influence have surfaced since your government selected its choice to operate the Niagara casino, and concerns have grown about the awarding of contracts to operate the new Mike Harris gambling halls, or charity casinos, as you call them.

Minister, yet another concerned group, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, has called for an independent public inquiry into your government's gambling activities and has recommended a moratorium on further escalation of gambling initiatives in this province.

Minister, will you now call an independent public inquiry into the awarding of the Niagara Falls casino contract, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition, Dalton McGuinty, and a further inquiry into the undue influence of the gambling industry on government policy with respect to gambling expansion in Ontario?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): You continue to raise innuendoes in the House, comments that you won't raise outside this House. I'll respond to the facts as I've been informed of them by the Ontario Casino Corp.

As I indicated in the House this week, the Ontario Casino Corp has told me that the selection process for the preferred proponent for Niagara was "fair and independent of any influence of any kind."

With regard to the specific innuendo about Coopers and Lybrand, we are proceeding in a thorough and responsible manner, and the OCC has been gathering information and their counsel is gathering information. When I have the completed report we'll review that and take the appropriate action.

1420

GAMING CONTROL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It wasn't an answer to my question.

My second question is this: Experts on criminal profiteering say that Ontario's casinos are being used by the mob to launder profits from drugs and other large-scale crimes. "There is evidence every organized crime group launders money this way in Niagara," says Antonio Nicaso, an internationally recognized expert on organized crime. He says, and I quote, "They've already infiltrated the casino."

Many people believe that the Harris government simply does not have a handle on the problems. As is so often the case, you are bulldozing ahead without looking at the consequences and without doing the proper research and impact studies.

Minister, with all the unanswered questions in the public mind and with all the controversy surrounding the awarding of the Niagara Falls casino contract and with similar problems that are bound to plague the so-called charity casinos, will you ask Mike Harris to call a moratorium on any further gambling expansion in Ontario?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to refer this to the minister responsible for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Ontario's framework governing casinos involves the collaborative efforts of casino regulators and management law enforcement. There are specific provisions in place governing large cash transactions and the recordkeeping to ensure that casinos are not targets for organized money laundering.

It's unfortunate that the particular news article and the reporter did not speak to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. If he had, he would have learned that even though the federal statute does not apply to casinos, the Gaming Control Act does and contains comprehensive requirements aimed at money laundering. Those requirements are far more extensive than the federal act and are supported by compliance police resources within the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.

Although the federal regulations will require casinos to record transactions of $10,000 or more, Ontario has already gone further in that area.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Not only does our provincial Gaming Control Act appropriately scrutinize large cash transactions, but we go so far as logging and aggregating cash transactions of $2,500 -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Bradley: The point I am making is that you've got all these problems now, yet you want to expand and escalate gambling activities in Ontario. Concerns about potential money laundering by organized crime, insider influence, political favouritism, a flawed assessment process, severe problems with, for instance, gambling addiction, detrimental effects on families and communities, and the wild escalation of gambling opportunities should tell your Premier, Mike Harris, that the establishment of 44 new Mike Harris gambling halls, or charity casinos, as you prefer to call them, operating seven days a week, 24 hours a day in communities across Ontario - that kind of escalation is ill advised and wrongheaded.

Minister, will your government now come to its senses, address those concerns and call a halt to any further expansion of gambling in this province? Surely enough is enough. Will you now abandon your plans to establish permanent charity casinos, with thousands of slot machines, in 44 communities across Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I just want to complete the answer. The member of the opposition led off that part of the question with the money laundering aspect. I would like to refer you to section 9.3 of the regulations dealing with gaming control. It states that the supplier shall log and aggregate all cash transactions of $2,500 or more occurring within a 24-hour period between a supplier and one person or another person who the supplier knows or has reason to believe is the person's agent at the cage, gaming table or pit. Clearly, this goes far beyond anything the federal government has done.

I would also like to relate to you that RCMP Inspector Gerry Nichols offered the following observation in light of the article. He said:

"I am confident that the joint efforts to date of the RCMP Toronto integrated proceeds of crime section, the OPP and the gaming control unit have been successful in incorporating regulations, policies, intelligence and enforcement activity that prohibits any major money laundering activity in Ontario casinos. We have been monitoring and testing the casinos over the past several years with our policing partners, and based on the results of the scrutiny, I believe the article is unfounded."

The Speaker: New question, third party.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, very serious allegations have been raised with respect to your gaming consultant, Michael French, and Coopers and Lybrand. You indicated earlier this week that you had asked the Ontario Casino Corp, headed by an ex-Brian Mulroney chief of staff, to look into the apparent conflict of interest. We called the Ontario Casino Corp earlier today and we asked to speak to the person who was handling the investigation. We were told: "Nothing is happening; there is no investigation. We are just providing information for the minister in the Legislature." Then we inquired further and we were told, "It's just a report."

Minister, will you tell us, since there's no investigation, since they're simply putting together a report, why hasn't that report been produced here yet and what's in that report?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The innuendo you've raised with regard to Coopers and Lybrand is a very serious innuendo. I've asked that the Ontario Casino Corp, through their legal counsel, investigate and report back to me. We'll wait and see what the facts are.

Mr Hampton: I'll tell you what's really troubling here. We have raised over and over again very clear instances where anybody looking at it would say, "There looks like there could be a conflict of interest here." This minister, rather than taking his job seriously, simply says, "Oh, it's innuendo." Minister, you have a job to protect the public interest, not to protect Conservative Party hacks and fund-raisers.

Let me ask you this: Is the report going to deal with the fact that Coopers and Lybrand advertises itself as a member of the American Gaming Association? Is the report going to deal with the fact that Coopers and Lybrand says, "We'll give you aggressive national representation for the industry"? Is it going to deal with the fact that Coopers and Lybrand is part of a group that advertises itself as: "We'll make sure you're heard. We'll be your lobbyist"? Are you going to deal with those issues or are you simply going to wipe them away?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm not sure if the member of the third party - Coopers and Lybrand's relationship around gaming began for the Windsor casino, when they were brought in to advise your government, through the OCC, on the process around Windsor.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Yes, but your deal is dirty. That one wasn't. You know it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Welland-Thorold, you can't accuse the party of having a dirty deal. That's out of order. Please withdraw.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn. Far from clean.

The Speaker: Pardon?

Mr Kormos: I said, "Far from clean."

The Speaker: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The NDP forget that Coopers and Lybrand were brought in to advise their government on how to set up and run the process for Windsor. That relationship continued.

It's a very serious allegation and innuendo that you referred to. We will make sure the public are protected. It's a serious issue, and it's complicated. I've asked for a thorough report. I don't want to have it prejudged. I've asked their lawyers to comply with that. So far you've requested 87 calls of inquiry - maybe it's going up every day - on pretty well every issue you can think of, over 13 at least. In this particular instance I believe it's serious innuendo, so we've asked the OCC, through their lawyers, to do a thorough review.

One other clarification: You mentioned the head of the OCC. The president is Brian Wood, who I think you're well familiar with.

Mr Hampton: The minister still tries to avoid the issue. The fact of the matter is that there is information out there in public which indicates that some of the principals at Coopers and Lybrand, namely, Michael French, were advocating on behalf of some of the people who now appear to be selected to have the inside track for running the casino. At the same time, they were contracted by your government to advocate on how to set up casinos. We are told that Michael French played an active part in deciding who would eventually get the casino licence.

What that boils down to on the face of the record is very apparent conflict of interest. It's not just innuendo. So here we are. First you denied it for a week, then you told us: "There's going to be an investigation. We're going to get to the bottom of this." We phone up today and ask, "Who is running the investigation?" and we're told: "There's no investigation. We're just putting together a little report."

Are you going to get to the bottom of this? Are you going to protect the public interest, Minister?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I've mentioned, the Ontario Casino Corp has advised me in writing that there was a fair and independent process, free of any influence of any kind. That's in writing. It's for the record. I've shared that letter publicly. There were strict conflict-of-interest provisions in conducting this process.

What I've asked, based on the seriousness of this innuendo, is to get the facts. I want the facts in writing from the OCC - the Ontario Casino Corp - and through their legal counsel.

1430

AIRCRAFT PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the minister responsible for economic development and trade. Today there is a tragedy unfolding at the McDonnell Douglas aircraft factory in Malton, the factory that was used to produce the Avro Arrow, the factory where 2,000 highly skilled, very productive workers are about to lose their jobs. The real shame of it is that your government says, "We're not going to do anything about it," and the Liberal government in Ottawa says, "We're not going to do anything about it." In fact your Premier said, "Oh, it's just part of worldwide competitiveness."

The fact of the matter is this plant is one of the lowest-cost, highest-quality, most productive maker of airplane wings in the world. The fact is there's a wealth of high-technology skill and knowledge. Why is your government refusing to do anything, refusing to take any responsibility to help in the repositioning of that plant and the saving of those jobs?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I certainly would like to answer the leader of the third party in this manner: Yes, we are concerned for the people who are potentially going to lose their jobs at Boeing and the Malton plant. I want to just say to the honourable member that I believe our government has created a positive business environment where businesses should be succeeding without subsidy. Having said that, I want to say to the member that I have met with Mr Capern, president of Boeing Canada. I have also met with Mr Hargrove. As a matter of fact, I had a conversation earlier today with Mr Hargrove to see how we can work together to possibly bring in the federal government. With the two levels of government and the people from Boeing, maybe something could be done. I want the honourable member to know that I will not stand back and allow this to happen without at least making an effort to save those 2,000 jobs.

Mr Hampton: I want a couple of things clearly on the record so that you understand, Minister, and most of all that your Premier starts to understand them.

Boeing, the largest maker of civilian aircraft in the world, gets significant subsidies through the military in the United States. That is on the record. It's known by everyone. Airbus, the European manufacturer, has had significant government support in terms of becoming the number two maker of planes in the world. There is nowhere in the world where you make aircraft that governments aren't involved in a supporting role, in the training, in the research, in the development.

Minister, let me ask you this: What are you going to do in terms of supporting training? What are you going to do in terms of supporting research and development? What are you going to do in terms of supporting the repositioning of those jobs and the repositioning of that plant? There's a very good example up in de Havilland. You can go up there and see how that was turned around. What are you going to do?

Hon Mr Palladini: The honourable member touched on an item that I think is very good for Ontario. Even without government subsidies, even without government purchasing as far as military equipment is concerned, Ontario is the fifth-largest manufacturer of aircraft parts. So our province is a very productive province when it comes to aerospace. I want the honourable member to know that as of June 1995 the aerospace sector in Ontario has grown by 10%. So we are doing something because our government has created an environment that's positive for investment.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Because de Havilland exists, because de Havilland buys all those parts. The only thing more pathetic than a government with its hands tied behind its back is to discover that it has tied its own hands. There are thousands of workers across this province who know that government doesn't have to be impotent. At de Havilland, at Algoma Steel, at Provincial Papers, at Spruce Falls, all these workers know that government with some courage can act with some leadership and make a difference. Our government, the NDP government, worked hard. When jobs were at stake, we took risks and they paid off for these workers and for Ontario's economy.

Will you commit today that you will do whatever it takes to make sure that McDonnell Douglas does not join the Avro Arrow in the hall of fame of Conservative government failure to promote Ontario workers and the Ontario economy?

Hon Mr Palladini: The member for Sault Ste Marie is telling how great his government was when it was in power. The net result was 10,000 less new jobs when you got thrown out of power. Our government has created a very productive environment where businesses are coming into our province investing. When you take a look at 500 new jobs every working day - every business day of the week, our government, with the private sector, is creating 500 jobs.

All he wants to talk about is what they did. We're doing what it takes to make sure that Ontario is back on the right track, creating jobs: 400,000 net new private sector jobs in the last three years alone.

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday's front page in the Orillia Packet and Times bears the headline, "Parry Sound Gets OPP Deal." Indeed, the town of Parry Sound got quite a deal from the Ontario Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves. The story, which has been confirmed by officials in the town office to me, basically is this. The town of Parry Sound, population 6,000, which for years has through its municipal tax base been paying for, first, a municipal police force and, since 1989, a contract service with the OPP, a month ago got a $500,000 grant from the Ontario Ministry of Finance to help relieve the cost to Parry Sound taxpayers of policing.

The question is very simple: How was it possible for a municipality that for years has been its paying its own municipal policing costs to qualify for a special $500,000 grant from the so-called community reinvestment fund?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I refer the question to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, through you to the member of the opposition, as he is aware, the community reinvestment fund was set in place to offset the Who Does What trades. We've created education tax room because the education tax room comes up to the province and comes down in a number of services.

The policing issue was this. A number of communities that had populations over 5,000 were required to pay for policing; those under 5,000 were not. In the early 1990s there were some court cases where it was argued that was unfair and we had a choice. The compromise was that the communities would have to pay up $90 a household for those areas that hadn't paid for policing before. We recognized that would be a large burden on a number of communities.

Parry Sound and a number of other communities did not have full-time contracts. They were intermittent contracts. There were other communities in the province in a similar situation. It was felt that it would be fair that they would have to pay the first $90 per household but they wouldn't have the burden of the full cost. That was in recognition of small, rural areas that would face substantial increases all in one year.

1440

Mr Conway: Bullfeathers. The minister's answer is a transparent canard, and my friend from Brockville will know it only too well. It is absolutely clear what's happened here. Senator Pork, our Minister of Finance, has cooked a sweetheart deal for Parry Sound.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I can go with "bullfeathers," but "Senator Pork" is definitely out of order.

Mr Conway: Let me withdraw it, Mr Speaker. It is clear that Ernie Eves has cooked a sweetheart deal for the town of Parry Sound. People in Orillia are saying it. This week's Timiskaming Speaker says it's certainly a deal they want and have not heard about. Let me tell you, in Arnprior, Renfrew, Pembroke and Deep River, our people want exactly the same deal.

I say to the minister responsible for policing, are you prepared on behalf of the Mike Harris government to say to the people of Arnprior, Pembroke, Deep River, New Liskeard, Wallaceburg and a host of other communities that have been for many years paying their own policing that they are going to get precisely the same deal that Mr Ernie Eves gave to the town of Parry Sound?

Hon Mr Hodgson: To the member for Renfrew, with poetic licence aside, the situation here is that they will have to pay the first $90 per household, similar to the townships of Alice and Fraser, the village of Barry's Bay, the townships of Head, Clara and Maria, the townships of Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie and McKay. There are other -

Mr Conway: That's very different.

The Speaker: Come to order.

Mr Conway: None of those people ever paid for policing. That's the difference.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The fact, as I understand it, is that there are a number of communities in the province that did not have full-time contracts with the OPP but they had contracts from time to time and it was felt that they should be treated the same as other small communities. They pay for the first $90 and they have to pay on their property tax above that.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also to the Chair of Management Board. It concerns his government's rush to create election campaigns in Ontario where whoever has the most money wins.

Minister, I want to ask you about one of the specifics. In your proposal you're saying that you want to exempt the cost of pollsters, you want to exempt the cost of staffing and you want to exempt the cost of consultants from the Election Finances Act. In other words, your party could go out and hire big money consultants, big money pollsters and big money computer systems and none of that would count in the Election Finances Act - none of it.

Minister, can you tell the people of Ontario how you can have a fair election when none of those costs - pollsters, consultants and computer firms - would count under the election expenses?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): To the leader of the third party, I'm not sure why you're trying to mislead this House that it's our proposal.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Withdraw it, please.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm sorry, I withdraw that, Speaker.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Call it a canard.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The canard that it's our proposal. What we've had -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll leave that to your wit.

Interjection: Too much education is not always a good thing.

Hon Mr Hodgson: What happened is that we would like to have a process where all the parties could agree. We've had a couple of meetings on that. Unfortunately, that hasn't worked out.

We have - and all parties have this - the recommendations of the Commission on Election Finances, which had two members from each party and a chair, a past president of the NDP, who spent years looking at this and reported to this House.

We've also had chief election officer Warren Bailie issue a report, which I believe your caucus has a copy of. We went through their proposals. The question you referred to specifically is already set out as guidelines for elections in Ontario. Those things you mentioned are the present rules.

Mr Hampton: I don't need any lectures from you on what the present rules are.

This is about your attempt to put in an Election Finances Act which means that whoever has the most money wins the election. That's what your government is all about.

Let me give you another example. You want to do away with the blackout period for advertising at the beginning of a campaign. You want to be able to spend millions upon millions of dollars on campaign advertising from day one. You're the government so you know when the election is going to be called: You go out and you buy up all the advertising spaces, you call the election, and immediately people are flooded with advertising.

Minister, why would you want to do that? Why do you want to bring to Ontario an election finance system and an election system that doesn't depend upon one person, one vote, but depends upon who has the most money? Why do you want to do that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: First of all, these are recommendations made by an all-party commission, so why would you try to perpetuate the myth that this is our proposal today? Just last night we met as representatives from each party to see if we could come to consensus, but unfortunately that wasn't possible. But we still have to consult, to talk to our caucus. We're looking at the recommendations.

The need for change is outlined by Jack Murray, a past party president of the NDP, who urged the government that there is a need to modernize, there is a need to update the Election Act and there is a need to save taxpayers' dollars on this. All other provinces have done it. The federal government has done that as well. What you are talking about in the blackout was part of the recommendations of the committee on which, I might add, you had two party representatives and the chairman.

1450

SPORT FISHING

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Earlier this year, thousands of anglers crowded the Bay of Quinte and participated in the 18th annual Kiwanis Walleye Fishing Derby. By all accounts, the event was very successful. It is always a significant boost to the economy of my riding, to the people who have inns and restaurants, with all those people who stay over the weekend. It certainly is a great place.

However, walleye really prefer murky water. Concerns are now being raised because the improvement of the quality of the water in the Bay of Quinte is threatening the walleye fishery.

Minister, considering the importance of the walleye fishery to the economy of my riding, what is the ministry doing to make sure that the ecology of the Bay of Quinte still continues the walleye fishing?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member for Quinte for the question. As all members of this House know, after many decades of hard work by various governments and by a lot of different individuals, there has been a tremendous improvement in the water quality of the Great Lakes. In some ways, as the member has pointed out, we may be victims of our own success.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Although the members opposite don't seem to think this is a big issue, it is a big issue to many people across the province, and it's one that's been raised by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It's been suggested that as a result of the controls that have lowered the amount of phosphorous that enters the lakes, we may not have the kind of habitat that some species, including walleye, like.

While the walleye fishery is currently a very healthy one in Lake Ontario, it's an issue of concern for the Ministry of Natural Resources in looking at the future of the stocks. The government is dedicated to the preservation of walleye and other fish stocks for this generation and generations to come.

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

Hon Mr Snobelen: Currently, there is no clear scientific evidence that adding phosphorous to this or any lake, as has been suggested by some, will actually improve, or is the appropriate method of addressing, this situation. In fact, this government will continue to work with its partners, including the Great Lakes Fishery Commission -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Rollins: Minister, what are you and the ministry doing to support sport fishing throughout the whole province of Ontario?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again I'm surprised by the reactions of the members opposite to these questions. I'm glad the member for Quinte is interested in fishing in Ontario, because it's an important activity. There are over two million anglers in Ontario and over 500,000 people come to fish in Ontario every year, providing some $2 billion to the province. I think it's serious, our ministry takes it seriously, and I hope the members opposite would as well.

We've done many things to help the fishing activities in Ontario, and I'm sure the member for Quinte knows this. Introducing a special-purpose account, for instance, which allows those hunting and fishing revenues to go into protecting habitat and encouraging those activities, is one of those.

One of the areas that's most interesting to anglers is fish stocking. Last year we stocked over seven million fish in Ontario and I'm pleased and proud to inform the member that this year fish stocking will rise to 8.5 million units, a vast improvement for the anglers of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question of the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. This question is about the squandering of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on self-serving, blatant Conservative government advertising.

You will recall that I raised with you the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board pamphlet that went out to all of Ontario, at the cost of three quarters of a million dollars - a glossy campaign-type Conservative propaganda brochure, produced by the Jobs and Investment Board, which is headed by former Conservative candidate, principal secretary to the Premier and chairman of communications for the Conservative caucus, none other than David Lindsay. This was at a huge cost to the people of Ontario.

Today, people are beginning to receive yet another pamphlet in every home in Ontario, a pamphlet that again is costing close to three quarters of a million dollars and is clearly Conservative propaganda.

Minister, will you now reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario with funds from the Conservative Party for what is obviously a blatant propaganda piece?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): In keeping with the 1998 throne speech commitment, this householder provides an opportunity for all of Ontario to have a dialogue with the government.

The publication informs Ontarians about key issues of interest to them: the economy, education, health care, work for welfare, and personal safety. It's important to the government to tell taxpayers about the new initiatives that are taking place in the province and changes that will affect them. My colleagues and I have often had calls from people asking for more information. We think it's important to be accountable to the people of Ontario.

The money you referred to is the cheapest option, as opposed to doing advertising from response cards through newspapers or other forums. It's the most effective and efficient and cheapest way for the taxpayers to have input.

Mr Bradley: What the minister is saying is, instead of wasting taxpayers' dollars on newspaper ads the way he used to, on radio ads and television ads, he's going to waste it on these pamphlets.

Let's remember: This is taxpayers of Ontario paying; this isn't the Conservative Party. Yet the message is clearly a blatant political message. If you want to send out a pamphlet of this kind, take the money from the huge coffers of the Conservative Party that you want to increase even more with your new rules for fund-raising. Use that money to advertise Conservative propaganda and quit using taxpayers' money to do it.

Will you now reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario for what is clearly a Conservative propaganda pamphlet going to every household in Ontario?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Changes to education, changes to health care, work for welfare and personal safety initiatives that affect people's lives in the province are of interest to the people of Ontario and we want to hear their input, and the way to do that is to ask for their responses.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): To the Minister of Health: Today the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario released statistical evidence that the people of Ontario would happily hand back their tax cut in order to fund adequate high-quality nursing care in hospitals, home care and public health departments. Ontarians want you, Minister, to dedicate funding to the hiring of registered nurses and to hold health care providers accountable for their staffing decisions.

Your government refuses to rescind the tax cut and fund health care, and eight out of 10 Ontarians say you're wrong. The Liberals also refuse to rescind the tax cut, and eight out of 10 Ontarians say they're wrong. New Democrats have committed to taking back $2 billion of the phoney tax scheme and fixing the health care crisis that you've caused, and eight out of 10 Ontarians support our position.

Minister, will you repudiate the phoney tax scheme and dedicate the desperately needed funds to nursing care in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We certainly agree with the points that have been made today. That's why our government has actually increased the spending on health care from $17.4 billion to about $18.6 billion this year.

I'm also very pleased today that when the nurses had their opportunity to present this information, the information was based on a time period in March that was prior to our reinvestment into long-term care. The long-term-care announcement of $1.2 billion means that there will be an additional 7,400 nursing opportunities available.

As well, I know that at the press conference this morning the president did say that she was pleased about the $5 million for nurse practitioners. This showed that the Minister of Health was listening to their concerns. They also indicated, as a result of the announcement yesterday on mental health - I understand at the session this morning they were pleased.

Mrs Boyd: They also told you that it would take $340 million if they are to restore nursing levels to the 1994 level. You've refused. You refused earlier this week when we brought forward the concerns of the Ontario Hospital Association. You've even refused to give the $76 million that are necessary to maintain current nursing levels in the face of the arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator understands the value of nurses, the people of Ontario understand the value of nurses, and now it's time for you to show that you understand the value of nursing in the health care system and commit today to dedicating $340 million to bring nursing care up to the standards of 1994. Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's important that we represent all of the information that was provided this morning. I have indicated on numerous occasions that I certainly do recognize, our government has indicated we recognize - our Premier has had an opportunity to meet with the nurses. We understand there are very long-standing problems that were ignored by previous governments

As I indicated to you, we have made substantial reinvestments. We have set up, in response to the concern of the nurses, the Nursing Services Task Force. We've invested $5 million to support nurse practitioners. We made a funding announcement of $1.2 billion to support 7,400 additional nurses. This morning they indicated quite clearly that we were listening, our government was listening -

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

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and they indicated they were pleased that yesterday we earmarked $1 million to educate registered nurses and other professionals in the area of psychogeriatrics. So there are certainly significant -

The Speaker: Thank you.

1500

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services in regard to the Ombudsman's report that was produced earlier this week. The ever-wanting Ombudsman was highly critical, Minister, of the Social Assistance Review Board, yet you have clearly indicated there are specific ways we're going to deal with the backlog. How will the legislation, which has already been passed, proceed to deal with the backlog of appeals and provide better, effective assistance to the people of this province, particularly those who have appeals before this organization?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for the question. We take the recommendations from the Ombudsman about how we can provide better customer service very, very seriously.

In the matter of the old Social Assistance Review Board, this government recognized that there were some serious administrative backlogs, that clients and people who were making appeals were getting lost in the red tape and waiting far too long for their decisions. That's why we changed the legislation last year.

The new Social Benefits Tribunal comes into effect this month, in June, and the chair of that tribunal has made some very substantial improvements in both procedures and process to improve service to those individuals who appeal. For example, the tribunal is much more customer-service-oriented, so there is one contact person, sort of a case manager, whom that client can contact all the way through the process. It's more open and accessible, there's more information, clearly laid out time frames and a state-of-the-art case management system. It has really improved the service for them.

Mr Hastings: In terms of the backlog for the people of this province, particularly for citizens in the new city of Toronto, how will this new structure expedite in a more timely and effective fashion the appeals that are before the new organization and the backlog so they get some answers that are positive?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Those cases on the backlog will still be heard under the old rules by the old Social Assistance Review Board, while the new tribunal starts to phase in on the new cases. We're taking the time to do this properly so that those cases get the attention they deserve.

It's also important to note that the procedural changes have cleared over 400 cases off the backlog. That is a reduction of 15%, and the pace of that reduction has been increasing. We're finding that not only is that giving those individuals who are appealing decisions better service and faster service, it also means that the money they are using, the taxpayers' money, is being used much more effectively and much better.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. As you well know, my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville and I had a press conference a few months ago on behalf of families trying to adopt children from Romania. We were forced to have a press conference because of your failure to ratify the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. The convention has been adopted federally as well as by many of our provinces across the country, yet despite your promises and assurances you have failed to ratify it here in Ontario. Your failure has caused many of these families a great deal of grief and anxiety.

Minister, as you also know, I have introduced private member's legislation, Bill 23, that would see this convention finally adopted here in Ontario. I want to ask you, when are you going to bring this bill forward for ratification in this House?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question from the honourable member. As you know, when it became obvious that Romania, the one country that changed its procedures, was not going to grandparent those families that were in the midst of trying to adopt a child, through the efforts of my officials and the federal government officials we were able to come up with a special agreement to allow those families to complete their adoptions.

I think I should also stress that Ontario does support the Hague Convention. That has certainly moved forward the principles that countries have tried to agree to, and we will be moving forward with changes in the legislation to help improve services for families that require adoption services.

Mr Cordiano: You've given me an assurance that you have moved forward in this session to ratify the Hague Convention. You were even quoted in the Windsor Star some time ago as saying: "Legally, we can do standalone pieces of legislation. I don't care if it's a government bill or a Liberal bill or an NDP bill. If we can do it with all-party agreement, I'm fully prepared to recommend that to the House leaders."

Minister, legislative counsel drafted the legislation I brought forward and it is a standalone piece of legislation, so what are you waiting for? When are you going to bring that legislation forward for consideration by this House? As I understand it, most members in the House would support it. Why are you delaying?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There is no delay, but I would like to point out to the honourable member that the bill he brought forward - it is a very helpful contribution to the process of reforming legislation, but Hague Convention adoptions only deal with roughly 17% of the adoptions Ontario is involved in. If we're going to look at trying to fix the situation for those families involved in international adoptions, I think we should look at a solution that is not going to deal with only a small percentage, but see if we cannot solve the problems for the entire group.

I thank the honourable member for the contribution to that policy debate. It has been very helpful, but as he knows from when we had the discussion, there are many more families from many more countries, for example China and Russia, which supply a number of children for adoption here in Ontario, and they do not subscribe to the Hague Convention. So simply implementing the Hague Convention is not by any stretch of the imagination going to solve the problem. We need further work.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the government House leader: Dudley George was shot and killed in Ipperwash in September 1995 and there remain serious questions surrounding Mr George's death, questions of grave concern to the people of this province. We've asked the Premier time and time again to do the right thing, to show some integrity, to call a public inquiry. All this government has done is stall, delay and postpone the issue.

On May 25, we served notice to the clerk of the standing committee on the administration of justice asserting our right to a hearing under standing order 124, a review around the issues surrounding the death of Dudley George. Two days ago, it was brought to our attention that the government had chosen to refer Bill 15, a budget bill, to the justice committee. It has been the normal expectation - you know that; you've been here a long time - that a budget bill would go to the finance committee. It has no place in the justice committee.

Then yesterday, minutes after the subcommittee had confirmed our standing order 124 hearing to commence on June 15, you tabled a motion putting the workfare amendment bill before the same justice committee to stall that inquiry. What kind of games are you playing?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I understand the member's question. We discussed this in this House on a point of order by another member of his party. What we're doing is following the standing orders. We are fully complying with the standing orders and we will continue to do so.

Mr Kormos: It's not a matter of whether or not it's in order. It's a matter of whether or not it's ethical and whether or not it's integrous. The fact is that your Bill 22 belongs in the same committee where Bill 142, the workfare bill, was discussed, the standing committee on social development. There is no other legislation pending before the social development committee. That committee sits idle. It's obvious what you're trying to do. You're trying to circumvent our right to utilize standing order 124. You're playing games.

Dudley George is dead. There are serious questions that have prevailed for over two years now. You're a party to the coverup that's becoming more and more apparent. You know the same request under 124 has been put on the agenda of almost every other relevant committee in this House. It's going to happen one way or the other. You can try to continue stonewalling or you can come clean and participate in enforcing the standing orders. Will you stop blocking the hearings into Ipperwash and agree to clear the air around this matter once and for all, please?

Hon Mr Sterling: Of course I deny each and every allegation which the member makes. We will continue to live by the standing orders of this Legislative Assembly. All members are required to live by them, and we will continue to do so.

1510

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I want to ask you about the MRI situation in Hamilton. Your ministry currently has one MRI which covers the Hamilton-Niagara region. That MRI machine at McMaster is operating 16 hours a day. You funded that until April 1. The hospital is now in a position where they cannot afford to continue to pick up the additional cost, which equals about $500,000. As of June 15, they are going to go back to eight hours a day, which will make the waiting list for MRIs in that region from seven months to 14 months.

Can you today guarantee the hospital that you're going to continue to fund the full amount to continue operating this machine for 16 hours a day so people don't have to wait 14 months for MRIs in our region?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member knows, our government has been endeavouring to ensure that people have access to the priority services across Ontario. We want to make sure that no matter where people live they have equal access. As a result, we are increasing the number of MRIs in this province three times compared to the number that were in this province in 1995. We are moving forward.

We recognize that there is a pressure in the Hamilton community. We continue to dialogue, and as soon as we are in a position where all of the information has been provided, we will be going ahead and we will be ensuring that the additional MRIs that have been recognized to be necessary are going to be provided for people not only in Hamilton but in other parts of the province as well. In fact, that was part of the reason for the Health Services Restructuring Commission: to determine what the needs of people in this province were and to ensure that we could provide those services as close to home as possible.

Mr Agostino: Minister, that answer is a joke. Clearly you have no commitment to MRIs. You're not committed to funding MRIs. We face a crisis. Since April 15 they've run on their own budget, with the $10-million deficit they already have. You announced through your restructuring commission, with great fanfare, two new MRIs for Hamilton. It sounds great. Except there's a problem: You haven't announced any funding, and you haven't announced any capital costs.

MRIs cost $2.5 million to $3 million each to install. They cost about $1 million a year to operate. What you have offered is $150,000 per year, which does not even cover the maintenance contract to keep the machines going. You have neglected the people of Hamilton. You're fooling them with your dog-and-pony show and your phoney public relations exercise while people are waiting seven months, a year and a year and a half for MRIs.

Again, Minister, will you commit today that you will fully fund the two new MRIs which have been committed to Hamilton and follow the recommendation of your restructuring commission that recommends that you fund them to $1 million a year and not the 150,000 few bucks that you have promised to give, which is not enough to even keep the machines running?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, neither your government nor the NDP government did anything to ensure broader access to MRIs. It is our government now that is, as I say, tripling the number of MRIs in this province. If there is an additional need for MRI services, our government has indicated we're prepared to fund it. There are two additional MRIs that have been designated for Hamilton, and we will be moving forward to make those available to people in your community. People will have the access they need.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Before petitions, I want to take this opportunity now that the members for Etobicoke-Rexdale and Algoma are here to read the point of order that was raised by the member for Algoma.

On Thursday, May 14, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale introduced a bill entitled 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.

After the bill received first reading, the member for Algoma rose on a point of order to draw the attention of the House to his contention that the title of the bill strongly pointed in the direction of the bill being out of order for the reason, in the member's words, 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."

Because the bill had only just then been introduced and given first reading, no member of the House except for the sponsor had seen the bill, including myself. I committed to review the bill once it had been printed and distributed, which I have done, and to report back on this issue.

Standing order 56 states:

"Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."

With respect to the orderliness of Bill 24, it does not impose a tax; indeed, it does the opposite in alleviating a tax. It does not specifically allocate public funds. Its passage may cause the government to forgo a certain amount of revenue, and thereby impose a burden on the consolidated revenue fund, but this equates only indirectly to an expenditure. Therefore, there are ample precedents fully supporting the permissibility of such a proposal. I therefore find the bill to be in order.

PETITIONS

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris is trying to increase the limit on the amount of money that corporations and individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties and individual candidates in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris would like to remove certain campaign expenditures such as polling and campaign headquarters equipment from the spending limits placed on political parties and candidates; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finances commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Whereas the Harris government wishes to shorten the length of provincial election campaigns and to permit expensive media advertising throughout the entire campaign period, thereby favouring the political parties and candidates with the most money; and

"Whereas the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by Mike Harris will give undue and unacceptable influence to the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our province and will result in the problems that have plagued the American political system, where money plays a central role;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to abandon his planned legislation which will permit substantial increases in the amount of money that can be contributed by corporations and individuals to political parties and candidates and the amount of money the political parties and candidates can spend in provincial elections."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition 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 and/or sell chemicals and/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 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 Ontario government 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."

It's signed by a great number of constituents in my riding, and I present it on their behalf.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas all revenues from violations can be easily directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

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

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I affix my name to this petition.

1520

ABORTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by approximately 200 residents of Gananoque.

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

TUITION FEES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The students of Fort Erie high school, due to the good work of Brian Grassie, gathered the signatures. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has granted permission for universities and colleges to increase their tuitions; and

"Whereas increased tuitions will lead to onerous student debt loads and end universal access to post-secondary education;

"We, the undersigned students of Fort Erie Secondary School, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To rescind permission to universities and colleges to increase tuition and to adequately fund universities and colleges so as to maintain the present high quality of education."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here that directly deals with the matter we'll be dealing with today, and that's the standing orders and such issues as closure and things along those lines. It states as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and have signed it accordingly.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by a number of my constituents, and it reads:

"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 and/or sell chemicals and/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;

"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."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a petition which is the same as the one that the member for Simcoe Centre read, urging the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a very timely petition here.

"Whereas the Harris government also plans to introduce legislation to permit political parties and candidates to spend far more money during election campaigns; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is proposing to abolish the Ontario election finances commission, the watchdog agency policing political contributions and expenditures; and

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris and his government to abandon its planned legislation which will permit substantial increases in the amount of money that can be contributed by corporations and individuals to political parties and candidates and the amount of money that political parties and candidates can spend in provincial elections."

I totally agree with this and I will sign this petition as well.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): 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;

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have a very timely petition signed by Ontario residents.

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery; and

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come; and

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income; and

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I affix my signature to this petition.

1530

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I knew my time would come.

"To Premier Mike Harris, Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"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'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Time for petitions is over. Minister.

Mr Hastings: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I stood up four times. How many times do you have to stand up around here to get some recognition?

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, please.

Mr Hastings: I won't take my seat.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. That's completely inappropriate.

If I could say to the members about petitions, you all know how it works. It goes in rotation and many people from the caucuses stand and all of us in the chair attempt to be fair and remember from day to day and try to make sure that everybody gets their petition read. Minister.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Seeing we're on the topic of petitions and the appropriateness of not just the recognition but the content, I have a number of concerns about what has been happening of late.

Standing order 38(b) is very clear and it does not give a choice. It says:

"A member may present a petition in the House during routine proceedings under the proceeding `Petitions.' The member may make a brief statement summarizing the contents of the petition and indicating the number of signatures attached thereto."

The standing orders do not anywhere else in that section suggest that there is another option for members that they may read the entire petition.

Furthermore, in today's session alone, the member for Kingston and The Islands twice presented identical petitions. They were each rejected, and under standing order 38(d), "Every member presenting a petition shall ensure that the petition conforms with the standing orders." I submit to you that after the first copy of the two-page petition was rejected the member violated the standing orders in standing and presenting an identical petition, knowing that the table had rejected the petition the first time.

Madam Speaker, my suggestion to you, in light of the fact that in all the days that we've had these proceedings we have never once had all the attempts to submit petitions satisfied - I appreciate your attempts to be fair and go through the rotation. However, as is frequently the case, there are one or two opposition members standing and there may be 15 or 20 government members standing at the same time. The rotation is therefore totally inappropriate because the bias therefore goes to the two opposition parties.

My suggestion to you, Madam Speaker, is to interpret rule 38(b) as it is clearly stated. It does not say "and/or." There is no reference to the ability to read a petition in full, particularly the ones that are clearly manufactured, that clearly speak to legislative issues that have only been resolved an hour or two earlier and, if they are signed at all, could only be signed by the staff member or the members themselves.

That is not what this process is all about. This is about hearing submissions from people all across the province who have legitimate concerns they want expressed here. They want their concerns made part of the legislative calendar, part of the record of this assembly. They get that only if members are allowed to - Madam Speaker, this is a matter of privilege as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, I get your point and I'm about to respond. I think it's very clear. Unless you have anything new to add, I've got your point of order.

Mr Gilchrist: I would also ask you to make it very clear to the members -

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Gilchrist: - what the consequence is of abusing 38(d) and abusing the privilege of the other members in this House -

The Deputy Speaker: I'm on my feet. Take your seat, please.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of privilege, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: No. I'm just about to rule on a point of order here.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I would like to comment on this.

Mr Gerretsen: A point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Everybody take their seats just for a moment, please. If somebody has anything else to say on this point of order I will deal with that now. Is that what you have?

Mr Gerretsen: On exactly the same point of order: The member for Scarborough East has a tendency in this House to make many accusations. Before he starts making accusations about particular members, including myself, he'd better get the facts straight. I did not present the same petition twice. He could check this in Hansard on Thursday. I presented one petition with respect to the standing orders reform and another petition with respect to the finances matters. So he'd better get that straight.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay, take your seat. Thank you.

Mr Wildman: Madam Speaker -

The Deputy Speaker: Is this on the same point of order? I'd like to rule on this soon, because I think I can clarify what's happening here.

Mr Wildman: Just very briefly, Speaker, on the point raised by the member for Scarborough East: I think he may indeed have a point with regard to the introduction - perhaps not in this particular case - of petitions which are out of order. If a member has presented a petition which the Clerk has informed him or her is out of order, to introduce another one of the exact same wording may in fact be in contravention of the rules.

Having said that, though, with regard to the other point he raises about making a brief statement and not being an option to read the whole petition, I would draw to the attention of the Speaker that Mr Speaker Stockwell called me to order one time when I stood and made a brief statement about the content of the petition and informed me that I was making a speech and I should instead read the whole petition, which I then proceeded to do. While it may not be stated that way in the standing orders, certainly Mr Speaker Stockwell believes that members should indeed at least have the right, if not the obligation, to read the petition as it is written.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): On a point of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I will hear brief additions to this point of order - very brief. I want it completely new or I'm not going to hear it. The member for Downsview.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you, Speaker. I'll address my remarks directly to section 38(b). I think it's clear on the face of it what the section is trying to say. It says two things, not "either/or." It says, "A member may present a petition," point one; a "member may make a brief statement," point two. They are two separate things. That means that you read the petition in its entirely and you may, if you wish, also make a statement. That's the clear language of the statute. In the absence of anything else, that is what the Speaker needs to go on.

1540

Mr Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: I am still awaiting a comment from the member for Scarborough East, who accused me of reading the same petition in this House twice today when I did not do so.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. You're right, that may be a point a privilege, but it's not a point of order.

Can I just try to rule on this. Let me start by saying, as I mentioned earlier, that I understand the frustrations of members day to day trying to get up on petitions - you have 15 minutes - but I want to be clear. The section states very clearly "may"; you "may." My ruling is you may present the petition or you may make a brief statement summarizing that petition.

I would agree that there has been some abuse of what petitions are all about in this House. We all know that they're supposed to be from constituents, representing constituents, and I would ask the members to not abuse the process and to keep that in mind. But I would also say that I, as the Speaker, cannot make that judgement about a petition until it is presented to the table and rejected.

I would ask that all members be aware when they're presenting petitions that they should be representing their constituents. Furthermore, bear in mind that you have 15 minutes. All the Speakers in this chair try every day to make sure that there is a variety of people from each party in rotation represented.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I have a modest proposal that might help to resolve this. We could lengthen the time allotted for petitions.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay. Shall we move on? Government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I have a proposal that we do these at 1 o'clock. We can have half an hour and do them at that time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I would like to indicate what the business of the House will be, pursuant to order 55, for the week of June 8.

On June 8, in the afternoon we will be dealing with Bill 108, the streamlining of administration of provincial offences; in the evening Bill 25, which is the Red Tape Reduction Act.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, June 9, we'll be dealing with Bill 22, Bill 108 and Bill 12. In the evening we'll be dealing with Bill 25, the Red Tape Reduction Act again.

Wednesday afternoon is the NDP opposition day, and in the evening we'll be dealing with Bill 16, the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, for third reading. If Bill 16 is printed prior to Wednesday, we may in fact call it an earlier time, either on Monday or Tuesday, but we expect it to be printed by that day.

On Thursday morning, private members' public business, ballot items 15 and 16 will be called, and in the afternoon Bill 25, the Red Tape Reduction Act, will be called for second reading.

It may be necessary to also convene the House on the evening of Thursday, June 11, in order to conduct government business.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 46, and not withstanding any of the other standing orders or special order of the House relating to Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997, when Bill 22 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice;

That the standing committee on administration of justice shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill at its regularly scheduled meeting times on June 15, 16, 22 and 23, 1998, and for four days during the summer recess;

That pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the standing committee;

That the committee be authorized to meet one further afternoon during the recess to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

That, at 4 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto;

That any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:55 pm or 9:25 pm, as the case may be, on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote on third reading of the bill may, at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House, be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

I would like to indicate that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Chatham-Kent with regard to this bill.

I believe there has been agreement between the various members of the House that the vote originally scheduled for 6 pm has been moved back to 5:30 pm. The government party will be taking approximately 15 minutes and there is an agreement that the remaining part of the time will be divided between the opposition and the third party. I would ask for unanimous consent that that be adopted.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there agreement that the government take 15 minutes and the remaining time be split evenly between the two opposition parties? Agreed.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I appreciate the opportunity today to participate in this debate on a time allocation motion. I think it would be wise for us just to talk about Bill 22 and what Bill 22 is designed to do.

I'd like to quote from the bill. It's a very small bill. It's only one page in the two official languages. It says, "...under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity...." Of course, that's what we mean by Ontario Works. As a participant in Ontario Works they're prohibited from a joining a trade union, they're prohibited from having the terms and conditions under which they participate determined through collective bargaining and they're prevented from going on strike.

I think we should take a look at who the participants are in Ontario Works and we should understand that they are covered by workplace safety issues and they are covered under the terms of workers' compensation, but the people we're referring to are people who are trapped in the welfare system.

When we came to power in 1995, one out of every eight people in this great province found themselves trapped in the welfare system. As Tony Silipo, the member opposite in the third party, said back in 1993, "If there's one thing just about everybody agrees with, it's that Ontario's welfare system isn't working."

Mr Silipo was very right, it wasn't working. We introduced some changes and those changes are called Ontario Works. We're trying to do what we can to allow these people, to encourage these folks to get back into the work force.

The Labour Relations Act was designed for people who are gainfully employed. The Labour Relations Act in that respect is a good piece of legislation that served its purpose. But the Labour Relations Act was never designed for people who are on welfare.

1550

We're looking at a time allocation motion here today. We're dealing with an issue that we spent three days debating, and now we're going to spend today debating a time allocation motion. I'm not aware of any particular issue that has caused so much waste of productive time in this House as this particular one.

This particular issue was also part of Bill 142. When it came before the committee for clause-by-clause consideration, the Liberals said absolutely nothing about this particular issue. They did not say a word, according to Hansard.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine, on behalf of the NDP, had some comments to make. She had some concerns, and those concerns were dealt with. I will quote from Hansard what the member for Beaches-Woodbine said during clause-by-clause consideration of this issue. She said, "I'm not suggesting that they should be covered by, for example, the collective agreements that may be in place in those workplaces." So even the member for Beaches-Woodbine agreed with the idea that people in Ontario Works, as I understand her comments anyway, should be covered by collective agreements, yet the third party would argue against this particular piece of legislation.

The Liberal Party position on this is interesting, because while they said nothing at committee about this issue, they've been participating in the arguments here.

I want to make reference to a couple of things that were said some time ago.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Why are you killing debate on it?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order.

Mr Carroll: It's interesting. From the 1996 estimates committee meeting, Liberal Mike Brown said: "As a matter of fact, I kind of like your workfare program. I shouldn't say that," he went on to say.

During the election, the leader of the Liberal Party at that time, the member for Fort William, said: "If people refuse to participate in a program, their payments would be reduced. Community service is completely suitable for people who have small children." So even the leader of the official opposition at that particular point in time believed in the concept of mandatory use of workfare.

The majority of the people in the province agree with the idea of Ontario Works. There was a radio call-in show that happened down in Windsor back in 1996. Everybody in this House understands that the community of Windsor, which is very close to my home community of Chatham-Kent, is not overrun with people of a Conservative persuasion, but at a radio call-in show in 1996 in Windsor the question was: "The provincial government is thinking of implementing a system of workfare. It would require a single welfare recipient to do 17 hours of community work weekly in order to collect their cheque. What is your feeling about that?" That was the question. Some 312 people responded to that question in Windsor - we're talking about Windsor now - and 285 of them, or 90%, agreed totally with the concept of the Ontario Works requirement that people on welfare should be required to participate in community placements.

I want to read a couple of quotes, if I may.

"Workfare is a great idea. It would give people who are on welfare some self-esteem and the thought that they can go out and do some type of work. Also, they'll realize they can earn a living rather than living off the system. If welfare children see their parents go off to work, maybe we'll be able to break the vicious cycle of generational welfare." That came from a listener in Windsor.

A further comment: "Yes, I agree with the approach. Everyone has to earn a living in this world. Nobody should be given money for doing nothing." Another comment from Windsor.

Madam Speaker, for you and I in the jobs that we have in life right now, working is not an option for us, as it isn't for anybody. If you have a paycheque, you have to work for it. We don't have the option of saying, "Well, I want my paycheque but I'm not going to work." If we want a paycheque, work is mandatory.

I don't quite understand the hangup that people have with community participation to assist people who are trapped in a welfare system to get some training, to get reconnected to the workplace, to establish some contacts with some other people, why those in the opposition would have such a problem with us saying that people collecting welfare have an obligation to do that, rather than just that they can do it if they'd like to. In real life, real work is not optional; real work for all of us is mandatory.

Let's look at the issue of how much time we're talking about. We're talking about 17 hours a week of community participation. We're not asking people to spend 40 hours a week; we're only asking them to spend 17 hours a week. We're asking them to do that to help themselves. One of our basic philosophies is that people have a responsibility to participate in their own improvement. They can no longer sit back and rely on big government to do everything for them. They need to participate; they need to get out and help themselves. There's all kinds of evidence that this is working.

I want to refer to some comments we heard from some people who are participating.

"I can tell you honestly, if it weren't for the Ontario Works program, I would still be collecting $520 a month." That comes from Marie Johnson, an Ontario Works participant from Brockville.

Ontario Works participant Debbie from Brantford says of her workfare placement at the children's aid society: "After a few days there I wanted to be there. I wanted to get up and go. I felt I had something to contribute."

Sandra, another Ontario Works participant in Brantford, signed up for community placement at the Festival County Travel Association. Things have gone so well that she's now working a few extra days and getting paid for it.

The evidence is there that the people who are participating in Ontario Works are in fact benefiting themselves.

It's interesting as we look around the province and see the results we've generated so far. We see a situation where because of our reforms to the welfare system, over 250,000 people have moved out of dependency on welfare and moved to some sort of productive work. We see a situation where there are tens of thousands of participants in the Ontario Works program, and I know in my community of Chatham-Kent we've had wonderful success with the program.

In those communities where organized labour has not intimidated both the people who want to participate and those agencies who would have them participate, it seems the Ontario Works program has been very successful. But in other communities, where organized labour has seen fit to do everything they can to intimidate United Way, to intimidate heart and stroke foundations, to intimidate poor people who are trapped in the welfare system, in all those communities where labour has taken that position, the Ontario Works program has had difficulty getting going. The people who would benefit from it have not been given the opportunity to move forward with their lives and to find productive employment.

It is time to move on. We have spent a lot of time debating this issue. We're now into a time allocation motion which hopefully will finish up this afternoon, but we've spent a lot of time on this issue. As I've said before in this House, the opposition has their role to play, and it's that role of opposing everything. The government's responsibility, on this side of the House, is to manage the affairs of the government and to create policy that will benefit people. We are doing that. Ontario Works does that big-time, for some of the most needy people in our province. It is time to get on and do that.

We have spent a lot of money on this particular issue. We have this one-page bill, and I'm sure now we'll probably have to spend some time in committee. We have a one-page bill that we've spent three or four days on. That same one-page bill, that same section, gathered all of 10 minutes' discussion during debate at clause-by-clause.

What we have here is a waste of time on an issue that couldn't be more logical. This is a bill that says that those who are participating in Ontario Works community replacements, those who are being compensated by the taxpayers of Ontario because they're struggling at the current time but who are participating in Ontario Works placements because that's their ticket back to a better life - this bill says those people can't join a trade union, can't have the terms and conditions of their employment negotiated through collective bargaining and they can't go on strike. I know of nothing that we've talked about in this House that makes more sense than that, and it's time to get on with it.

1600

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am very happy to speak to this closure debate. It's very unfortunate that it's happening in this manner.

I always marvel at the Conservative members who stand up and talk about the waste of time that we've spent on this bill. The truth is that if Conservative members had not been sleeping at committee last November, one floor down in committee room 1, if the members had not been asleep when we were doing the clause-by-clause on Bill 142 and we got to section 73, which is subtitled "Community participation," that clause would have passed. The Conservative members had enough members on the committee to pass any single thing they wished, because they have the majority of members.

The truth is, the sleeping beauty from London South was asleep; another gentleman was reading newspapers; another was doing correspondence. That didn't leave enough, so when the opposition parties voted opposed, the clause was defeated. You did not get section 73 passed because your members were asleep at committee. Taxpayers paying their salaries regardless, they were sleeping. That is the simple fact of what we now have as Bill 22. Here it's entitled, "Subsection 73 Not Passed: Conservative MPPs Sleeping at Switch." It was widely reported in the press at the time it happened.

Now we have Bill 22. Bill 22 has a section in it; miraculously, that section is section 73. I have to marvel that the Conservative members don't even want to talk about this part because it's so embarrassing to find you in the position to have to introduce a whole new bill into the House, a minimum of seven hours of debate, now a closure motion with more hours of debate on the closure of the debate on Bill 22, because your Conservative members were sleeping at the committee. This subsection would have passed long ago as part of Bill 142. What you did in the interim was take this subsection and turn it into a completely new bill and entitle it some "slam the labour" bill all over again.

What is amazing to me is that if you make the government calculation of how many dollars it costs to operate this House every hour, it's $100,000. A minimum of seven hours of debate times $100,000 - clearly a catnap that cost the province and taxpayers $700,000. At the end of this debate, it's going to be sent to committee. They're calling for eight days of committee hearings at an estimated cost of $2,000 a day for the committee, depending on where it will travel to. Now we can throw on another $16,000 of cost for a subsection of the bill where the member for London South was asleep at the switch, where other members of the Conservative Party were reading newspapers and doing correspondence so that you forgot to vote when it came time to vote on that subsection 73, and you have the gall to stand in the House today and say that we want to waste time on discussing the elements of workfare.

You purport that workfare is working across Ontario. We can tell you factually that it is absolutely not working. Instead of addressing as a party, what you should do is look at a serious policy evaluation of workfare. Where you could introduce elements to move people from welfare into the workforce given the appropriate levels of support, you choose to bring forward policy written on the back of a napkin, entitled "Welfare for Workfare." You have no supporting information or policy direction for implementation, and every expert in the field told you that time and time again as we travelled with the hearings on Bill 142.

We went to North Bay, the home of the Premier, and the city council of North Bay said this was foolish. The people in North Bay, represented by their council - and we had a city councillor present to us in North Bay - told us: "There's nothing substantive about this workfare stuff. It's simply not going to work in this way." That was then. Let's roll back to November and the fall of 1997. Let's see what we've had happen since that time, since you brought the bill in, since you've rolled in regulation after regulation, reams of paper. What has happened in different communities?

Let's look at Ottawa. You have placements of 99, when you have thousands of people on the welfare rolls in Ottawa-Carleton. You consider 99 a success.

Let's look at Windsor. Where we have always had a very excellent welfare program in Windsor, you have 20.

In the city of London: 40 community placements. Here you have a very progressive city like London, where people know what it's going to take to move people from welfare into the workforce, namely a job, and the appropriate employment supports to get them into the workforce, and even they have come up with 40.

How absolutely embarrassing for the government to stand up here and talk about workfare as though you've brought some kind of manna down from the heavens, that this is the cure-all. What you have done is bungle it completely. It is sheer incompetence on the part of the Conservative Party to get elected on a platform of workfare when you've written it on the back of a napkin with no idea of its implementation.

The people who are out there in the field who work with welfare recipients day in and day out - you wouldn't even listen to them. You wouldn't listen to them tell you that education is a key for people to get into the workforce; you cut adult ed through your Ministry of Education. You didn't listen when they told you that they need day care because so many of our welfare recipients are single parents. I don't know if you expect that they're going to just leave their kids in the car or on some street corner while they go off to their workfare placement. If they had child care in the first place they could actually go out and look for a job.

This government chooses instead to roll us back to some Norman Rockwell era when we had some family unit of mom and dad taking care of kids, instead of recognizing the fact today in society, and that is that families are not like they used to be in the old days, if they ever were like that, because I question that as well. The fact is, you have more and more single parents today. This does nothing to help those single parents. It creates more and more stress on those families. In short, government policies since 1995 have done more to add stress to those same single parents that you purport to try to help.

When we spoke to Bill 22 the other day in the House, your Conservative MPPs refused to acknowledge that Bill 22 was simply the subsection 73 where your own sleeping beauty fell asleep in committee, failed to have that passed because he was sleeping. There was some question about whether he was actually asleep in committee, so one of the MPPs put it very succinctly, "Well, he was immobile for half an hour and his eyes were closed, so we drew the conclusion that he was sleeping" and I think that's probably a smart one.

In any event, we have travelled now to different parts of Ontario to see: Where is workfare working? Where is it actually happening? In the new year, the Minister of Community and Social Services went on a jet-set trip to Wisconsin because they heard that workfare was working in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, over three years ago they introduced this program, and it was proclaimed by them to be a dismal failure. What they recognized there was that they needed a significant resource enhancement of child care, that they needed to look specifically at training programs to move people into the workforce where jobs existed. They knew it was going to take an investment in these people to move them from welfare into the workforce.

This government, after having passed the bill, after having forwarded regulations, then the minister chose to get on a plane and travel to Wisconsin. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to do that kind of travelling and investigation before you passed the bill in the House that was doomed to failure from the start? Don't you think that was a good idea?

Instead, today we're talking about a bill that you've entitled "Slam the Labour Movement all Over Again." You're actually hoping to take it to committee for eight days of committee, more than the entire Bill 142 had, which has 88 pages' worth of new bill compared to a one-pager, which is what Bill 22 is. You want to take it around on a road show for eight days. At what cost?

1610

I would submit to you that our opposition parties combined will tell you that if you send it to committee, we'll talk about it at committee, we'll bring the bureaucrats in to talk to us about the bill, we'll have very limited discussions at committee and then you will bring it back into the House. So we're prepared to have the taxpayers save their money instead of you taking this out on a road show.

What we in the Liberal Party know is that of all the hundreds of amendments our party brought forward on Bill 142, many of which were based on very rational arguments put forward by the people who presented at our committee when it travelled, you adopted not one of our amendments - not one. I have no reason to believe that if we go back to committee and you choose to take it on the road again, the very same thing won't happen.

We simply and completely disagree with the movement that this government has made into workfare. We know it doesn't work. I am compelled to tell the public it doesn't work. I will continue to tell the public about this blatant disregard for taxpayers' money, that you would have the gall to come into this House for debate of Bill 22, for seven hours of debate at a cost of $700,000, because your member was asleep for a very expensive catnap. Here we sit with Bill 22, now looking at a closure motion so it will be sent to committee so you'll be able to take it on the road again. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's such a complete waste of time that it makes one wonder, why would the government engage in this idiocy? Why would you do something that's just so stupid?

We arrive at the answer: This government, the Conservatives, are determined, through the use of taxpayers' money, to put more of this propaganda down the throats of the public, to try to go on some kind of public relations move across Ontario so you can talk about workfare.

Let me give you this guarantee: I don't care what community you go into, I will have the real workfare number. I will tell every community I am in about the failure of your workfare program and I will tell every community what you should have done. I will tell every one of the communities we are in about your failure.

Let me suggest to you that the last time you chose to go on the road, you ended up with a series of headlines that were quite negative against the government. The worst part about that was that it was in your ridings. I remember the discussion with the member from Chatham, who argued - refused to come to Windsor, first of all; made people from Windsor, who were obviously interested, travel to London for the day so he could go into their Tory handpicked ridings. That's what they chose to do.

They wanted to go to Chatham. We ended up in North Bay, of all places. We had no overwhelming call from North Bay to bring it up there, but in any event, it was decided by the chancellor from Chatham to go to North Bay. We just assumed, the critic from the NDP and I, "We're probably going to go there and hear a lot of support for workfare." We received no support from the public of North Bay for the workfare program. In fact, we had acknowledgement that those people who would be placed would actually be replacing individuals who used to be paid for doing that work. Why? Because the placements were being put in public institutions that were receiving such significant cuts from this government that these organizations had no money to hire people, so that workfare placement actually translated into a job. There we have the failure of workfare.

No one thought fast-forward to ask: Are we placing people where it counts? Are you giving them the supports they need when they get there? Do you have training dollars available to train them? Do they have the upgrades in education required? Is it the kind of education training for the market that exists in the six months they're out there?

Why didn't anyone do this kind of thinking? Why couldn't you just for once get off of your slogan policy setting and get involved in real policy research that tells you what works? There are many programs around the world where it actually does work. Instead of trying to hit that hot button and just talk about workfare, you should have done your homework. That is the job of the government, of you the government, which has all this bureaucracy to do your work for you. Instead you come back out here with the back of a napkin and written on it is "workfare." "That'll go over real well in the election. Let's use that one." That's about all it was. You had no substance following that.

Now you want to come in here at $700,000 an hour to debate Bill 22, because sleeping beauty from London South fell asleep at the switch, and the taxpayers have to pay for the catnap. Why didn't you call it the sleeping beauty bill? The whole world would know why we are talking about this in the first place: because you screwed up, because it was a complete goof-up at the committee by the Conservative MPPs who have since gone on to greater measure, and that is posing in trench coats for some kind of crime commission that looks, frankly, like the flasher.

So here we are. I want the public to understand the serious nature of this, that they decided to fall asleep at committee, missed the subsection, cost us $700,000 - that's before it gets to committee - and it gets sent to committee for more days of travel so you can, on the taxpayers' purse, go on some public relations exercise.

I will not help you with that mission. I will work against you at every stop to make sure every community understands the failure of the workfare program under the Mike Harris Conservatives, that you have been completely incompetent on the issue of welfare reform. What is really needed is serious thought as to welfare reform, serious thought as to curbing fraud and abuse in the system, serious thought as to how you appropriately deal with people who want to move from the welfare system into the workforce, which is where everyone wants to be.

I don't agree with the people across the way who think these people don't want to be there. I don't believe that there are people out there, as the Conservatives would have us believe, that the majority of them are just sitting there waiting for their cheques to arrive.

I'll be the first one to tell you, with personal experience, of having seen abuse in a system that needs to be tightened. I would advocate on every one of those. I will not succumb to what this government wants us to succumb to, and that is some idea that those people don't really need help. Many of those people are people who haven't been diagnosed, with disabilities, and shouldn't be in the program at all. You have people involved in that same group who don't have the education required to find a job. There are some communities - as we heard in the House today - like Sault Ste Marie, which is facing a crisis in terms of looking for a job, because the jobs that exist today, very good paying jobs, are going to go right up the flue with the potential closure of factories or plants there.

We know that exists in other communities, not just big urban centres like Toronto, but small, rural or northern communities that are one-industry towns, and with the flip of switch that could come from as far away as India, their jobs are gone. That's a real problem. Those are real men and women who worked hard all their lives, and for the first time need some kind of support from a government agency.

The one ministry this government has that is actually the help ministry is the Ministry of Community and Social Services. For the first time in the history of the Ontario government we have the help ministry making policy designed to hurt them. That is a major change in direction. When people understand that is your direction, I don't believe they will agree with you. If you choose to try a public relations exercise with Bill 22, and take it on the road, you will not get as far as you think you will, because you should know that I have the accurate numbers for every community in Ontario in the failure of the workfare program.

1620

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to deal with a number of different issues. The first one is with the bill itself, as my colleague from Windsor has already indicated. I've got a news release here that was issued on May 31, and it's called, "International Experts Condemn Ontario's Prevention of Unionism Act."

This letter is written and signed by a number of leading legal scholars, not only in Canada but in the States and in Britain as well. What do they say about this bill? They say, "This bill is one of the clearest violations of international norms that I have ever seen in a country typically considered to be democratic." That is quite an indictment.

The petition was signed by, among others, a professor of law and master of Clare College, Cambridge; a distinguished professor of law at Laval University and a member of the Royal Society of Canada, Pierre Verge; a former dean of the law school at Queen's University, Bernie Adell; and Roy Adams, chair of the Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Employment.

It clearly states in article 2 of convention 87 of the international human rights code that "workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish, and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The scope of the provision is extremely broad, applying to all workers and employers. The only exception permitted is found in article 9," relating to the armed forces.

It is "absolutely clear that Bill 22 is a violation of international human rights standards and offends against Canada's international obligations. It is also almost certainly a violation of the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms which contains an explicit reference to the freedom of association."

I would caution the government to be very careful in the way you proceed with legislation like this. There are authorities throughout the world, not just here in Canada, not just people who oppose your government as such, who clearly say that what you're doing is against an article of the international human rights legislation, as well as being against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So just be careful. Before you hastily rush into this, why don't you listen to some of these people who have something very relevant to say about this piece of legislation?

The interesting thing, of course, is that here we are once again, for the third time this week - not this session, not this year, not this government, but this week - dealing with a closure motion. Closure is an attempt by the government to stop debate. We all know that it wasn't too far in the past that closure was unknown. It may have occurred once or twice in a decade, and it usually caused quite a stir in this country if it happened either in Parliament or in one of the provincial legislatures. Now it has almost become a norm. In all fairness, it hasn't just become a norm with this government; it became the norm with the last government and perhaps the government before that as well.

I think it is unacceptable from that viewpoint, that for the third time in one week we are dealing with closure. In other words, the government doesn't want to hear any further debate. What's even more interesting is that we are having closure imposed on us after only two days of debate. This bill has only been debated in this House on two separate sessional days. I think the people of Ontario should understand that when we're talking about two days, we're not talking about two 24-hour periods; we are talking roughly of a time period of somewhere between two to three hours being one sessional day. So the government has allowed two days of debate.

It seems to be a new trend by this government because it's the first time - I did some research into this - that this government has invoked closure after only two days of debate.

You may be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that this is the 22nd time closure has been imposed by this government. I'll go through some of the bills they've imposed it on and also some of the idiotic mistakes they have made and have had to bring legislation back on some of the more substantial pieces of legislation.

In all the other cases where they've invoked closure, there has been at least three days' debate, except in one situation - I want to be perfectly clear - when on December 16, 1997, after one day of debate, they decided to invoke closure on a whole series of red tape bills. But in every other case, they've allowed at least three days to debate. Are we now getting to another norm, that the government is going to automatically bring in closure on any bill that it wants after just two days to debate? It's my understanding that hasn't been done here before, that it has always gone at least three days.

First of all, we're dealing with the fact that closure is once again being imposed, denying the opposition the right to speak on this bill and denying the members of the government the right to speak on this bill as well.

Earlier today, you may recall, we had quite a scene in this House, where I was accused by the member for Scarborough East of, in effect, making a subterfuge of the democratic system. He accused me of reading a petition here twice during a 15-minute session. He was totally wrong on that. I'm still awaiting his apology, by the way, which he hasn't given me. He'd better check out the facts before he starts making allegations like that here in the House. They were two completely separate petitions. Somebody else from our caucus may have read a similar petition during that 15-minute period of time, but it wasn't me, and he accused me of that, which I take some exception to, quite frankly. But obviously there were members on the government side who wanted to present more petitions, they want to have more debate on issues here. They are being denied the right to debate as well.

After two days of debate, the government is once again ordering closure. When you look at this closure motion, these motions are getting longer and longer. This is a five-page motion, in which everything is set out in extreme detail as to what can happen and where it shall go to and for how long and when it shall be reported back and that sort of thing. It leaves the committee almost no discretion at all. I guess a good issue can be raised as to whether or not the committees themselves should be given some latitude as to what they should or shouldn't be allowed to do with a piece of legislation in order to get the best input on that legislation. But there's absolutely no latitude in this motion at all. It tells us that the committee shall sit for four days here and then for four days elsewhere and that the bill shall be back here at a certain time on a certain date and shall be voted upon.

When you take a look at some of the 22 bills that so far have been subjected to closure by this government, you will find that these are probably some of the most important pieces of legislation that we will be dealing with during the entire session of this Parliament.

It started, of course, with Bill 7. You may recall that, on October 25, 1995. But you know, that was given four days of debate; this one, only two days of debate. Then we go on to Bill 26. Who can ever forget that? That was the second bill that closure was invoked upon, and we are still suffering the after-effects of Bill 26 today in communities, in the health care system in the various communities throughout this province as the Health Services Restructuring Commission, the right hand of the minister, goes about and does its destruction in the various communities.

In my own community, you may be interested in knowing that the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital. Here is a hospital that has existed for 153 years. It's the only hospital that is located right in the downtown of Kingston, where many of our vulnerable live, many of our elderly live. That's going to be closed. It completely disregarded the recommendations of the district health council and of the three hospitals themselves that had been working for the last number of years trying to come up with an acceptable solution to one and all as to how health care should be delivered in the Kingston area. That institution has been ordered to be closed and shut.

1630

It's interesting that when you go through the health restructuring report on Frontenac county, which includes the city of Kingston, as pointed out by the president of the Hotel Dieu Hospital Corp -

The Acting Speaker: I question how this comes within the context of the bill.

Mr Gerretsen: This is directly related, Speaker. I am referring back to Bill 26, which was the second bill that was here for closure, back on December 12, 1995. I'm trying to point out the mistakes that can be made if you invoke closure, and those mistakes are being shown in each and every community the Health Services Restructuring Commission has been to.

In this particular case of Frontenac county, they made a mistake, a significant arithmetic error of $13.1 million in capital needs. This wasn't somebody else's opinion; this was a mistake right on the face of the document. Any one of our pages, I'm sure, could be shown this document and they would immediately say, "Yes, they didn't add the numbers correctly."

The other mistake they made is that they somehow feel that $31.8 million is required to renovate the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital site. They've had an engineer and health care experts take a look at it. They've come to the conclusion that the number is not $31.8 million that's required in order to set up a new facility or a facility at a new location but that they need $108 million, out of which of course the local community is expected to pay 30%, some $30 million.

You may be interested in knowing that the people of Kingston and area have not been taking this lying down. Over 54,000 people have signed a petition, and 1,500 people have written letters to the Health Services Restructuring Commission saying that they are against the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital. Hopefully the minister's right-hand commission - of course she tries to take a hands-off approach and says it's an arm's-length commission; but it was something that was set up entirely by her - will come to its senses and save this particular hospital, because it doesn't make any economic sense to close the hospital. It costs a lot more money to build a new facility or whatever they want to call it, a new, renovated facility somewhere else. It sure doesn't serve the people, the most vulnerable people in our society, of whom we have many in the downtown area of Kingston. The elderly and the people with special needs certainly will not have a hospital facility near at hand.

Let's just deal with the bills that we've dealt with this week by way of closure. You may recall Bill 16. There was a closure motion on that. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing sat in his chair, right across from me here, and said, "I've had all the discussions; I've had all the consultations with every group that's out there." The closure motion, you may recall, allowed for absolutely no committee time. It allowed that the bill was going to be given second reading here and then third reading because absolutely no amendments were needed. That's what he said. This is the bill, after all, that is going to set up the financing situation as far as the property taxpayers in Ontario are concerned.

Then what happened? He was caught in - I can't say he was caught in a lie; I know that's unparliamentary, so I will not say that. He was inaccurate or he didn't quite understand what was happening, remember? He said that he or his officials were meeting with the clerks and treasurers at 3 o'clock on a particular day. The next day we get faxed a letter from the clerks and treasurers saying: "We never met with anybody from the department. We didn't meet with him. We met with nobody." Then the government House leader decided, "Maybe we'd better not go ahead and give this bill third reading; maybe we'd better meet with somebody." So, hastily this week three hours of hearings were set up, and then we went to clause-by-clause for an hour and a half.

Lo and behold, what happened at 2 o'clock that afternoon? A bill that three days before that required absolutely no amendments, according to the minister himself - do you know what happened, Speaker? I'll tell you what happened. At 2 o'clock that afternoon nine government amendments were put forward.

What the people of Ontario have to understand is that here we had a minister of the crown saying: "I want no more debate. I want to give this bill second reading, and the next time it's called I want to give it third reading. I have consulted with everybody. This bill does not need any amendment whatsoever. It is now perfect. We'll take it forward so that the municipalities can deal with it."

As a result of a little pressure and as a result of the clerks and treasurers, the senior civil servants of our municipalities, coming forward in a 13-page letter and saying: "But province, you've it all wrong. What you've got in Bill 16 cannot possibly work. You've got to make some changes," and the minister saying, "No, we don't need any changes" - well, as it turned out later on, he did need nine changes. Those amendments were included during the one day of debate and during the clause-by-clause deliberations.

If that was the first time a property tax bill has been brought here, I would say everybody's entitled to a mistake. The minister made a mistake by acknowledging that he or his officials were meeting with these people when he really wasn't. He made a mistake when he said, "No amendments are required," and then nine amendments were brought forward. But it's even more serious than that, and I will come back again to this closure motion.

There had been three previous bills dealing with exactly the same issue. Bills 149, 160 and another one, the number of which escapes me, also dealt with property taxation in Ontario. How did all those bills get voted upon? Again through closure.

We're talking here about a government that is totally incompetent. You would think that after a while they would recognize their own incompetence and that the fourth time they bring a bill forward they would say: "Let's talk to all the people involved. Let's talk to the clerks and treasurers and the other people who have an interest in it, including the taxpayers of Ontario, and let's get it right this time." But four times they took the same subject matter and tried to drive it through the House on closure. That is totally unacceptable and irresponsible. It does not, in my mind, show competence at all.

The net result of all this is the fact that the clerks and treasurers and the municipal taxpayers are going to be working as soon as Bill 16 is given third reading, some time next week, I take it. It's interesting that we aren't dealing with it today. Why aren't we dealing with it today - the closure motion is still there - so that at least the clerks and treasurers could take the contents of the bill and apply it to the local municipalities and the tax rolls or the assessment rolls can be turned out, so that maybe in another three or four or five weeks the actual tax bills of the municipalities can go out so that the people will finally know whether their individual property taxes for this year are going up or down or whatever is going to happen? Right now, most people haven't got a clue.

The reason they don't know, as you may recall, is that the assessment system was totally changed. People received these forms that had some sort of numbers on them before that they were somehow used to; now it's other numbers. They get a tax bill for half a year, in most cases, which is usually about half of what they paid last year. But when you put it all together, they don't know if their assessment is going up, if their taxes are going up. They will only know that when they get that last bill this year, their final bill, and then add up what they've paid for property taxes this year and compare it to what they paid last year. Then I think the average individual, and I'm certain that includes me, will know whether my property taxes went up or down. Right now they don't know.

1640

What would have happened if we in the opposition and the clerks and treasurers had not insisted that we have one day of hearings and that amendments be brought forward? Remember, you needed to bring nine amendments forward at the end of the process. What would have happened? Would you have been back here next week with another bill, making it even more confusing for the taxpayers out there?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): That's not right, John.

Mr Gerretsen: No, no. You know I'm right. I've got a lot of respect for the parliamentary assistant, that parliamentary assistant in this House, not some others. But that one I do have a lot of respect for.

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: I have a lot of respect for that individual.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): You went beyond that.

Mr Gerretsen: I went beyond that, sir, and I meant every word I said, sir.

Mr Shea: I take that as a personal affront.

Mr Gerretsen: I didn't name any names, but you're a great fellow too.

We are dealing with a very serious matter. What this government has done is that it unilaterally changed the House rules last year, whereby debate is already limited in time and in every respect. I know that some people in Ontario probably will say: "Isn't that a good thing? How long can you talk about some of these issues?" But they have to understand that one of the duties of the opposition is not only to oppose, but also to bring forth constructive alternatives. Every time they bring in closure, which doesn't even allow amendments to be brought forward, they are not allowing us the opportunity to bring constructive proposals forward, which is what we're elected to do.

I know this is not an issue that the people of Ontario in their day-to-day lives, with all the other problems they already have, probably pay much attention to. But the kind of democratic process we're involved in in this House will have an effect on people's lives, because if this situation keeps up we will have every bill being subjected to closure in the future. A government will just decide, "Now it's after two days of debate." It used to be, even two years ago, four days of debate, then it went to three. Now it's two. What is it next week or next year? One day of debate on something and away we go? I don't think that is right. The democratic institutions, the parliamentary institutions that we have in this country, that we have in this province, are well worth keeping and are too important to allow a government to run over the opposition in this way - any government, of whatever stripe.

I know we agreed today to split the time on this, because it is important that we talk about these issues. Let me, in the last 52 seconds I have, talk a little about the cuts that have been happening to the Limestone District School Board. You know how this government keeps saying: "Oh, we haven't cut any classroom education at all. We haven't cut any money to classroom education." I have just been informed that at Limestone District School Board, within one bargaining unit there have been at least 13 positions lost, the equivalent of three speech-language pathologists, two attendance counsellors, a race relations planner, a behaviour resource worker, five home-school liaison and child care workers. This government doesn't care about the parliamentary institutions of this province.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to participate in this debate on the time allocation motion on Bill 22, and I want to make a number of points clear. First, I want to make clear that I intend to divide the time allotted to our party with my colleagues from London Centre and Welland-Thorold. They may speak in more detail to the bill itself, but I want to deal in particular with the time allocation motion, and I know my colleagues will be doing that as well.

Time allocation is used in the parliamentary process when a government has a matter before the House for debate and the legislation is needed but it is stalled and the government can't get it through. It is a process that is used, or has been historically used in the parliamentary process, sparingly. It is not something that is used on a regular basis.

Many of us will remember - I suppose many of us won't - but I certainly remember as a young child watching the debate in the 1950s on the pipeline in the House of Commons. The then Liberal government brought forward a closure motion and it caused complete consternation in the House of Commons, not just in the House of Commons but right across the country, because it was such a glaring attempt by the then government to cut off democratic debate on a very controversial matter. The opposition at the particular time was united in its opposition to the procedure. It was seen as a move by a heavy-handed government determined to have its way, to get something done and not to allow for parliamentary debate, even though it was a very controversial matter.

The then minister - I'm not sure of the exact term it was, the Minister of Economic Development or something, C. D. Howe - was not one who was noted for his respect for the parliamentary process. He was respected for his abilities and for his commitment to economic development and to the Liberal government, but I'm not sure he was particularly well known for his respect for the parliamentary process.

At the time, we had two great opposition leaders in Canada. The Leader of the Official Opposition was John George Diefenbaker and the leader of the CCF was M. J. Coldwell, two great parliamentarians, both of whom had great respect for the parliamentary process and for democratic debate, both of whom of course were known as great debaters themselves. There was such commotion and anger, not just in the House of Commons among the MPs but throughout the country, that the debate generated some great speeches, but it also generated tremendous anger and bitterness.

At one point, M. J. Coldwell and John Diefenbaker both left their seats and approached the seat of the Speaker of the House of Commons. That was not something that was done frivolously or without a great deal of concern, because we have the old tradition in this House where people are not supposed to walk between the seat of the Clerk and the chair of the Speaker. The tradition is that is protected ground. The Speaker should not be threatened in any way for presiding over the House, and the Speaker's role must be respected. So when we had two great parliamentarians like John George Diefenbaker and M. J. Coldwell leaving their seats and approaching the chair of the Speaker amid great disorder in the House of Commons, everything ground to a halt. The whole process was threatened.

That was the result of a closure motion on a controversial matter. I might point out, that closure motion was brought in by the then Liberal government after considerable, lengthy debate in the House of Commons.

1650

What is the situation today? In the House of Commons, closure has become routine. Almost every debate in the House of Commons is time-allocated today. It's not just because of the Liberal government in Ottawa; the previous Conservative government followed the same process. It's got to the point where it is accepted. The new rules of the House of Commons, upon which the new rules of this place are patterned, set forward a process which essentially accepts time allocations as almost routine. So not only do we not have the same kind of serious, important and significant debate when a closure motion is imposed in the House of Commons, it's not even noticed. Certainly the press doesn't notice it and the public doesn't notice it. There isn't the kind of debate throughout the country there was during the famous pipeline debate.

I've been in this place representing the people of Algoma and the people of Ontario for over 20 years. When I first came to this Legislature, the rules were very different than they are today. There were many lengthy debates, and not only on controversial matters. Sometimes there were lengthy debates on matters that the government of the day considered routine.

The rules have changed over the years. Governments of every political stripe have changed the rules to try and streamline debate, to try and get things done more quickly, until we are now at the point in this House when it is almost impossible in a majority government for the opposition to do anything to slow down debate. Any student of the rules of this assembly will note that it is very difficult for any member of the opposition, or even the combined members of the opposition, to prolong debate, much less stymie the government's agenda.

One would argue, whether one agrees with those rules or not, that it certainly isn't necessary to have closure invoked. If the opposition can't prolong debate - they can't slow down the government's agenda, they certainly can't stop the government's agenda in a majority government - why on earth do we have closure motions, particularly in this matter? It's become parliamentary convention in this assembly that there must be at second reading at least three days' debate before the government can argue that the opposition is extending the debate.

We can't use any more the American term "filibuster" in regard to debate. It's impossible under our rules. It wasn't before. My colleague from Welland-Thorold carried on a telethon one time in this Legislature and he was very effective in slowing it down. That's not possible any more. The new rules prevent that. I'm not arguing whether or not the new rules should prevent that, I'm just saying they do. And if they do, then why do we need closure? Why does the government need to invoke closure?

In this particular debate, we had only debated two days on Bill 22 when the government tabled this time allocation motion. The government didn't even wait for the normal, conventional three days before tabling the time allocation motion. Why? This is a government that obviously doesn't like debate, particularly on a bill like this which is being introduced because they screwed up and they don't want to have members of the opposition getting up and embarrassing them by pointing out how the members of the government, in committee, were asleep at the switch and let something through that was not intended by the government.

I want to say very seriously that closure is not intended to be invoked simply because a government doesn't like being embarrassed. Closure should not be used in a routine way. Closure should be only considered when the government has a matter that must be brought through, must be passed, and the opposition is prolonging the debate. No one can argue that Bill 22 debate was prolonged. We had only had two days of debate at second reading when the time allocation motion was tabled.

There are a couple of other aspects about this particular time allocation motion which I find most odious. This time allocation motion states clearly that we must complete second reading and have the vote - no further debate - and then the bill, which is, as we all know, a bill that deals with social policy issues, workfare and social assistance, and would normally be referred to the standing committee on social development, is to be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

One might wonder why this bill would go to the standing committee on administration of justice, particularly when the standing committee on social development doesn't have anything before it. It's not that that committee is so busy that it can't deal with Bill 22. That committee has lots of time, because there's nothing else referred to it. The reason this is being referred by the government to the standing committee on administration of justice is because there is another matter referred to that committee by our caucus that the government doesn't want to deal with; that is, under standing order 124, a referral for a review of the Ipperwash incident. This government has refused to have an inquiry to bring all the facts forward to the public about Ipperwash, so our caucus decided that the best way to do it - certainly not the best way, but the only way available to us as an opposition was to refer the matter to the standing committee on administration of justice for a review under standing order 124.

The government House leader is attempting to stymie our use of the rules to have the Ipperwash matter aired before the public in a public way by referring this bill, Bill 22, to the standing committee on administration of justice, to be dealt with on the very days on which the subcommittee of the justice committee had determined they were going to deal with Ipperwash.

It's transparent. This government is subverting the process. The government is not referring Bill 22 to the standing committee on justice because other committees can't deal with it; they're referring it to that committee specifically because the government does not want an airing of the issues around Ipperwash, what led to the death of Dudley George. That's clear.

Again the government is using time allocation to avoid embarrassment. That's not what time allocation is for. Time allocation is in the rules because we all understand that at times, infrequently, government must cut off debate in order to get matters passed that are crucial to the agenda of the government or to the public good in Ontario. None of that applies to this time allocation motion on Bill 22.

This is a government that does not want to be embarrassed, does not want to share the facts with the public, does not want to have a full airing on Ipperwash and does not want anything close to a full debate on their controversial workfare proposals.

This is not a happy day for the parliamentary process in Ontario. It's obvious that the more often this government invokes closure, the easier it gets. It used to be, according to convention, three days' debate at second reading; now we're down to two days.

Mark my words. Governments are not permanent. Parties that are in power can find themselves out of power. The more times a government uses a procedure like this in the House, the closer it comes to being routine, the more likely it is that a subsequent government will use similar processes, and the party in opposition will suffer. Frankly, that's not my main concern. It is a concern, but not my main concern. My main concern is that the parliamentary process suffers and the public of Ontario is not served well by this assembly.

1700

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I think that's exactly why it's so important for us to emphasize why this closure motion is so subversive, why it affects everybody in the province. It's not just that this government doesn't want to be embarrassed by the fact that the member for London South fell asleep. That's embarrassing, but it's not just that. We've heard members on all sides - in fact, as I came into the chamber one said to me, "We're just discussing what we discussed last night."

The reality is that this is a government that does not in any way appreciate the necessity to air issues, to look at all sides, to talk about the pros and cons, to give the population of the province sufficient time to understand the import of what we are doing here. From the very beginning, in fact before the government was ever elected as government, the party took a stance that tried to present the democratic process as something that wasn't necessary.

When a government like this government assumes itself to have the truth, assumes itself to be the only arbiter of truth, then it is easy to subvert the democratic process, easy to collude in a process that gradually undermines the whole purpose of democratic government in the first place. That's very much what we see here. Not only is this government undemocratic in terms of the way it treats the people of Ontario through its legislation - this legislation on which we are now debating closure is a good example, being, as it is, a piece of legislation that denies people rights that every citizen has under the UN declaration to which we are a signatory.

This is a bill that directly affects the ability of people to work collectively together to protect themselves against the incursion of a government that has consistently demonized those who are less well-off. This legislation is shameful and is unlikely to withstand the scrutiny of a human rights case under the charter. The government is well aware of that. The legislation itself is a political ploy. It's the first salvo in the next campaign, where the enemy, instead of being the welfare recipients themselves, is going to be the union. We all know that. We saw the second salvo this afternoon when the Minister of Labour introduced the next invidious attack on labour.

So we know what this is all about. We know this is all about setting the stage for an early election, an election that this government will try to claim has to happen if Ontario is going to maintain its economical place in the western world. I expect the language is going to be a whole lot more hot-button than that, but that's precisely what we foresee as the future.

Of course they have to have closure on this, because they don't want it repeated too often that this bill is a precursor of what is to come. Because we hear the rhetoric of the backbenchers, we know the hot button that they have experienced themselves and that they want to push for their constituents. There are certain elements in this party who are totally against the notion that there would be a balance of power between workers and employers. We heard a little bit of that last night, a notion that for someone to join a labour union is somehow an attack on the ability of those with capital to operate at all. Particularly, of course, the hot button is this whole issue of small business. We're going to see those hot buttons pushed all the time around small business, which is family business, just the way we did with the bill that took away bargaining rights for those agricultural workers who were working for large agrifirms, working in an industrial capacity in the agriculture industry, not on the family farm. So we already know that's the kind of thing that's going to happen.

You want this over with, and you want this over with quickly, because you don't want the public to keep being reminded about what the political purpose is behind your actions. You don't want people to be reminded of the fact that you're taking away basic human rights from large numbers of people. You don't want people to be reminded that you're taking those rights away from people who are already forced labour under Bill 142. You don't want the public to really understand how serious the incursion against individuals' rights has been so far in this province, and you certainly don't want people to start asking, as Reinhold Niebuhr did, "What happens when they come for me?" You don't want that. You don't want that reminder out there.

It's our job to make sure the public in Ontario is very well aware of the erosion of rights which is happening under this government and is very well aware that this government is prepared to play fast and loose with the rules in this place, is prepared to play fast and loose with the resources it has as a government, is prepared to tell ever bigger and bigger and more inflated stories about its own success, and is prepared to constantly try to fool the majority of the people in Ontario.

I do not think they're going to succeed. I have great respect for the voters of this province. I have great respect for them even though they sometimes vote in ways that I surely wish they wouldn't do. I have great respect for the fact that if we're going to be part of the democratic process, we have to protect the democratic process all the way along the line.

Every time we allow any action on the part of a government, or an opposition party for that matter, we are undermining the democracy that we are here to defend. Democracy isn't a comfortable thing. It's kind of a messy thing. It means you have to have discussion back and forth. It means that there are going to be people who have disagreements and that those disagreements will be publicly debated. It means that we are going to have very often philosophies and plans pitted against each other.

That's nothing to be afraid of. There are different ways of dealing with things, because we have choices. We have choices in how we perceive what our problems are. We have choices in how we deal with those problems. We are not constrained in our actions, as the right wing would like us to believe. This there-is-no-alternative stuff is a lot of nonsense. There are alternatives. There are alternatives and choices that are very different from the alternatives and choices that this government continues to force on the people of Ontario, and we see many governments who have chosen differently, who have analysed the issues differently and reached different plans to assist their population.

We know that there is an evolutionary change as circumstances change and that no one can afford to operate a democracy under an illusion that you can go back to another day. We must go forward. We must build on strengths rather than create weakness and step in to fill the breach, which is what this government does. This government denigrates the fine institutions and the fine programs which in many cases were set in place by Tory governments in the 42 years in which Tories ruled this province, denigrates the results of those, casts aspersions on the people carrying out those programs, undertakes a misinformation campaign among the population to convince the population that those programs are worthless, and then moves in for the kill.

1710

What is that all about? It's all about privatizing public services. It's all about enhancing the ability of their friends to make profits out of the services that we all built together in this province as public services. It's all about opening the doors to the big conglomerates to take over more and more lucrative parts of our public services.

There's a very great pattern that has developed for this government in doing this. First, you dump on the people who are least able to protect themselves. Second, you tell many very convincing stories in the hope that it will convince people that their own perceptions are wrong and that your story is correct. Then you undermine the services and people's confidence in the services and you squeeze the dollars out of those services so that they're not as effective as they used to be for the voting public. Then you move in for the kill and you privatize those services and you convince people that they're going to be better off.

If you think shutting down discussion of an undemocratic bill like Bill 22 is going to keep us from consistently identifying both your methodology and your goals, you're wrong. Every time you invoke closure, you confirm once more that you're not interested in democracy. Democracy isn't your business at all. Your business is getting your way for your friends at the cost of anyone else in this province.

You know, because I have great faith in the people of Ontario, I know they're going to see through you and I know they are not going to allow you to continue on in this way and continue to destroy what all of us have worked so hard to build up. Obviously I will be joining my party and voting against this closure motion. I will consistently point out to my constituents and those across the province that this is just one more action in your government's determination to destroy the democratic process in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: A fine bit of work this motion is, let me tell you. But it's also consistent. It's not out of pattern at all. It's something, quite frankly, as the member for London Centre and the member for Algoma, my colleagues, have said in their comments, we've come to expect from this gang, bully boys that they are.

I've got to tell you what happened this morning. I've got great neighbours, the folks living in the house behind me: Charlotte, a single mother, and her two kids, Celine and Nigel, and the dog, Sam. Sam doesn't care for me much. The dog never has. The dog has never enjoyed my company.

Charlotte called me this morning because she got a piece of mail. She gave me a phone call. She got a piece of mail and, quite frankly, she was distraught. She said, "Peter, you wouldn't believe what I got in the mail this morning." Here's Charlotte, a single head of a household, a confident, strong, intelligent woman who has two bright kids, as sharp as they come. Charlotte told me that she got a piece of mail this morning that she said was touting what this government had achieved in two and a half years. This is over the phone, you understand. I still haven't got a clear impression. She's distraught, she's upset. She is telling me that this piece of mail is touting the fact that because of this government all our children will be able to reach their full potential. Charlotte said, "That's a damned lie."

She explained to me that her daughter Celine, as I say, as bright a young person as you could ever find - and I talked to her just a few weeks ago about the despair Celine is in. This young woman, I tell you, can be anything that's possible for any human being. She's that bright, that skilled, that competent, that capable, but she may not be able to go to university. She has assessed the situation. That is why Charlotte is saying: "What do you mean help our children reach their full potential? This piece of mail telling me that this government is going to help our children reach their full potential," she said, "is a lie."

The Acting Speaker: Sorry, I find that is unparliamentary. You're very good with words. I'm sure you will find some other way to express yourself.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly.

I still haven't gotten down to identifying who she received this from. We're going to get to that. I'm not going to accuse any member of the House of anything unparliamentary; far be it from me. I'm talking about a piece of mail she got that tells her certain things and she's telling me that just ain't the case.

The same piece of mail told her that there's going to be less welfare dependency here in Ontario as a result of what this government has done. Charlotte said, "Yes, as a matter of fact I noticed that, because Celine hasn't been able to find a summer job in Niagara region because unemployment in Niagara region is into the double-digit level and twice that much for young people." Celine is desperately trying to find a summer job so she can do her best at financing an increasingly expensive post-secondary education, one she deserves. Charlotte said they had to travel to Toronto. Charlotte has some relatives in Toronto and there was the hope that maybe Celine - Charlotte took Celine up here on the bus. As a matter of fact, I spoke to them the morning they left. Charlotte said: "I saw the people out on the streets. I saw the people in the cardboard boxes. I saw the people with their sleeping gear in the alleyway." She said, "I have no doubt there are fewer people on welfare." But Charlotte said, "At the same time, how can anybody claim that about this government when the mess at the Family Responsibility Office persists and when women and kids are not getting the moneys that are due them from their paying parents?" So Charlotte said, "No, that's simply not true."

The same piece of fluff that she got - I think maybe this was a chain letter she got. I was about to advise her that there are certain Criminal Code provisions that can be applied against chain letters; not all of them, but for the ones that are extorting or fraudulent in their nature, the police should get involved.

She was exasperated by what she had seen in her mail that morning and she was reading it to me, because this piece of correspondence she got said that this government would be responsible for more safety in our streets. Charlotte said, "That's not true." She knows that the Niagara Regional Police Force is still shy 80 to 100 police officers of its appropriate complement and that the Niagara Regional Police Force is no different from police forces across the province. Never mind this so-called fund that the government gang wants to refer to. The fact is that Niagara region can't afford to buy into it, because it's one time only - one year, first year only - and it's only 50% funding. Because of the downloading, the Niagara region can't come close to hiring the 80 to 100 police officers it needs to reach its full complement.

Charlotte was offended by the piece of mail she got this morning. She was, quite frankly, indignant at being lied to. When she finished explaining this to me - who is this from? She said, "Believe it or not, it's signed." I picked up a copy, but I can't decipher the signature. It is signed. There is a signature on there. For the life of me, I can't decipher it.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): "Mike Harris, MPP."

Mr Kormos: By God, that's who the correspondence is from. My apologies, Speaker. I withdraw anything unparliamentary about the Premier. I hadn't appreciated that that had come to my neighbour from the Premier himself, making those bold claims, to which my neighbour was able to respond in a very perfunctory way, because she knows better.

1720

I'll tell you what she's ticked off now about: She paid for this bit of fluff, she paid for this nonsense, she paid for this crass political propaganda, and she has no interest in being misled. She doesn't want to pay out of her hard-earned money and out of her limited resources to be sold a bill of goods by somebody who leads a party and a caucus whose only interest is to serve the interests of their intimates and their friends and their political and business partners.

Look at the furore that has increased across this province over the last two weeks with regard to the corruption apparent in the rigged casino deal in Niagara Falls. Ms Boyd speaks about the responsibilities of members. Quite right. Ms Boyd spoke about the responsibility of members in response to this motion, and that responsibility of members extends to, for instance, calling upon the government to call for a public inquiry in the context of this incredible cornucopia - not a canard; a cornucopia - of allegations concerning conflicts of interest, concerning political payola and concerning abuses of connections by Tory insiders.

In September 1995, Dudley George was shot and killed at Ipperwash park. That's beyond dispute. The body has been laid to rest. There's a family that's still grieving. I know some members find it funny; the family is still grieving, and I tell you, the whole province mourns the innocent loss of life but, more dramatically, the failure of a government to come clean on their involvement, quite frankly on the Premier's involvement and his office's involvement, in the shooting and resultant death of Dudley George.

This motion is about time allocation on Bill 22, a pathetic, vile piece of work in its own right, one which would deny working people - that's really what it's all about. Bill 22 isn't about workfare. You see, that's part of the problem. Bill 22 is about getting the ball rolling in this province so it can snowball and roll over all those rights that working women and men have struggled for and paid a huge price for over the course of decades and generations. That's quite right. This motion is about stopping, terminating, prohibiting any debate about what is a profound initiative, one to roll back the clock, one to reverse the Rand formula, one to deny workers the right to organize and collectively bargain. That's what Bill 22 is all about. If you think it's going to stop at so-called workfare participants, think again, Speaker. I know you will.

Bill 22 is about far more than workfare, and it warrants the most thorough debate. The fact is that in an unprecedented move, as the member for Algoma, Bud Wildman, points out - it was before even three days of debate that a time allocation motion was filed, and the question is why. There's a very obvious reason, and an understandable one. You see, not only does the motion impose time allocation, kill debate here in the Legislature on what is a significant piece of legislation, but it also stymies, blocks, the standing order 124 bid by this caucus for the justice committee to conduct the most modest of inquiries into the Premier's office's involvement and his own involvement in the shooting and killing of Dudley George at Ipperwash in September 1995, something about which the Premier has stonewalled from day one, that his Attorney General and his Solicitors General, because we're now on the second one, have participated in stonewalling, and something that, I tell you, carries with it the strong, dark cloud of coverup, the stench of whitewashing.

I'm confident that when it is revealed - and I tell you, people, the facts are going to come out. Neither the George family nor the native community nor Ontarians who have any commitment to fairness and justice are going to let this matter die. The Premier can block it with his time allocation motion. He can run, but as I said, he can't hide. He's going to be found out. He's going to have to come clean sooner or later.

What this time allocation motion does is, oh, so peculiar. They thought they had done it. They thought they had it in the bag. The brain trust over there thought that by virtue of the time allocation motion which referred Bill 15 to the justice committee, they had effectively blocked the standing order 124 inquiry into Premier Harris's involvement in the shooting and killing of Dudley George, which the member for Brantford finds rather amusing.

I don't. I don't find anything pleasant, either for the family of Dudley George, for the people of this province or for any of us, to be put into a position where we have to use all the means at our disposal to force the Premier to come clean on that shooting. But, by God, we're compelled to, because as members of this Legislature and as persons who want to participate and who are eager to participate in a democratic process, we're obliged to. We have no choice and New Democrats will fulfil their obligations in that regard.

The Premier's office thought they had stymied it by sending Bill 15, a budget bill, to the justice committee. Speaker, you know darned well that doesn't belong in justice, it belongs in finance. But it didn't work. I was at the subcommittee two days ago. By God, Mr Martiniuk darned near went apoplectic when his pettifoggery didn't prevail and he wasn't able to block it with his rather bizarre application of the standing orders. But within minutes of the subcommittee being compelled, as the rules require them, to set the Dudley George inquiry to commence June 15, this Premier's office had his backroom boys and girls drafting up this time allocation motion, the sole purpose of which is to block the inquiry into the Premier's office's involvement and the Premier's involvement in the shooting and killing of Dudley George.

Quite frankly this act is so transparent; it is so undemocratic. You see these things and expect them in Fascist countries or in totalitarian countries; you don't expect them in our Ontario, and I tell you, the people of this province know that full well.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved government motion number 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be up to a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1729 to 1734.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Clement, Tony

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Gilchrist, Steve

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Boyd, Marion

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 15.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Orders of the day.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.

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

It being now 5:37 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on Monday.

The House adjourned at 1737.

4 juin 1998