L023a - Tue 9 Jun 1998 / Mar 9 Jun 1998 1
BARRIE JAZZ AND BLUES FESTIVAL
ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE
ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DE L'AGRICULTURE EN ONTARIO
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
ELECTORAL REFORM / RÉFORME ÉLECTORALE
The House met at 1332.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
MENTAL HEALTH REFORM
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I want to comment today on Minister Witmer's announcement of June 3 on enhancing access to mental health services, as a result of the long-awaited release of Dan Newman's review of mental health programs and services. The minister and her parliamentary assistant know that I have a deep interest in mental health reform, particularly legislative reform, which was the subject of my private member's bill last session and received support on both sides of the House.
While I am pleased about the $60 million of new money as a start to support community-based services, and the affirmation of the moratorium on the closure of psychiatric beds until alternative services and programs are in place, I have concerns about the time frame for the legislative review.
The announcement of the review of mental health legislation is of the utmost interest to me since there are changes that need to be made to the Mental Health Act immediately to enable the very seriously mentally ill to get the help they need when they need it. This does not constitute a large group, but it is a very needy group that is often forgotten and often misunderstood. My concern here is that the last review of the legislation took six years to complete. These individuals cannot wait. Research now tells us that the earlier the treatment a person receives after the first instance of psychosis the better the prognosis.
I urge the minister, her colleagues and all members of the House to support my revised private member's bill on amendments to the Mental Health Act, which I will be introducing soon.
PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to deal with an issue that has been a problem in the small communities across northern Ontario for some time, and that is the lack of adequate physician services. We don't have enough doctors and we have difficulty attracting those doctors to small communities across northern Ontario.
The situation has become critical in Elliot Lake and Espanola. In both those communities it is impossible now for individuals and families to get family physicians, despite all of the efforts that have been made by the communities and the hospitals involved. Two doctors recently left Elliot Lake and there is no French-speaking physician left in that community despite the fact that there is a very large francophone community. In Espanola the problem is just as serious.
The provincial government announced some time ago, over a year ago, an initiative of $34.6 million being set aside to attract and retain doctors to small northern communities. Only about $1 million of that has been allocated and none of it outside of Manitouwadge. There have been all sorts of efforts made, offering free office space for six months by Espanola and E.B. Eddy, and yet we continue to have this serious shortage.
I call upon the Minister of Health to take action in conjunction with the Ontario Medical Association to ensure that we have doctors' services in the north.
BELLEVILLE ECONOMY
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Recently a sourcing study was completed at the Procter and Gamble plant in Belleville and a second plant at Greenville, North Carolina, for the purpose of consolidating a product line at one facility. I am pleased to announce that as a result of the sourcing study the Belleville facility will continue to operate and become the sole supplier of Always products for North America.
This is great news for my constituents. Not only have we retained between 500 and 600 employees, but also 25 additional employees will be hired in August and soon the plant will expand to accommodate new equipment.
The good news is not limited to the employees of Procter and Gamble. Other industrial expansions are in the works, including a proposed 20,000-square-foot addition to the existing G&H International Packaging Ltd, a proposed 100,000 square feet for an addition to Halla Climate Control and a 40,000-square-foot addition to Wilson sporting goods.
I want to congratulate the employees and management of Procter and Gamble in Belleville for proving themselves to be world-class competitors. I hope other companies will come to know what Procter and Gamble does, and that Quinte is the best jurisdiction in the world to work, invest and raise a family. I would also like to think that other companies we compete with around the world have found that input from Ontario.
FERRY SERVICES
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The ongoing saga of the residents of the three island communities who were told by the government a year and a half ago that the essential subsidies for their ferry services, their only lifeline to the mainland, were to be unilaterally cut off by the province continues.
The Minister of Transportation initially requested the island communities to develop business plans. They did so. The business plans were unacceptable to him and he subsequently appointed a facilitator, Dale Martin. He too is proposing a solution requiring a combination of a fixed link and ferry system. To date, the report has not been released by the minister.
The township of Frontenac Islands has now passed a resolution asking the minister to immediately make public the Martin report and for the minister to make his plans regarding the future of the transportation access to the island communities public.
The residents of Frontenac Islands and Amherst Island have a right to know what the future holds with regard to access to the islands. The anxiety and uncertainty the province has caused is simply unacceptable and inexcusable.
I therefore urge the minister and demand from him that he immediately restore full funding of the ferry system to alleviate the islands residents of the great uncertainty and anxiety they have lived with, release the Martin report and its recommendations immediately to the general public, and commit the government in principle to the recommendations contained in the report and develop a realistic time frame for implementation.
1340
SUZANNE FORTIN
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Recently TVO announced the winners of the seventh annual TVOntario Teachers' Awards. I'm pleased to advise the House that one of those winners is Ms Suzanne Fortin, a gifted teacher at école Notre-Dame-du-Rosaire in Blezard Valley, which is in the riding of Sudbury East.
These awards honour teachers who have made exceptional advances in teaching students despite the challenges of the classroom today. These educators have introduced imaginative programs and creative approaches to positively change the school experience for their students, their families and their fellow teachers. In doing so, they have made a positive difference in the lives of their students and their communities. It is this contribution that TVO will honour at the award presentation on Tuesday, June 16, here in Toronto.
For her part, Ms Fortin created a "snoezelen" room in her school. The room provides a total sensory experience to assist the development of children with physical, intellectual and sensory disabilities. Then, recognizing that many students with difficulties have nowhere to go when they finish school, she helped establish the first francophone day program for developmentally handicapped adults in northern Ontario. This is a unique community partnership that should serve as a model elsewhere in Ontario.
Ms Fortin and école Notre-Dame-du-Rosaire will both receive $1,000 as a result of this award. Suzanne and a few other Ontario teachers were selected from among 142 nominees by a jury of 13 educators and students. Their work is truly exceptional and most worthy of recognition.
Congratulations, Suzanne, on a job very well done.
BARRIE JAZZ AND BLUES FESTIVAL
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise today to let everyone know that starting Thursday, June 11, and running through Father's Day, Sunday, June 14, the city of Barrie will be alive with the sounds of blues and jazz.
The third annual Barrie Jazz and Blues Festival presents the finest local and international jazz and blues musicians in more than 35 venues all over the city of Barrie. If you like to hear music in the outdoors, the Barrie Jazz and Blues Festival offers a cornucopia of jazz and blues talent throughout the festival on their Centre Stage in Centennial Park.
The Barrie Jazz and Blues Festival is also sponsor of my second annual pancake breakfast, Saturday, June 13, 9 to 12, at the Army, Navy and Air Force Club, 7 George Street in Barrie. All proceeds from my breakfast go to Barrie's Royal Victoria Hospital to fight women's cancer. Last year we raised more than $2,500 for this very worthy cause. This year we are adding jazz music for your listening pleasure while you enjoy a hearty breakfast of pancakes and sausages served by yours truly.
I invite everyone to come to beautiful Barrie this weekend to hear great jazz and blues music at the Barrie Jazz and Blues Festival. If you choose to come up Saturday morning, join me at the Army, Navy and Air Force Club to hear some jazz and enjoy a hearty pancake breakfast, with all the proceeds going to fight women's cancer. I look forward to seeing everyone there.
LONG-TERM CARE
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise in the House today during Caregivers' Week of Seniors' Month to raise an issue of crucial importance to Ontarians.
Recently in the Kingston Whig-Standard a very disturbing article appeared entitled "Bed Blocker is Offensive Terminology." This article outlines the horrendous experience of a daughter dealing with an ill mother in Kingston. The mother fell at home, suffered a head injury, a broken wrist and elbow and a neck injury. While in hospital, she suffered high fevers, infections, seizures and increasing agitation and confusion.
In Mike Harris's Ontario, this elderly, frail woman is commonly referred to as a bed blocker. In January her family received word that she was approved for long-term care. Shortly after, she received a form letter from the CEO of Kingston General Hospital that bluntly outlines the Kingston General Hospital bed-blocker policy. The family must immediately choose six possible nursing homes from the list provided and take the first bed offered. The CEO writes that failing to do so will result in a $673-a-day charge.
The term "bed blocker" is dehumanizing and offensive. Unfortunately, you will hear it a lot more in the future. Remember to put a face on the term, perhaps your mother's. Is this the type of health care we want in Ontario?
Mike Harris blames his predecessors and muses about the future substantial reinvestment. The fact is that the Premier has created these problems in health care. Health care is without a doubt the most important issue facing senior Ontarians today.
SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Sault Ste Marie is in a tough spot, all because the Tory government has reversed the policy developed over a number of years by all political parties to work proactively to stabilize the economies of communities across the province and, in particular, northern Ontario.
Unemployment in Sault Ste Marie is at twice the provincial average because the provincial government has cut over 1,500 jobs out of our community. They have effectively dismantled the lottery corporation, a business that had increased its profits every year since its inception, including the years it was run out of Sault Ste Marie. To add insult to injury, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines came to Sault Ste Marie on Friday to tell us: "Don't worry; be happy. The plan is working and if we stay the course we will all be better off." That just doesn't cut it. Sault Ste Marie is now in big trouble as a direct result of decisions made by this government.
You have some options, government, to come and help Sault Ste Marie, three of them in particular: You can stop the bleeding by stopping the cuts; you can come and help us stabilize what's already in place - quit dismantling operations like the lottery corporation - and you can come in and work with the economic development corporation to put in place plans that will see us take advantage of some of the economic opportunities that are coming at us. As it stands now, there is no help from you and we're still in big trouble.
FISH KINCARDINE SALMON DERBY
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My colleagues may recall that on May 13 I announced the upcoming 13th annual Fish Kincardine Salmon Derby to be held from May 22 to May 31. Today I'm very pleased to announce that the derby was a resounding success. The grand prize winner was John deBoer from Elmira with an 18.76-pound salmon. He took home the big prize, a 1998 Lund fishing boat with a 75-horsepower motor and trailer. The winning package was worth $22,500.
The 1,238 registrants entered in this year's derby weighed in 3,047 fish for a total weight of 22,559 pounds. This represents only a small percentage of the total fish caught. The entire community gets involved in this 10-day event, including fish fries at the beach, Ladies Day, Pier Day, Kids Day, pancake breakfasts and much more.
I would like to point out that the Fish Kincardine Salmon Derby is an excellent economic development tool for smaller communities such as Kincardine, stimulating the local economy and bringing tourists to the area year after year.
The success of this year's derby would not have been possible without the help of dozens of volunteers headed up by the capable leadership of the derby's co-chairs, Randy Duffie and Susan Novak. They are to be congratulated for the excellent organization and months of preparation required to make this event a success.
VISITOR
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to bring the House's attention to the government members' gallery and note the member for Eglinton from the 33rd Parliament, Mr David McFadden. Welcome.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE
Mr Wilson moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts / Projet de loi 35, Loi visant à créer des emplois et à protéger les consommateurs en favorisant le bas prix de l'énergie au moyen de la concurrence, protégeant l'environnement, traitant de pensions et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): By introducing the Energy Competition Act, the Ontario government is moving to keep its promise to ensure a reliable, affordable and safe supply of electricity while increasing opportunities for investment and job creation.
The intent of these proposed reforms is to boost the economy by encouraging jobs and investment while fulfilling the white paper commitment to maintain and enforce the province's standards for environmental protection, including existing limits on emissions.
Subject to the approval by the Legislature, electricity customers stand to benefit most from a competitive electricity market with greater choice and the lowest possible prices.
ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS
Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 36, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur le financement des élections et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.
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 1351 to 1356.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Bassett, Isabel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Chudleigh, Ted Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. |
Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Harris, Michael D. Hodgson, Chris Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Marland, Margaret Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Palladini, Al Pettit, Trevor |
Preston, Peter Rollins, E.J. Douglas Ross, Lillian Saunderson, William Sheehan, Frank Skarica, Toni Snobelen, John Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Tilson, David Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
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. Brown, Michael A. Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike Conway, Sean G. |
Crozier, Bruce Cullen, Alex Curling, Alvin Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Kwinter, Monte Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lankin, Frances Lessard, Wayne Marchese, Rosario |
Martel, Shelley Martin, Tony McGuinty, Dalton Morin, Gilles E. Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry Ramsay, David Ruprecht, Tony Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 59; the nays are 35.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. The House will recess for 15 minutes.
The House recessed from 1401 to 1416.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Based on the incredible impact that the announcement the Chair of Management Board has made will have on the next election, I seek unanimous consent to allow the minister to stand up and explain this legislation.
The Speaker: Unanimous consent to explain the legislation? Agreed? No.
Interjections.
The Speaker: This House will recess for 10 minutes.
The House recessed from 1418 to 1429.
The Speaker: I'll go to the leader of the third party first on a point of order, if everyone could take their seats. I understand what's going on and I know the member's not here, but we have to understand that there has to be some order and decorum in this place. It was a situation as I left that was very uncomfortable, I think, for everybody, not just the opposition members but clearly the clerks. Although I wasn't here - I have no jurisdiction - I think we need to have some order and decorum and I would ask the members to remember that, please.
On a point of order, the leader of the third party.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that someone in the government rise and tell us why they now need to set the rules for elections unilaterally in Ontario after 100 years of democratic setting of those.
The Speaker: Hold on. Leader of the third party, there's been an opportunity for that unanimous consent. It wasn't agreed to. I appreciate it was the minister. This is now asking for all members. I'll put it, but I think we'd run the gamut at that point about members. This is unanimous consent. I'll follow it up on a point of order, if you like. Unanimous consent for any member of the government to speak to the bill just introduced? Agreed? I heard a no.
Further point of order, the leader of the third party.
Mr Hampton: Speaker, this is unprecedented. If I may, I think you ought to pay particular attention to what's happening. In over 100 years of democracy in Ontario, no party, no government has unilaterally felt that it was entitled to set the rules of election, and yet now we have a government that unilaterally believes that it can set the democratic rules for election. I don't think you can let that happen.
The Speaker: Leader of the third party, it's not out of order. What you're saying is debate and it's a good question and I think it's a question that will probably be asked, but it isn't a point of order. There's nothing out of order about the bill that was just introduced.
Introduction of bills.
ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DE L'AGRICULTURE EN ONTARIO
Mr Bert Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 37, An Act to designate a week of recognition for Ontario's Farmers / Projet de loi 137, Loi désignant une semaine de reconnaissance envers les agriculteurs de l'Ontario.
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 1433 to 1438.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Agostino, Dominic Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Bartolucci, Rick Bassett, Isabel Bisson, Gilles Boushy, Dave Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Brown, Jim Brown, Michael A. Carr, Gary Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Chudleigh, Ted Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Clement, Tony Conway, Sean G. Cordiano, Joseph Crozier, Bruce Cullen, Alex Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Duncan, Dwight Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. |
Fox, Gary Galt, Doug Gerretsen, John Gilchrist, Steve Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Grimmett, Bill Hampton, Howard Hardeman, Ernie Hudak, Tim Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lankin, Frances Leach, Al Leadston, Gary L. Lessard, Wayne Marchese, Rosario Marland, Margaret Martel, Shelley Martin, Tony Maves, Bart McGuinty, Dalton McLean, Allan K. Morin, Gilles E. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill |
O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Palladini, Al Pettit, Trevor Phillips, Gerry Preston, Peter Ramsay, David Rollins, E.J. Douglas Ross, Lillian Ruprecht, Tony Saunderson, William Sergio, Mario Sheehan, Frank Silipo, Tony Skarica, Toni Snobelen, John Spina, Joseph Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Tilson, David Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wildman, Bud Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Wood, Len Young, Terence H. |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 87; the nays are 0.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will know that there has been serious disruption in the House today over the actions of the government. You may not be aware that the Chair of Management Board outside of this House has been saying that in order to have the bill proceeded with, the government had to introduce the bill today because of a rule prohibiting bills to be proceeded at the end of the session. You will also know -
The Speaker: Member for Algoma, that's not a point of order.
Member for Perth, do you have a short statement?
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to say that I've done a lot of deliberation and consultation and now I think it's time for legislation on this. The bill provides for special recognition of the contribution of Ontario farmers to our society by proclaiming the week commencing on the Monday immediately before Thanksgiving Day in each year as Ontario Agricultural Week.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
ONTARIO HYDRO
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The occasion of first reading of the Energy Competition Act -
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister of Energy.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order, please.
Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: Mr Speaker, it's an important piece of legislation -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member for Timiskaming, you must withdraw that comment.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I just asked a question, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: I know, but the comment was out of order. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr Ramsay: I withdraw.
The Speaker: Minister of Energy.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Five minutes.
The House recessed from 1446 to 1454.
The Speaker: Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: The occasion of first reading of the Energy Competition Act -
Interjections.
The Speaker: We will be recessed for five minutes.
The House recessed from 1455 to 1502.
The Speaker: I want to say to the members of the opposition that if I can't get this in, I'm going to have to start naming the members individually. This is your warning and I will go through it individually if I have to.
I want to call on the minister now to make a statement, and if anyone begins to disrupt the proceedings, I will begin the process individually. Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: The occasion of first reading of the Energy Competition Act -
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Bring in -
The Speaker: I name the member for Hamilton Centre. The member for Hamilton Centre is named.
Mr Christopherson was escorted from the chamber.
The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: The occasion of first reading of the Energy Competition Act represents "a promise made" -
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): No way; not interested.
The Speaker: I name the member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms Lankin was escorted from the chamber.
The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: The occasion of -
Interjections.
The Speaker: I name the member for Oakwood.
Mr Colle was escorted from the chamber.
The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): No, Jim, no.
The Speaker: I name the member for Fort York.
Mr Marchese was escorted from the chamber.
The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): No, no, no.
The Speaker: I name the member for Cochrane North.
Mr Len Wood was escorted from the chamber.
The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: This is a very important -
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Chris Hodgson. We want to hear from Chris Hodgson.
The Speaker: I name the member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen was escorted from the chamber.
The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: The Energy Competition Act is a very important piece of legislation for the people of Ontario. I appreciate the opportunity -
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): No, no.
The Speaker: I name the member for Scarborough North.
Mr Curling was escorted from the chamber.
The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: I would appreciate the opportunity to explain this important piece of legislation, which will -
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): No, no.
The Speaker: I name the member for Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Martin was escorted from the chamber.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for Peterborough, come to order, please. The Minister of Energy.
Hon Mr Wilson: The provisions of the Energy Competition Act are faithful to the policy directions this government set out in our white paper entitled Direction for Change: Charting a Course for Competitive Electricity and Jobs in Ontario, which was released last November. By introducing this legislation, the Ontario government is moving to keep its promise to ensure a reliable and safe supply of electricity at the lowest possible price, while increasing opportunities for investment and job creation.
Subject to approval by the Legislature, the proposed Energy Competition Act would end Ontario Hydro's 92-year monopoly, bring full competition to the province's electricity market and reforms to the natural gas sector. We are following through on the vision of our white paper and introducing legislation that is consistent with the recommendations of our Market Design Committee of industry and customer experts. Electricity customers stand to benefit most from a competitive electricity market, with greater choice, lower prices and a safe, reliable supply of power. As well, these proposed reforms will boost the economy by encouraging jobs and investment.
1510
The proposed legislation would reorganize Ontario Hydro into two new commercial corporations: the Ontario Electricity Generation Corp and the Ontario Electric Services Corp. It would also set up a new non-profit crown corporation, the Independent Electricity Market Operator, which would ensure reliable electricity supplies and fair access to this $10-billion consumer market.
Under the proposed legislation the electricity generation business would also be open to all power producers who meet our environmental standards and receive a licence to generate electricity. By allowing access to Hydro's transmission grid, we'll be opening up investment opportunities for new generators, cogeneration and renewable forms of energy production.
The bill also proposes amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act which would provide continued rate protection for rural and remote electricity consumers and ensure that distribution companies fulfil their obligations to connect and serve their customers.
Under the proposed rules, companies participating in the new electricity market would be licensed by the Ontario Energy Board. All marketers selling electricity or natural gas to residential consumers would also require licences.
Subject to the approval of the Legislature, the proposed Energy Competition Act would ensure that strong environmental protection measures are built into the new electricity market. This is in keeping with the government's commitments in the white paper to maintain and enforce its standards for environmental protection, to maintain existing limits on emissions and to meet its national and international commitments. These measures would ensure that greater competition does not threaten environmental protection.
The energy industry's future has been the subject of extensive public consultations. These consultations highlighted a number of areas in urgent need of reform, which this bill addresses.
For the electricity sector, this consultation took place through the Advisory Committee on Competition in Ontario's Electricity System, chaired by the Honourable Donald S. Macdonald, and subsequently by the all-party select committee of this Legislature on Ontario Hydro's nuclear affairs.
For the natural gas sector, the government had the benefit of an Ontario Energy Board report advising on legislative change, and the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology conducted consultations based on the board's recommendations.
We still must deal with tough issues like stranded debt and market power, and our legislative framework must always be responsive and flexible enough to respond to the healthy evolution of a robust marketplace. That's why we have top-notch experts like the Market Design Committee helping develop a made-in-Ontario solution to issues like market power, and I look forward to their next report at the end of this month.
How we handle stranded debt will impact on competition in the new marketplace. That's why my colleague the Honourable Ernie Eves, the Minister of Finance, and his staff have engaged the brightest and the best financial expertise available.
As you know, Dr Bryne Purchase's discussion paper and the Ministry of Finance's policy options will be released in early July. They will form the basis of extensive further consultations concerning stranded debt.
There is an unprecedented level of support for the changes that this bill proposes. Public opinion strongly endorses the idea that the status quo is not working. With the members' approval of this bill, we would be able to bring full competition to Ontario's electricity sector, ensure a level playing field for all taking part in this new competitive market, and introduce reforms to natural gas legislation which would allow gas markets to function more efficiently. The bill before the House for consideration would accomplish all these things while boosting the economy by encouraging job creation and investment.
On this occasion I would like to thank my cabinet colleagues Finance Minister Ernie Eves, Environment Minister Norm Sterling and David Tsubouchi, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, for their support and their contributions to this bill. Thanks also go to my parliamentary assistant, Helen Johns, for the pivotal role she has played in the process and the invaluable assistance and advice she has provided to me.
There are many others, and many were in the visitors' gallery today to watch the introduction of first reading of this legislation, and there are many from many of our ministries whose dedication and hard work I cannot adequately acknowledge here today, but who can see their efforts reflected in this bill. To them, I would like to offer my sincere appreciation for their help in turning the vision of the white paper into the reality of the bill before us.
Efficient energy distribution, fair rules for all industry participants and vigilant regulation would mean all customers could benefit from greater choice and the assurance of a safe and reliable power supply at the lowest possible cost.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I want to respond to the Minister of Energy's statement with respect to the introduction of the new Energy Competition Act. Let me say at the outset that this is, as the minister rightly observed, very important legislation. It is hard for me to imagine this Parliament dealing with public policy that will have the wide-ranging significance that this bill will have. Needless to say, I have not had the opportunity to read the several hundreds of pages of text and supporting documentation that were presented by the minister a few moments ago.
Let me say on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party that we feel very strongly in support of competition in the energy marketplace, certainly the electricity marketplace, and we feel even more strongly about the first-order importance and need for a more rigorous and more transparent regulation, not just of Ontario Hydro but of all players in the electricity and natural gas sector. So there is no confusion: We support strongly the principle of a competitive marketplace for electricity and we support equally strongly the principle of greater transparency and more rigorous regulation of the electricity and natural gas marketplaces.
There can be no member who does not understand that much of this policy touches upon the troubled state of affairs at Ontario Hydro. The irony - and the minister has left us for the moment. This century began with Ontario Hydro representing the great hope for this province. The century ends with Ontario Hydro as a badly beleaguered and embattled crown utility, not all bad but certainly if one was, as I was, a member of the select committee last fall, it was hard to leave that three-month exercise feeling that all was good at Ontario Hydro Nuclear.
Let there be no mistake about it: We are all responsible, both in government and in the Legislature, for that failure. The great fiction of the crown corporation, that we are in a sense putting to bed with this legislation, is that we could, as a duly elected Legislature and executive council drawn from Parliament, be responsible for it and direct it. We all failed in that responsibility, to varying degrees.
There's a great deal, as the minister says, of unanimity for this policy. But I remember 25 years ago when there was a major consensus. Big government, big business and big labour spoke as one in support of the massive nuclear power commitment. There was some complaint, written off as just incidental complaining, but boy, was there consensus for the energy path down which we all went a quarter of a century ago.
Today I see similar consensus, and now I'm a little more sceptical. When I see such unanimity, I really want to find out where are the trouble spots, and there are trouble spots. We will advertise this policy as a benefit to all consumers. That's the hope and that's the promise. Let me tell you, they are absolutely salivating down on Bay Street. A greater business and investment opportunity has not been presented to this province in a long time than with this policy.
The question is, on Main Street they are hoping and expecting that the rate discounts the minister advertises will in fact be delivered. I want to tell you, in the rural Ottawa Valley, in the farming districts of southwestern Ontario, in the north and in residential districts of this great city in which we find ourselves, they expect that this is going to be a good deal for everyone. That's going to be a critical test.
There's also going to be the critical issue of stranded debt. The restructured Hydro that we will get as a result of this policy will leave behind between $15 billion and $20 billion worth of so-called stranded debt. The question remains, will the taxpayer and the residential electricity customer be left with a disproportionate burden of that responsibility? It is a huge cost, and that is the expectation. The public out there hopes and prays for a general benefit, but let me tell you, a critical test will be, does that stranded debt of $15 billion to $20 billion get equitably apportioned across all classes of consumers? If it doesn't, this policy will fail a critical test.
1520
The Speaker: Responses; third party.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): This is a very substantial bill, which I haven't had an opportunity to review completely, notwithstanding the breaks you gave us this afternoon.
On behalf of our caucus, I want to indicate that we support competition generally, but not at any cost. We agree that Ontario Hydro has to be fixed, but not at any price. Our concern is that this bill leaves the environment and the consumer at risk. We're going to see dirty coal power in Ontario. While the bill says that the minister may impose emission caps on outside generators, there's really no guarantee that he will do so, and this government's record with respect to environmental protection has been less than exemplary. The air is going to get dirtier, especially in areas like Windsor, my community, and also in southwestern Ontario.
This bill would also let the government hand over the regulation of energy brokers to a regime of self-regulation. That means that folks going door to door are going to have an opportunity - we hope they don't take it - to rip off consumers, but then also to regulate themselves.
Consumers are supposed to be kings and queens under this system, but the bill leaves them at risk. Although we agree with the government's goal of ensuring a reliable, safe supply of electricity at the lowest possible price, we ask, will industry restructuring as proposed in this bill actually result in lower electricity rates for all consumers? As a municipal taxpayer myself and as a residential ratepayer, I can't help but have this uncomfortable fear in the back of my mind that some big corporate consumers and investors will get a break and people like me are going to be stuck with the bill. Like many other parts of this government's agenda, this opens the door to privatization through the back door. We're going to hear a lot from the government's corporate buddies with deep pockets during this summer's hearings, but we really wonder, who is going to speak for consumers?
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to respond to the announcement the government didn't make today. It is indeed mysterious -
The Speaker: Leader of the third party, you cannot respond to a statement that wasn't made.
Mr Hampton: Speaker, I'm making my response.
The Speaker: Okay, but with great respect, as I said Thursday last, you can't stand up and tell me that you're going to break the rules. You've got to stick to the responses as they are today.
Mr Hampton: I'm merely going to address the state of democracy in Ontario, and the state of democracy in Ontario is this -
The Speaker: You know what? The rules are very clear, leader of the third party, and they say specifically that you have five minutes to respond to the statement made by minister or ministers. There was one statement today, I believe, and that was the Minister of Energy.
Mr Hampton: Speaker, whether it is the running of Ontario Hydro or the running of this place, it seems to me that democracy has a place and has a function. What we have seen here today is a government that unilaterally intends to change the rules of democracy, a government that unilaterally intends to change the rules for democratic elections in this province. That is unheard of.
In newly emerging democracies around the world, the different political parties and political movements actually sit down and work out by consensus what the rules for democratic election will be. But in Ontario, the government stands up and announces its direction on Hydro, but the government does not believe that the basic rules of democracy and democratic elections should be set by broad agreement. The government believes that it can unilaterally do that.
Emerging democracies across the world say, "Shame on you." They know this kind of process won't work. They know this kind of process is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Hydro will take us in the direction now where the corporate bidders will have the greatest say on power in this province, but your election rules will give the corporate bidders, your corporate buddies, the loopholes to literally buy elections in this province. They will have more power, more influence than ever before. Shame on you for your anti-democracy. Shame on you for your dictatorship.
The Speaker: Leader of the third party, to accuse the government of being dictators is out of order. I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr Hampton: I didn't say that, Speaker.
The Speaker: Leader of the third party, I heard you say, "Shame on the government for their dictatorship." To me, that's out of order. I'm asking you to withdraw.
Mr Hampton: I withdraw that part of it, Speaker.
ORAL QUESTIONS
ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier and the Chair of Management Board, I'm -
Interjections.
Mr McGuinty: Now that the minister has arrived, I'm prepared to allow him this opportunity to make a statement, Speaker, and I seek unanimous consent in that regard.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We've already done that. We've done it twice and it was turned down both times, so I suggest we get on with question period.
Mr McGuinty: Minister, we've seen a lot of conventions and traditions broken along the way during the past three years of the Mike Harris government. But I don't think any of us on this side of the House ever suspected that you would do what you have done today in this Legislature.
Under cover of a Hydro bill, an extremely important bill that warrants the utmost attention and scrutiny, you have refused to make a statement and to talk to us about your bill, which was introduced without the consent of the parties on this side of the House. That breaks every long-standing, well-meaning, positive tradition in this House. Why have you chosen today to break a tradition and change the rules of the electoral game without the consent of all three players?
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): It was our hope that we would be able to get unanimous consent on the changes to the Election Finances Act, which hasn't been changed since 1986 in this province. It's recognized that we need to modernize the election act and go forward.
That's why the previous governments set up a commission which had seven members - two representatives chosen from the caucus of each party plus a commission chair, Jack Murray, a past president of the NDP - who made recommendations to this government and to the other House leaders on how to change. As well, we had the chief election officer, Warren Bailie, make recommendations on how to change and update and modernize the election act in Ontario to save taxpayers' dollars.
You speak of tradition. The tradition happened once in this province, in 1986, and we had all-party agreement. But I might add that the tradition wasn't for the Leader of the Opposition to go out and have a seat sale prior to that, to handcuff the attempts that we've made to have all-party agreement on this through sessions of negotiation.
Mr McGuinty: If you don't understand and respect the tradition, then you ought to understand the simple rules of fairness. There are three players in the game. There's the government player, the official opposition player and the third party player. You can't change the rules of the game without the consent of all three players. Ask any kid anywhere in any school ground in this province and they will tell you that they understand that. You can't change the rules of the game without the consent of all the players involved.
I'm going to ask you again: Why have you chosen to breach fundamental rules of fairness? Why have you chosen to stack the deck, to rig the game so that it's making it much easier for you to institutionalize yourselves as the government in Ontario?
1530
Hon Mr Hodgson: That just isn't the case. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that his party had two representatives who were chosen by his caucus to represent their party, the NDP had two representatives to represent their party, and our party had two, and a chair was chosen who was a past president of the NDP - five votes against two, and they unanimously came forward with a series of recommendations.
One of the recommendations was to increase the election spending for ridings to $1.40 an elector. Your party clearly said that was unacceptable. You recommended the federal limits, you wanted the same spending as the federal, and that's what this act does. We've listened to your concern as well.
I would have liked to have had more opportunity to sit down with all three parties and discuss this, but your party refused to cooperate. I ask you why you don't agree with your caucus's appointments on this commission.
Mr McGuinty: Our party did not refuse to cooperate on this issue. What we did refuse to do was to be co-opted, and there's a big difference. We said that we would sit down and work with you to produce a bill on one condition. That condition was quite simply that we would work together and we would produce a result we all could live with. You said you wouldn't accept that. You said that, come hell or high water, you're going to want this thing through, like you've done with other things in the past, whether we're talking about Bill 26 or the megacity bill. I was wondering where the bully had gone. I can tell you the bully is back. We were going to have a caring, compassionate, kinder and gentler government, but now the bully is back.
I'm going to ask you, understanding now the real implications of this legislation, understanding that you have broken a long-standing convention in this House, will you now stand and withdraw the bill?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that his party voted against the Fewer Politicians Act earlier. We have fewer politicians who are going to represent this province in the next election. There have been a lot of changes since 1986. A need for change has been recognized.
As well, you say, historically speaking, that governments have never done this before. I might remind you that four provinces, British Columbia, New Brunswick, PEI and Saskatchewan, were all faced with a similar choice: Do we modernize and save taxpayers' dollars, bring the rules up to date, even though you can't seek all-party agreement? What your party asked for was a muzzling of our caucus so that we would agree with every proposal that came from your caucus, and that is unacceptable.
The Speaker: New question, leader of the official opposition.
Mr McGuinty: To the same minister, listen, I understand the spin now. We've all got on to it: that this is nothing more than the same system the federal government has in place. I think it's very important for the people of this province and the members of the media to understand that this is in fact not the case. What we're talking about here is that the feds run a 36-day campaign; we're going to run a 28-day campaign. Even though we have an identical riding now, we're going to end up spending more than the feds do during a 28-day period than they spend in a 36-day period. Furthermore, we're going to have excluded from the limits on campaign expenditures now things like polling, research and travel. You guys spent close to $900,000 in polling at the time of the last campaign. That's about $9,000 per riding. Why are you telling us today that the system you are putting in place is identical to the federal system when you know in fact that it is not?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the commission recommended $1.40 per elector. He went out and had a big press conference calling for a seat sale and clearly put his party on the record as saying that they found the federal spending limits acceptable - 96 cents per voter - and that's what this government has introduced here today.
He also went on to talk about a lot of other things. It is different from the federal in that we have limits on the amount that can be donated, and I know the federal rules do not limit donations. We think there need to be some limits on donations and we've agreed with the all-party commission that spent four years deliberating on this on that point.
Mr McGuinty: Here's a very simple, straightforward question: Why is it that we need to spend more money during a 28-day campaign, during the course of a provincial election, than the feds spend during the course of a federal election, during a 37-day campaign? Why do we need to spend more money during a shorter period of time?
Hon Mr Hodgson: You're clearly on the record as supporting the federal spending. That's why we brought that in, even though inflation would make it $1.06 per riding, even though the commission, which had two of your representatives on it and three from the NDP, recommended that it be $1.40. We've tried to listen to your concerns. I tried to negotiate with your party on two separate occasions, and they said, "We refuse to talk unless you lay down the right to proceed in the interest of the taxpayers, the people of Ontario." The chief election officer has said that because you've created a permanent voters' list the writ period can be shortened.
Mr McGuinty: A shorter campaign period benefits the government. It benefits the incumbent. Higher spending limits benefit the government. They benefit the incumbent. Do you know why? This government is advertising, is campaigning, on an ongoing basis right now with taxpayers' money. We don't have that kind of money. We need the full campaign period to get our message out. We don't have as much money as you do. I'm not ashamed to admit to that, but you know what? It seems to me that ultimately what ought to govern during the course of a campaign are ideas and policies and not the amount of money you have. Why is it that you're bringing about the Americanization of politics in our province?
Hon Mr Hodgson: A party leader who voted against the Fewer Politicians Acts, who voted against any change that might benefit the taxpayers and the savings of creating a permanent voters' list and other changes which allow for a shorter writ period. He asked the commission for the federal spending limit, not the $1.40 they asked for, but the 96 cents, and we've done that.
The Speaker: New question, third party.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The Premier should be here to answer these questions, but since he is not I'll address them to the Chair of Management Board. What you're doing today is unilaterally changing the democratic rules of Ontario. You are unilaterally changing the rules for democratic elections in this province. Can you tell us why in some of the newest emerging democracies around the world the different political parties actually sit down and reach consensus on what the rules should be for election, yet here in Ontario the Conservative Party believes it should and can do it unilaterally? Can you tell us why?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party knows full well the process that was started under his government, that tried to get all-party agreement by appointing representatives to represent their party's point of view. His party had two, the Liberals had two, our party had two. The chairman who was chosen was a former party president of the NDP. He had five votes out of seven. They made recommendations that were given to all parties.
Our hope was that we could have come to a mutual understanding and proceeded in the interests of modernizing the Election Act, which hasn't been changed in 12 years. But your hyperbole about democracy and that governments aren't allowed to go ahead and modernize and look after the changes -
Interjection.
Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you for the tip. Are you referring to the province of British Columbia? Are you talking about the province of New Brunswick? Are you talking about the province of PEI? Are you talking about the province of Saskatchewan? They've all been faced with this situation where they need to modernize and update their election and election finances acts and they've been unable to get the other two parties to agree to it.
1540
Mr Hampton: The government wants to confuse three or four people meeting in a back room with democracy. I want you to understand: Laws are made in this place, rules are made in this place, not in a back room somewhere. What you're trying to do is march in here and unilaterally change the rules of democracy. Even emerging new democracies don't try to do that. I say, "Shame on you."
But even worse, you go far beyond the so-called election expenses commission. The election expenses commission did not advocate that you be allowed to add 50% more spending for the leader's campaign, the central party campaign. You, through this bill, are going to allow yourselves to spend another $1.3 million on your campaign without any discussion, without any consensus. Can you tell me where in the election expenses commission recommendations they advocate that you should be allowed to increase your spending by $1.3 million unilaterally?
Hon Mr Hodgson: You talk about back rooms. You had three of the seven members who reported, and they recommended a list of exclusions that they attached. As you know, these rules have changed in and out, depending on the time period, all through the 1990s. In their report, they have a list of exclusions which, I believe, if you look at them, will refer to those items you talked about.
Mr Hampton: The minister tries to confuse the issue again. The reality is that you, through this bill, are going to unilaterally allow yourselves to spend another $1.3 million - another $1.3 million in corporate contributions from the likes of the Latner family. You're going to make it possible for your corporate friends to belly up to the bar and literally buy the outcome of elections.
If you add in the exclusions for the leader's tour, the exclusions for polling, the exclusion for computer banks, it adds another $2 million that you'll be spending on campaign advertising - another $2 million that your corporate friends will be able to come to the table with and use to buy influence.
Does that sound to you anything remotely like democracy, where it's how much money you have, how much money you can get out of your corporate friends, rather than the ideas and the principles you put forward? Is that your definition of democracy?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party knows full well that the commission made recommendations that look at the existing rules as well as the exclusions.
The 60-cents-per-voter increase you're talking about is the federal rules. The commission recommended $1.40 per riding and the Liberal Party went on the record as saying they supported the federal spending limits, so we adopted that. If you take a look at it, that means 60 cents per voter for the party and 96 cents for each elector.
The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.
Mr Hampton: Another non-answer, so I'll try again to the same minister. I want you to understand what's going to go on here. This is a government that's going to spend taxpayers' money putting out partisan political propaganda right up until the day they call the election, so people will see this kind of political garbage from your government, partisan garbage, right up until the day the election is called. Here's one; here's another.
Then the day the election is called there's going to be a short blackout period, but after that blackout period you're going to be able to spend $2 million more on paid corporate advertising.
I ask you again, does that sound remotely like democracy to you? It sounds to me like somebody trying to buy an election.
Hon Mr Hodgson: The third party voted against the Fewer Politicians Act. I understand that. They don't want change. They don't want fewer politicians. They're rejecting the advice from the commission that was set up under their terms to deal with this to try to get all-party agreement. They did agree: two representatives from your party and the chairman. They're disagreeing with the chief election officer's recommendation and they're against the Liberal suggestion that we go to the federal limits.
Mr Hampton: The minister tries to fall back on the election expenses commission. The election expenses commission didn't recommend that you up the central party spending, the leader's spending, by 50%. They didn't recommend that you be able to spend another $1.3 million on advertising. They didn't recommend some of these other exclusions which will allow you then to bump it to $2 million more per campaign on advertising. But it gets worse than this.
The reality of this is that the government will know when they're going to call the election, so they'll be out there running this propaganda until the day of the election. Just before they call the election, they can call up the media agencies and book the advertising time. Opposition parties don't get to call newspapers, radio and television and ask -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Hampton: The opposition parties don't get to call up and ask for advertising until the government has it all booked up and paid for by its corporate friends. Does that sound like democracy to you? Does that sound like democratic rules in election campaigns?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The other provinces in this country have had to modernize and bring their election acts up to date. I'm not saying it's a thing that we would have liked to have been able to do, but we recognized, on the advice of Jack Murray, the commission chair, and Warren Bailie that changes are needed. They recommended that if you are going to bring about change, do it before an election, in lots of advance time, so that people have a chance to adapt.
For you to say that you're unaware of when elections will be called, inside this place people know when elections are being called. The media speculate on it all day. To say that your research department won't give you a clue, in the fifth year or the fourth year of a mandate, to be prepared, I think that's totally off the mark.
We recognize the obligation to the people of Ontario. When we invested this money to set up these commissions, to have the chief electoral officer make recommendations that will save taxpayers $15 million, modernize our rules to be consistent with other provinces in this country and to allow elections to be run with permanent electors' lists, I think that's an obligation.
Mr Hampton: This minister wants to refer to other provinces. I don't know of another province that is spending $750,000 of taxpayers' money to put out this kind of political propaganda. I don't know of another province that is spending a further $750,000 of taxpayers' money to put out more propaganda. I don't know of another province where anyone is trying to arrange the election spending so that they can put $2 million more into political advertising without disclosing to the public that that's what they're all about.
This isn't about democracy, this isn't about efficient elections; this is about stacking the deck so that your corporate friends can buy the next election. That's what it is. That's the long and the short of it.
Minister, admit it. The 28-day election period wasn't recommended by the election expenses commission. The additions to central campaign spending weren't recommended. Why are you trying to bring in these unilateral changes, these changes that are going to favour your government?
Hon Mr Hodgson: The leader of the third party is right: The election finance committee did not recommend the shorter writ period; it was the chief electoral officer. Because you have a permanent voters' list, due to technology, you can become in line with other provinces.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. New question, member for Renfrew North.
1550
ONTARIO HYDRO
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, looking at your electricity policy from the perspective of a residential electricity consumer in Ontario, I would have two questions, and let me put the first. What can you promise me as an Ontario residential electricity consumer? What will you promise me as the discount, or what's the benefit in my residential rate going to be, let's say, two years out from this moment? What kind of percentage discount in residential electricity rates are you prepared to specifically offer to the people in this province two years out from this date?
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The government has been very careful not to in any way mislead the public and our residential power consumers, which all of us in this House are, power consumers, and it's an essential service in the province. We know there's a consensus in this province, with the unions, with business large and small and with most politicians across the province, including our municipal politicians, that the status quo, the increase in rates we've seen over the last decade, where Ontario Hydro has had a monopoly on our power system - some 30% increase and going through the roof, making our businesses uncompetitive and making it difficult to attract new industry to this province. We do know that the status quo is not an option.
The second fact we know is that the world is changing. In the United States, with President Clinton's announcement some two months ago that all the states would move towards full competition, with our neighbouring provinces and other provinces in Canada moving towards full competition - and where competition has taken hold in this world, prices have fallen, in many cases dramatically, and we hope the same for Ontario.
Mr Conway: But a hope and a prayer aren't good enough. In your statement you talk about "a promise made and a promise kept." Your statement is very specific that rates will come down for residential customers. I have a question: How much will my residential rate come down in Ontario, and when?
Second, I am a residential customer. I know that there is going to be, as a result of a restructured electricity sector, about $15 billion or more worth of so-called stranded debt. I also want to know, what specific measures are you going to take in this legislation or in the related policy to protect me, the residential electricity customer, from carrying a disproportionate share of that multibillion-dollar stranded debt?
Hon Mr Wilson: In every jurisdiction that has introduced competition to date, we've seen electricity prices fall for both residential consumers and industries large and small. Clearly, the status quo of escalating exponential increases in hydro rates in this province is not sustainable and it's not right. With the direction we're headed in, with the introduction of the white paper on November 6, we had an unprecedented consensus across the province from labour, from business, from politicians at different levels, from municipal electrical utilities themselves, from independent power producers and from our large industrial users like Stelco, the car companies and the pulp and paper mills that introduction of competition will bring down prices.
We know, for example, with TransAlta announcing a $400 million possible investment in Sarnia, they are doing that to bring down prices for those industries, those important petrochemical industries in Sarnia. Clearly, a company like TransAlta would not be planning a $400 million investment in Ontario if it did not think it would serve its new customers well and bring prices down.
ELECTORAL REFORM / RÉFORME ÉLECTORALE
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board again. We saw something incredible here today. We saw a government bring in legislation to change the basic rules of democracy, the basic rules of democratic election campaigns, and we saw the minister who is responsible afraid to get on his feet and explain to the people of Ontario why he was bringing this forward.
Minister, can you tell us why you went and hid, why you wouldn't get on your feet and explain to the people of Ontario why your government feels that it has the power and the right to unilaterally change the democratic election rules of Ontario? Why wouldn't you get up and defend yourself? Why did you run and hide?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the members of the Legislature should know that there is nothing out of order with regard to what that minister did. There is no requirement with regard to -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We have a very brief time for question period, and you're not in order. That's not a point of order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, it's not a point of order. Minister?
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'm glad the leader of the third party asked the question. When his party gets up and votes against a bill on first reading, they've already made up their mind. We will have plenty of time to debate this on second and third reading.
It's my pleasure to introduce the bill today. I realize that politicians have shied away from this. Your government shied away from it, so what you did was set up a committee. I commend you for that. We appointed two representatives, your party appointed two representatives, the Liberals appointed two representatives, and the chair who was chosen was the past party president of the NDP.
They recognized the need to modernize and update our Election Act and they came forward with some suggestions. All three parties met, trying to come up with an agreement. Your parties found it unacceptable to talk about the proposals. Unfortunately, we as a government have to look after the taxpayers and the voters and modernize this Election Act based on the recommendations that your process created.
The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Cochrane South
M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Mon supplémentaire est au même ministre. C'est très clair. La commission des élections a fait des recommandations, mais vous, le ministre, vous êtes allé au-dessus de ce que la commission a demandé et de ce qu'ils ont recommandé.
Eux-autres n'ont pas parlé d'augmenter les dépenses tel que vous recommandez dans votre projet de loi. Toute la question d'exclure les dépenses de transport pour le premier ministre et sa tournée durant des élections, toute la question de ne plus être capable d'exclure le coût des sondages pour les partis politiques, ce n'était pas dans les recommandations.
Je vous pose la question ; c'est très simple. Vous avez choisi, monsieur le Ministre, de rentrer dans cette Assemblée aujourd'hui, introduire un projet de loi tout seul, sans l'appui des partis de l'opposition, et au-dessus de ce qui était recommandé par la commission d'élections. Pourquoi ?
Hon Mr Hodgson: I want to thank the member of the third party for the question. He will find with this bill that it adopts the recommendations of the commission and the chief election officer. As well, your specific question has to do with increased spending. The commission recommended $1.40 per voter and the Liberal Party was on record as saying they supported the federal, which is about 96 cents per voter. So we took that recommendation. I realize the commission recommended $1.40, but we chose the 96 cents. If we had taken even inflation, it would be $1.06. Thank you for the question.
ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. We know that the contribution of the arts and culture sector to enhance our quality of life is enormous. I'm informed that Canada's arts and culture sector employs 670,000 people and contributes $16 billion to the national economy. With the recent announcements by the Minister of Finance in the budget, it appears that the government is strengthening this sector, which is good news for my riding. Would you be able to tell me what is the status of the various culture funds, please?
Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I'd like to say, first of all, that you're perfectly right that the arts and culture are a huge business for the province, every single corner of it. The recent announcements of the Minister of Finance are aimed at helping to develop a robust arts community with a healthy bottom line, which of course is one of my main initiatives.
The investments we are making through the two funds announced by the Minister of Finance will act as a catalyst and a lever for economic growth in the cultural sector and the economy in general, right across the province, I might add to you, for the people in your riding, in Sarnia. The economy will be benefited by the new jobs, growth and in general the vibrant arts and culture sector.
Mr Boushy: Too often the health of the arts sector becomes synonymous with how much the government is giving to the Ontario Arts Council. I know the government's move to increase emphasis on private sector investments in the arts has been characterized by the Liberal critic as harmful to medium-sized and smaller arts organizations and medium-sized and small communities.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Pursuant to standing order 30(b) I'm now required to interrupt proceedings and call orders of the day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à empêcher la syndicalisation en ce qui concerne la participation communautaire visée par la Loi de 1997 sur le programme Ontario au travail.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 4, 1998, I'm now required to put the question. Mrs Ecker has moved second reading of Bill 22. 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 1600 to 1605.
The Speaker: All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Carroll, Jack Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve |
Grimmett, Bill Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Hodgson, Chris Hudak, Tim Jackson, Cameron Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Marland, Margaret Martiniuk, Gerry Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia |
Murdoch, Bill O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Preston, Peter Rollins, E.J. Douglas Saunderson, William Shea, Derwyn Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
The Speaker: All those opposed please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Agostino, Dominic Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Castrilli, Annamarie Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Duncan, Dwight |
Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lessard, Wayne Martel, Shelley Morin, Gilles E. |
Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry Ruprecht, Tony Sergio, Mario Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 19.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
By order of the House, the bill is referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.
House in committee of the whole.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn Churley): Staff can come on to the floor of the House.
STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES
Consideration of Bill 108, An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration / Projet de loi 108, Loi traitant des poursuites concernant certaines infractions provinciales, réduisant le double emploi et simplifiant l'administration.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn Churley): We're still on Mr Bisson's amendment and we have 15 minutes for the entire session this afternoon. The member for Cochrane South.
M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Comme on le sait aujourd'hui, on se trouve dans la situation que le gouvernement a décidé d'utiliser une motion de clôture qui limite le temps qu'on a pour être capable de trouver finalement un amendement qui clarifierait, ferait d'une manière claire la protection des droits linguistiques des francophones. On a essayé depuis le mois de décembre passé, notre parti, le parti NPD, avec l'AJEFO, d'arriver à une accommodation avec le gouvernement qui donnerait un amendement qui est clair, et qui dit que les droits des francophones sont protégés. Le gouvernement a prétendu d'avoir un amendement tel, et il a proposé, à travers des négociations avec l'AJEFO, de trouver un amendement qui dit que le gouvernement va protéger les droits linguistiques des francophones. Comme j'ai dit hier dans le débat, quand on a donné cet amendement à tous les juristes, et qu'on leur a demande de donner une opinion, est-ce que l'amendement fait ce que le gouvernement prétend ? Toutes les décisions, tous le documents qu'on on reçus ont dit «non». On nous a dit que cet amendement ne protège pas adéquatement des droits des francophones tel que le procureur général le dit.
Et, on est pogné dans la situation telle que le gouvernement hier aurait pu introduire une motion de clôture pour être capable d'allouer leur amendement de passer avec une majorité, mais ils ont décidé que non. Après avoir pris cette route, on s'est trouvé avec 15 minutes au Comité plénier pour être capable de trouver une accommodation à ce problème.
Moi, je veux mettre sur le record que, quelles que soient les communautés francophones auxquelles j'ai parlé, comme l'ACFO, comme l'AJEFO et autres, jusqu'à récemment, dimanche, elles ont passé une résolution au conseil de l'ACFO annuel, où tous les délégués - et c'est important à dire - ont passé une résolution unanime qui dit qu'ils ne croient pas que l'amendement du gouvernement conservateur, du procureur général, préserve les droits linguistiques. Quand la question s'est fait poser samedi matin devant les deux chefs de l'opposition et le ministre, M. Villeneuve, «Est-ce que vous avez la confiance, les délégués de cette assemblée, que l'amendement du procureur général protège les droits des francophones - montrez en signifiant levant votre main» - pas un délégué à cette assemblée n'a levé leur main. Tous les délégués ont levé leur main en disant qu'ils n'avaient pas confiance à quoi le procureur général nous donnait.
Les documents des procureurs où on a demandé de nous donner des opinions légales nous ont écrit, et toutes les opinions qu'on a eues disent que l'amendement du gouvernement ne réalise pas les buts du gouvernement et que justement les droits des francophones ne sont pas protégés. On se trouve à cette situation.
Je pense, à ce point-ci, on a fait tout ce dont on est capable pour essayer de convaincre le gouvernement. Jusqu'à hier et aujourd'hui on a essayé de faire comprendre au gouvernement que leur amendement ne fait pas d'une manière claire qu'il donne la protection aux francophones qu'on veut avoir. On va laisser le gouvernement avoir leur amendement. On va les allouer d'introduire cet amendement au Comité plénier. Mais je veux mettre sur le record aujourd'hui que je suis sûr que dans six mois ou un an d'ici on va être dans une situation où un francophone va être refusé les services en français dans une municipalité, à une cour municipale. Quand cette personne essaye d'aller en cour pour dire, «Moi, je veux avoir mon procès en français,» elle va se faire refuser puis il va y avoir quasiment rien qu'elle peut faire.
L'amendement du gouvernement est très clair. Son amendement dit très simplement que tu as besoin de démontrer que tu as été préjugé et que si tu peux montrer que tu as été préjugé dans la décision, tu peux avoir ton procès en français.
Je pense que c'est clair. Le gouvernement a fait son choix. Ils ont choisi de ne pas donner la protection claire aux francophones de la province. Ils ont choisi à faire quelque chose qui est noir, quelque chose qui est sombre, quelque chose qui n'est pas clair. Pour quelle raison, je ne sais pas. On va savoir avec le temps. J'attends voir si le ministre - je le demanderai une autre fois au Comité plenier, «Êtes-vous préparé à accepter notre amendement qui dit d'une manière très claire que les services aux francophones vont être protégés tels qu'ils le sont dans l'amendement que j'ai proposé au caucus NPD, ou allez-vous choisir votre amendement, qui n'est pas clair ?
The Chair: Further debate?
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I have an amendment to propose. It's been filed with the table.
I move that section 164 -
The Chair: Attorney General, could I just ask you to take your seat a moment.
Hon Mr Harnick: Yes.
The Chair: Is there any further debate after Mr Bisson's amendment?
Mme Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): J'ai entendu ce qu'a dit mon collègue M. Bisson. Je dois dire que ça fait beaucoup de temps que nous discutons cette question ici dans cette législature.
Ce n'est pas la première fois. Vous savez que nous avons eu toute une série de consultations avec les Ontariens et les Ontariennes. Tous les professionnels, tous les avocats, tous ceux qui nous ont dit quelque chose nous ont dit qu'il y a des problèmes. Plus récemment, nous avons vu, comme vous le savez, une opinion du bureau législatif ici qui a dit la même chose. C'est pour ça qu'on passe de nouveau cet amendement ici cet après-midi.
Vous savez que nous, Libéraux, avons mis le premier amendement devant la commission qui étudiait cette chose il y a un an. Alors, ce n'est pas une surprise que nous avons des problèmes avec la motion du gouvernement et le projet de loi du gouvernement.
Vous voyez, la question centrale, c'est celle-ci : croyons-nous vraiment dans les droits linguistiques des minorités francophones ?
The Chair: The member for Downsview, you're debating the government amendment which is yet to come; you're not debating Mr Bisson's amendment.
Ms Castrilli: No, I'm talking about Mr Bisson. I was responding that -
The Chair: We have eight minutes left to go and you must respond to Mr Bisson's amendment.
Ms Castrilli: Understood. Je veux dire alors, madame la Présidente, qu'il est très important de trouver une façon de donner l'importance qu'il faut donner aux droits linguistiques des francophones. L'amendement de M. Bisson est une façon de le faire. J'espère que le gouvernement prend en considération cet amendement. S'ils ne veulent pas le faire, je veux suggérer au gouvernement qu'il est peut-être nécessaire d'amender la Loi 8 pour assurer que les municipalités soient assujetties aux lois linguistiques de cette province.
The Chair: Further debate? You have to be in your seat.
1620
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Madame la Présidente, je m'excuse encore une fois de ne pas avoir été à mon siège.
Encore une fois, je crois que le gouvernement doit accepter l'amendement qui a été apporté par mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud. Sans cette nouvelle clause, il est très, très inquiétant. Nous savons bien qu'une interprétation, de temps à autre, peut être prise de différents sens, et puis dans ce cas-ci, le fait qu'on ne veut pas inclure cette clause, cet amendement, à l'intérieur de ce projet de loi nous épeure, de voir que le gouvernement ne veut absolument pas inclure cet amendement. Nous savons bien que le gouvernement dernièrement nous a toujours dit qu'on nous donne l'information dans les deux langues ici-même en Ontario. Mais si on regarde le dernier «pamphlet» que nous venons de recevoir, «The government is on the right track», dans ma circonscription, où nous avons au-delà de 120 000 de population, dont 68 % est francophone, on nous dit que personne n'a reçu cette information en français. Donc, encore une fois, ça laisse à désirer l'intention du gouvernement de donner les services dans les deux langues.
Donc, je crois que le gouvernement doit sincèrement dire qu'on doit supporter l'amendement déposé par mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud.
The Chair: Further debate?
M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Cet après-midi, j'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer le procureur général. Il est très anxieux d'apporter son amendement. Je lui garantis que d'ici les cinq prochaines minutes, le procureur général aura l'occasion de présenter son amendement.
Mais si on revient à l'amendement de M. Bisson, nous avons reçu un avis légal. Pour que ce soit inscrit au record, l'avis de M. Beecroft apporte toutefois une dynamique différente, puisqu'on peut y lire le passage suivant :
"The issue of whether the right to a fair hearing was prejudiced would depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It might be relevant, for example, whether a French-speaking defendant was also fluent in English. It might also be relevant that in a province like Ontario, with residents who speak many different languages, it is not unusual for a defendant to be prosecuted by a prosecutor who does not speak the defendant's language."
C'est ça qu'on veut ; on veut que ça soit clair. On veut que le ministre apporte un changement qui soit clair et entendu par tout le monde.
Comme ma collègue Mme Castrilli l'a mentionné, pour que ça soit clair dans tous les services, on peut apporter un amendement à la Loi 8.
The Chair: Further debate?
Mr Bisson has moved an amendment to subsection 1(2) of the bill. Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."
Those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be deferred.
Are there any further questions or comments on this bill?
Hon Mr Harnick: I move that section 164 of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Fair hearing
"(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), that subsection does not preserve the validity of the proceeding if the failure to comply with the agreement results in prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair hearing."
The Chair: Any debate?
M. Bisson : Je veux seulement dire qu'on se trouve aujourd'hui à ce point-ci. Le gouvernement a alloué à ce point-ci non seulement de proposer l'amendement mais d'avoir la chance aussi en Comité plénier. Je demande une autre fois que le gouvernement accepte l'amendement que nous avons mis en avant, sur lequel on va avoir un vote qui va avoir lieu dans un couple de minutes, qui dit - c'est très clair - que les droits des francophones sont protégés.
Je vais le répéter une autre fois pour le record : toutes les opinions légales qu'on a demandées de tous les avocats, y inclus le bureau législatif ici à l'Assemblée législative, sont d'accord que l'amendement qu'on débat présentement ne va pas protéger les droits des francophones, parce que le francophone va avoir besoin de démontrer qu'il a été préjugé dans une décision parce qu'il n'a pas compris le langage ou donc que c'était fait en anglais, quelque chose qui est impossible à faire parce que la cour doit du moins donner un interprète, ce qui veut dire que l'on ne peut pas démontrer que l'on était préjugé.
On va se revoir en cour, monsieur le Procureur général ? Je suis sûr que dans les prochains six mois ou un an quelqu'un va faire appel aux cours que leurs droits ont été érodés sous le gouvernement de Mike Harris et le procureur général, M. Charles Harnick.
Mme Castrilli: Je dois dire au procureur général que l'opinion est claire, que l'amendement du gouvernement ne veut pas faire ce que le gouvernement dit. La question est simplement cela. Si vous avez l'intention de protéger les droits linguistiques des minorités francophones ici en Ontario, pourquoi ne pas le dire clairement dans la législation ? Pourquoi faire ce jeu de mots ? Pourquoi ne pas dire honnêtement : «Nous voulons que les droits linguistiques des francophones au niveau municipal soient protégés» ? C'est une question très simple et il est très facile de donner une réponse positive aux francophones de l'Ontario.
Il est vraiment dommage que le gouvernement a forcé cette question d'imposer une motion de clôture. C'est vraiment dommage pour les Franco-Ontariens.
The Chair: Shall sections 2 through 5 carry? No?
All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."
Those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is deferred.
Mr Bisson has moved an amendment to subsection 1(2) of the bill. The questions have been deferred, and there will now be a five-minute bell on the amendment. Call in the members.
The division bells rang from 1627 to 1632.
The Chair: Mr Bisson has moved an amendment to subsection 1(2) of the bill.
All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.
All those opposed will please rise.
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 15; the nays are 40.
The Chair: I declare the amendment lost.
Mr Harnick has moved an amendment to subsection 1(2) of the bill.
All those in favour of the amendment will please rise.
All those opposed will please rise.
Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 40; the nays are 15.
The Chair: I declare the amendment carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry?
All those in favour will please rise.
Same vote?
Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 40; the nays are 15.
The Chair: I declare the section, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 2 through 5 carry?
All those in favour will please rise.
Same vote?
Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 40; the nays are 15.
The Chair: I declare sections 2 through 5 carried.
Shall the title of the bill carry?
All those in favour, please rise.
Same vote?
Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 40; the nays are 15.
The Chair: I declare the title of the bill carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, be reported to the House?
All those in favour will please rise.
All those opposed will please rise.
Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 40; the nays are 14.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.
The Chair: Is that agreed?
All those in favour will please rise.
All those opposed will please rise.
Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 40; the nays are 15.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
I do now leave this chair and return to the other chair.
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Orders of the day.
1640
STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES
Mr Harnick moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 108, An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration / Projet de loi 108, Loi traitant des poursuites concernant certaines infractions provinciales, réduisant le double emploi et simplifiant l'administration.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As I said yesterday, there are four key benefits to this proposed legislation. First, the legislation transfers matters that have a local impact into the control and accountability of local authorities, while ensuring that there are clear and consistent provincial standards for the administration of justice. Second, it enables the province to focus on prosecuting serious criminal offences by allowing municipalities to prosecute minor ticket type of offences. Third, it meets a commitment this government has made to eliminate waste and duplication by bringing administrative functions together under one level of government. Finally, it provide municipalities with a new source of net revenue to improve local services.
I want to assure the members of the House that the preservation of the integrity of the justice system is fundamental to this proposed transfer. If the bill passes, the province will continue to be responsible for setting and monitoring standards for the administration of justice and to ensure uniform, fair and equal justice across Ontario.
In a moment, I will outline some of the key amendments we have made to the bill, which we believe make it stronger and more responsive to the concerns expressed during the hearings of the standing committee on general government.
Before I do, I would like to thank the considerable number of individuals and groups who have assisted the ministry in this initiative. From the outset, consultation and cooperation have been hallmarks of this process. Indeed, we received valuable input from municipalities, the judiciary, the bar, enforcement agencies, ministry staff and legal experts. This input enabled us to engage in constructive and productive dialogue on the Provincial Offences Act transfer since it was first recommended by the Crombie Who Does What Panel in August 1996.
Offences committed under the Highway Traffic Act, speeding infractions in particular, form the bulk of the offences for which tickets are issued under part I of the Provincial Offences Act. These types of violations have a considerable impact on local communities, so it simply makes sense that local governments should play a role in administering and prosecuting these offences.
Municipalities continue to express their enthusiastic support for the transfer. I would like to thank the many municipalities, particularly the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, that participated in consultations with the ministry and made an invaluable contribution to the design of the transfer.
I would now like to outline for the members of the House a number of amendments that have been made to Bill 108. These amendments are the result of the input we received during committee hearings and the many consultations we've held.
Because of concerns raised by municipalities and the opposition parties, we have rewritten parts of section 165. We've clarified that municipalities will remit to the province the victim fine surcharge, special purpose account fines and federal contravention fines after municipalities have collected Provincial Offences Act fines.
As well, we have recognized the validity of municipalities' desire to protect their staff from any civil liability suits that might be launched, as long as staff were performing transferred work in good faith. We've amended the bill to reflect this concern.
We've also noted the need for greater flexibility in intermunicipal partnerships. We've amended the bill to allow for the creation of a joint board of management. This will assist municipalities with the requirement that they join together in intermunicipal agreements to perform Provincial Offences Act responsibilities.
We have also consulted extensively with the Association of Francophone Municipalities of Ontario, which represents 45 municipalities serving more than 85% of the province's francophone population, and the francophone jurists, representing francophone jurists throughout the province of Ontario. They wanted further assurances that services in the French language would be maintained at provincial standards during and after the proposed transfer of Provincial Offences Act responsibilities to municipalities. We did that with the amendment to section 164. I am pleased to say that both associations have written to me supporting the government's proposed approach to protecting French-language services in the Provincial Offences Act transfer agreement.
AFMO said, "I would like to underline the importance of your leadership and involvement in striving not only to preserve and maintain existing rights in Ontario but, where feasible and reasonable, enhancing the existing provisions of services in French available before the courts of Ontario."
AJEFO, the association of French jurists, wrote:
"I would like to thank you for the successful result we achieved. I would like to thank you for your personal intervention in this matter and for your suggestions which allowed us to protect language rights which are so important to our Canadian identity. I am very happy that we were able to work together to amend this bill in so positive a manner."
I have already noted that consultation and cooperation have been the hallmark of the development of the legislation. I am confident that this spirit will continue if the bill is passed and we begin to implement the Provincial Offences Act transfer. Once the proposed transfer process is complete, the Ministry of the Attorney General -
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was supposed to be unanimous consent asked to split the time evenly between the three caucuses under the 30 minutes. That was the deal that was negotiated but it hasn't been asked yet. I would ask that that question be put.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there agreement that the time be divided equally? Perfect. Fine. Go on, Minister.
Hon Mr Harnick: Once the proposed transfer process is complete, the Ministry of the Attorney General will work with its municipal partners, anglophone and francophone alike, to streamline administration and prosecution of provincial offences.
Finally, the government appreciates the cooperation it has received on this initiative. However, in the long run it is not the government but rather the taxpayers of Ontario who will benefit from this legislation.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
L'hon. Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Je veux premièrement remercier l'opposition de leur coopération en nous accordant le temps pour introduire nos amendements au projet de loi 108. Ce projet de loi permettra aux municipalités de choisir et accepter de prendre les responsabilités d'un programme transféré du gouvernement provincial à ses municipalités et leur permettra de relever leurs revenus annuellement. C'est suite aux recommandations du rapport Crombie, Qui Fait Quoi, dont les municipalités ont exprimé leur intérêt à donner ce service sur une base municipale.
Il y a d'importantes différences entre le transfert de la Loi sur les infractions provinciales et les autres mesures de réaménagement. Le transfert de la Loi sur les infractions provinciales est un transfert progressif. Il surviendra lorsque les municipalités auront démontré qu'elles sont bel et bien prêtes et renferme un transfert de recettes nettes.
Je peux assurer mes collègues de l'opposition que le projet de loi 108 avec l'amendement aura les protections nécessaires pour assurer les services en français lors des transferts.
Il y a une chose qui ne changera pas avec le projet de loi 108. C'est l'accès au procès en français, et je le souligne puisque mon collègue tient à poser des questions et a peut-être un peu mal informé les francophones que le projet de loi 108 éliminera l'accès à un procès bilingue. Ce n'est pas le cas. La Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires donne le droit à un procès bilingue sur demande à travers l'Ontario. C'est une loi introduite par mon collègue l'honorable Roy McMurtry sous le gouvernement Davis. Il a donné aux tribunaux judiciaires l'accès à un procès soit en français ou en anglais.
Les francophones de l'Ontario garderont le droit d'accès à un procès bilingue qui garantit que le juge, greffier, sténographe en plus du poursuivant provincial soient bilingues.
Suite au transfert des programmes aux municipalités, et inscrit dans le protocole d'entente, dans une telle démarche où il y a demande de procès bilingues, le poursuivant municipal devra aussi être bilingue. Cette obligation fait partie des règlements de la justice ontarienne et elle est non négociable.
Le protocole d'entente précise également que tous les autres services à l'extérieur des tribunaux actuellement disponibles en français dans les régions désignées de notre province, tels que l'administration des tribunaux, les services d'information, le paiement des amendes, le service au comptoir, le service au téléphone etc, continueront d'être offerts dans les régions désignées en vertu de la Loi sur les services en français.
Avec le projet de loi 108, un comité de sélection sera établi pour la mise en oeuvre. L'AFMO et l'AJEFO ont déjà accepté de siéger et de participer à cette mise en oeuvre. En plus, afin d'assurer que les municipalités puissent offrir les services en français, le procureur général invite ces groupes francophones, l'AJEFO et l'AFMO, à aider les initiatives de former et d'offrir les outils nécessaires afin de desservir la communauté francophone.
Suite à l'approbation de ce projet de loi, les municipalités seront invitées à soumettre leur plan d'affaire et de démontrer qu'elles sont prêtes et qu'elles vont rencontrer les standards provinciaux, incluant le standard vis-à-vis les services en français avant même prendre leurs responsabilités.
À ce moment, je veux aussi féliciter et remercier les efforts de l'AJEFO, de l'AFMO et du travail qu'ils ont accompli avec mon collègue l'honorable Charles Harnick. Je suis fier qu'ils ont accepté de siéger au sein du comité de la mise en oeuvre et d'offrir leur service aux municipalités en Ontario. Je remercie tous et chacun de la coopération que nous avons vue ici cet après-midi après la période des questions.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Further debate?
1650
M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : J'aimerais dire quelques mots avant que cette loi ne passe et tout simplement rappeler au ministre M. Villeneuve, qui était là dans le temps, que je me souviens quand la Loi 8 a été amenée dans la Chambre et débattue et que tout le monde était d'accord que c'était une bonne loi pour préserver les droits des francophones. Je me souviens aussi tellement bien qu'à ce moment-là le premier ministre du temps, M. Peterson, a agi de façon très claire. Tout ce que nous faisons avec cette loi, c'est de grouper ensemble les services déjà existants, oui, apportés comme question par l'ancien gouvernement conservateur, des services que nous ont pris des années à obtenir. Le but de la loi était de les préserver. La grand inquiétude que j'ai présentement est que c'est le commencement de l'érosion de la Loi 8.
My biggest concern is that when Bill 8 was implemented, it was practically a unanimous agreement in this House. The Premier was there too. I was in the chair at that time, leading the debates about Bill 8. Everybody was totally satisfied that the bill would not be touched, that the bill would never be tampered with. What you're doing today, unfortunately, is the beginning of the end. Yes, it is, Minister.
You state a letter that you've received from l'association des juristes, qui dit totalement le contraire. It's totally different than the interpretation that you give. I hate to disagree with you on that, but let me assure you, the unfortunate thing is that this is the beginning of the disappearance of Bill 8 in Ontario.
Mme Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview) : Je dois dire cet après-midi que c'est une journée très noire pour l'Ontario. Nous voyons le commencement de l'érosion des droits démocratiques dans cette province, et plus spécifiquement les droits linguistiques de la minorité franco-ontarienne ici dans cette province.
Nous avons vu pendant l'année que ce projet de loi était introduit beaucoup de manifestations, de discussions, de débats sur comment protéger les minorités franco-ontariennes. Le gouvernement a choisi de ne pas écouter. Nous avons plusieurs lettres, documents, opinions légales, opinions des experts qui nous disent que l'amendement du gouvernement ne suffit pas, que les droits linguistiques des franco-ontariens ne sont pas protégés.
Je dois dire que le gouvernement fait beaucoup de correspondance avec l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario. Je veux dire au procureur général que l'association a une autre opinion du projet de loi qu'on considère cet après-midi. Elle dit clairement qu'il faut avoir une intention très claire, et que ce projet de loi n'est pas claire en ce qui concerne les droits linguistiques constitutionnels des francophones en Ontario. Ce sont des mots que j'espère que le procureur général va lire.
We've debated this issue in this Legislature for some 15 minutes. It is unthinkable that the linguistic rights of such an important group in Ontario would be reduced to 15 minutes in the Legislature and 15 more to come. That is simply a lack of respect for a community that has done much for this country, and quite frankly it's a very, very dark day for democracy in this province.
I want to read just a couple of comments of the many, many comments and the legal opinions that have been received with respect to what this legislation will do with respect to the rights of francophones. I will read to you the comments that the editors of the London Free Press felt compelled to publish just a while ago. They say:
"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 to which they are entitled. Now is not the time to weaken official language rights in our province. To do so would be to open the door for Québec 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."
That's what this bill signals the beginning of. It is really unfortunate that the government of the province has decided not to listen to the very legitimate concerns of the French-speaking minority, to their counsel, to the many organizations and individuals that have spoken very clearly.
Hon Mr Harnick: Dead wrong.
Ms Castrilli: The Attorney General says I am wrong. I refer him to recent correspondence with the association of French-language lawyers, who are very concerned about this turn of events, and they worry about the diminishment of constitutional rights in this province. I hope the government will reconsider.
M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je voudrais continuer ce que mon collègue de Carleton-Est a mentionné tantôt. Aujourd'hui, on assiste à l'érosion, le début de la fin de la loi 8, parce que dès ce matin, je me suis fait dire que chaque service, que ce soit le logement, que ça soit le service d'ambulance, que ce soit tous les services qui sont delestés au niveau municipal, une entente protocolaire doit être signée entre les municipalités, qu'elles soient dans une région désignée ou non.
Alors, laissez-moi vous dire que nous allons faire face à ce même problème jour après jour parce que beaucoup de ces services-là, beaucoup des responsabilités présentement au niveau provincial, vont devenir des responsabilités au niveau municipal.
Laissez-moi vous dire pourquoi nous craignons que la communauté francophone craint ou a peur des gestes posés par le gouvernement. Laissez-moi vous mentionner juste un petit événement. L'hôpital Montfort, le seul et unique hôpital francophone universitaire, le gouvernement de l'Ontario veut le fermer. On ne l'a pas fermé, mais ça va venir. Ça c'est un geste, c'est un début de l'érosion des services en français. Peut-être qu'on va sauver l'immeuble de l'hôpital Montfort. Laissez-moi vous assurer que des débats comme vous entendez aujourd'hui vont se prolonger tout le long de 1998.
Je comprends qu'il y aura un comité pour la mise en place de ces services, mais par contre, les gens qui seront membres de ces comités-là n'auront pas de choix que d'aller selon les dires du gouvernement. Nous craignons les gestes du gouvernement d'aujourd'hui et je crains le geste que le gouvernement pose demain et après-demain envers les franco-ontariens.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we do not have a quorum.
The Speaker: Is a quorum present?
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: Quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: Member for Prescott-Russell.
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Je crois que c'est une journée de deuil que nous vivonst dans le moment. Si je dis une journée de deuil, c'est vrai. C'est que même le ministre des Affaires francophones, qui est porté, à critiquer le point que je soulève, même lui durant la période que nous avons connue lorsque l'annonce était faite pour la fermeture possible de l'hôpital Montfort, n'a pas eu le courage de dire qu'il défendrait la cause des francophones, qu'il défendrait le point de la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort. Il a répondu : «Je ne suis pas le député de cette région. Je suis le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry.»
The Speaker: Point of order, Minister? Stop the clock, please.
L'hon. M. Villeneuve : J'ai appuyé le SOS Montfort, Mme Lalonde. J'ai encouragé puis j'ai dit -
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. Member for Ottawa East, come to order please. The minister is standing on a point of order. Can you be very direct, Minister?
1700
L'hon. M. Villeneuve : J'ai encouragé Mme Lalonde, qui est ici. C'était une commission dont nous ne pouvions -
The Speaker: Minister, that's not a point of order, with great respect. Member for Prescott and Russell.
M. Lalonde : J'ai seulement 38 secondes. Même si le ministre dit que lorsqu'on doit avoir accès à la cour provincial les services en français doivent être respectés, c'est vrai, mais il faut se rappeler que le gouvernement provincial a procédé à du delestage et ils ont transféré ses responsabilités aux municipalités. Donc eux n'ont pas à respecter la Loi 8. Actuellement, je crois que les municipalités n'auront aucun outil de négociation pour s'assurer à ce que les services francophones soient maintenus.
M. Bisson : J'ai seulement 10 minutes pour être capable de faire le sommaire d'où on se trouve avec ce projet de loi. Je vais faire le mieux que je suis capable dans les 10 minutes.
Très simplement, le gouvernement a fait une décision, qui n'était pas mal originalement, de transférer certaines offenses provinciales aux municipalités : contraventions de vitesse et autres. Le gouvernement voulait donner l'habilité aux municipalités de collectionner ces offenses provinciales et que les municipalités peuvent garder cet argent - pas une méchante idée.
Mais quand ils ont fait le transfert, le gouvernement a fait une erreur. Quand ils ont fait le transfert, ils ont oublié d'additionner dans la Loi 108 les protections nécessaires pour garantir que les droits qu'on a comme francophones en avant nos tribunaux provinciaaux soient protégés sous les tribunaux municipaux. Le gouvernement fait une erreur.
On a pointé cette erreur au comité après la deuxième lecture, le comité de cette assemblée. M. Rosario Marchese, le membre de Fort York, qui était la, a pointé le problème. Avec l'opposition on oeuvrait pour avancer un amendement à la législation à ce point-là. Le gouvernement a refusé.
Une fois que le projet de loi retournait au Comité plénier, j'ai introduit une motion qui dit très clairement que les droits des francophones seraient protégés si le transfert aura lieu avec des municipalités envers les offenses provinciales. C'est là que tout a commencé.
De ce point-là, ça a mis de la pression sur le gouvernement pour être capable d'essayer de trouver un amendement qui protégerait les droits des francophones d'une manière claire. Avec l'ouvrage de l'AJEFO - il faut donner du crédit jusqu'à un certain point - ils ont essayé de négocier un amendement avec l'AJEFO qui supposément donnerait une protection claire des droits linguistiques.
Premièrement, quand l'amendement est sorti, le gouvernement a vite été chercher des lettres d'appui d'ACFO et autres, sans donner la chance au monde de vraiment comprendre ce que l'amendement voulait vraiment dire.
Moi, j'ai demandé une opinion légale au bureau des conseils législatifs de l'Ontario. J'ai demandé au bureau : «Tiens l'amendement du gouvernement. Tiens l'entente que le gouvernement veut signer avec les municipalités. Est-ce que les droits linguistiques, tels qu'ils existent présentement pour les francophones, vont exister une fois que la Loi 108 passe ?» La décision est revenue. Elle était très claire. La lettre datée le 12 mai, de M. Beecroft, dit en sommaire que les droits des francophones ne sont pas protégés, et que toute cette question de cette amendement n'est pas claire et qu'on va se trouver dans la situation que le francophone doit démontrer au juge, qu'il était préjugé parce que son procès était fait en anglais, quelque chose qui est quasiment impossible de faire devant les cours.
Je vois ici M. Cousineau, qui est professeur de droit, qui comprend très bien ce que cette loi veut dire. On a montré ça au gouvernement. Le procureur général a dit : «Non. Le bureau des conseils législatifs connaît rien.» Le même monde qui écrit l'amendement pour le gouvernement dit que l'amendement du gouvernement n'est pas clair, qu'il ne protège pas les droits des francophones, le gouvernement refusait de l'accepter.
À ce point j'ai dit : «Okay, peut-être que le bureau des conseils législatifs a fait une erreur. On va demander une deuxième opinion.» On était à Genest Murray DesBrisay Lamek et on a demandé à M. Paul Rouleau de nous donner encore une opinion. J'ai donné l'amendement du gouvernement, tel que l'entente qui y aurait été signée avec les municipalités. M. Rouleau revient avec ceci :
«Pour les motifs qui suivent, nous sommes de l'avis que l'effet de la Loi 108 est de restreindre les droits statutaires des Franco-Ontariens(nes) à une poursuite bilingue, dans le cas des poursuites déléguées aux municipalités sous la Loi 108, lorsqu'ils choisissent un procès bilingue et que l'amendement proposé par le gouvernement à la Loi 108 n'aura pas l'effet de garantir le droit à une poursuite bilingue.» Très claire, cette opinion légale.
On donne ça au gouvernement, et le gouvernement dit, «Non, vous ne connaissez rien.» Toutes les personnes en droit qui ont une opinion différente de celle du procureur général, qui écrivent sur papier leur opinion, le procureur général n'accepte pas. Il dit, «Eux-autres ne savent pas.»
Je dis, «Okay. On va rechercher une autre opinion.» On a une opinion ici de Racicot, Maisonneuve, Labelle, Cooper de Timmins, signée par M. Michel Labelle, un autre avocat très connu dans la communauté francophone. Dans la dernière partie - parce que j'ai seulement cinq minutes - de la lettre écrite à moi et datée le 26 mai 1998, il écrit :
«Nous sommes d'avis que l'amendement tel que proposé risque sérieusement d'entraîner une érosion des droits des francophones à une audience en français devant les tribunaux municipaux. De fait, le tout reposera sur l'interprétation que donne le tribunal à une "audience équitable" et si le justiciable a subi une préjudice.»
C'est clair. Les trois avocats disent tous la même affaire, et le procureur général continue à dire, «Ah, non, nous autres, on connaît tout. Vous autres, vous ne connaissez rien. On va continuer dans le style de M. Harris de foncer en avant.» En face de toute raison, le gouvernement va continuer. Moi, je dis que c'est très clair que c'est une érosion des droits.
Je veux souligner un point important ici, et j'aimerais signaler que Mme Lalonde est ici, M. Cousineau et M. Gratton d'Opération constitution.
Comme vous le savez, monsieur le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, qui n'écoute pas comme la moitié du temps, eux autres sont en train de travailler très fort avec la communauté pour être capables d'avoir le monde dans cette province lire la question, «Est-ce que l'Ontario doit s'afficher comme une province officiellement bilingue ?»
Moi, je pense que les actions de ce gouvernement nous disent très clairement qu'en Ontario, les francophones n'ont plus de choix. Je veux dire ici à l'Assemblée aujourd'hui publiquement, sur le record, que le Parti ND, sous le leadership de M. Howard Hampton, va supporter la proposition d'Opération constitution. Nous croyons que c'est à peu près le temps, étant donné les actions de ce gouvernement qui érodent les services des francophones, qu'on demande de mettre en avant une motion du gouvernement fédéral de déclarer l'Ontario comme une province officiellement bilingue. C'est la seule protection qu'on peut avoir.
Interjection.
M. Bisson : Écoute, le ministre. On va parler du ministre et des commentaires qu'il a faits un peu plus tard, mais je veux faire le point, et c'est intéressant, que jamais avant dans la province de l'Ontario, aucun gouvernement, soit libéral, conservateur ou NPD, n'aurait pensé pour une seconde à éroder les services aux francophones quand ça vient aux droits linguistiques tel qu'on voit aujourd'hui.
Quand on voit les actions de ce gouvernement éroder les services aux francophones, la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort, la fermeture de garderies francophones, la fermeture de centres de santé francophones, le transfert des responsabilités aux municipalités sans aucune protection législative dans la loi, ça nous dit que ce gouvernement est préparé à éroder nos services en français. Moi, je pense que l'ouvrage que l'Opération constitution fait est très important. La communauté francophone a besoin de commencer d'appuyer d'une manière plus importante et plus forte l'ouvrage de Mme Lalonde et autres et de commencer à mettre la pression et mettre l'attention sur le gouvernement provincial et les partis d'opposition de supporter une motion ici dans la Chambre qui dirait : «On demande au gouvernement fédéral qu'on change la constitution canadienne pour donner les garanties constitutionnelles aux francophones ici en Ontario.» Sans ça, je suis de plus en plus convaincu qu'avec un gouvernement conservateur tel qu'on a, nos droits vont être érodés dans une période de temps.
L'autre affaire - j'ai seulement quelques minutes - c'est qu'hier, le procureur général est venu dans l'Assemblée pour dire, «Vous autres, quand vous étiez au gouvernement, dans le gouvernement de Bob Rae, vous avez donné aux municipalités le droit de transférer les droits pour les offenses provinciales quand ça vient aux billets de stationnement», et vous avez dit que nous n'avons pas protégé les droits des francophones dans la loi.
C'est faux, et je veux corriger le record. J'ai ici un document daté le 9 juin 1998, écrit par le conseil législatif de l'Ontario, qui arrive justement avec les amendements que nous avons faits à la loi pour garantir les droits linguistiques aux francophones quand ça vient aux infractions provinciales aux municipalités et les billets de stationnement. Je lis:
"You have asked what provisions were made to preserve the right of francophones to trials in French when some municipality was given the right to take over the prosecution of parking offences within their borders. The trials continue to be trials conducted by the courts constituted under the Courts of Justice Act, which provides that French-speaking parties to a proceeding may require that it be conducted as a bilingual proceeding. The judge or justice of the peace, the clerk and the court reporters must be able to function bilingually in such proceedings. See subsection 125(2).
"When a prosecution under the Provincial Offences Act by the crown in right of Ontario is being conducted as a bilingual proceeding, the prosecutor assigned to the case must be a person who speaks English and French."
It goes on in detail to prove that the NDP government, when it did find that it made an error, said, "We made a mistake," and under the leadership of Marion Boyd, the then Attorney General, made the proper amendments to the Courts of Justice Act in order to guarantee that French language rights would be protected in the province of Ontario. It's something this government didn't have the guts to do, and something that this government is now doing I say goes far against what we did when we were in government.
The Speaker: Mr Harnick has moved third reading of Bill 108. 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 1711 to 1716.
The Speaker: Order. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Fisher, Barbara Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Galt, Doug Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. Hardeman, Ernie |
Harnick, Charles Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Kells, Morley Leadston, Gary L. Martiniuk, Gerry Maves, Bart McLean, Allan K. Munro, Julia Murdoch, Bill O'Toole, John |
Ouellette, Jerry J. Palladini, Al Preston, Peter Rollins, E.J. Douglas Saunderson, William Spina, Joseph Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tascona, Joseph N. Tilson, David Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Bartolucci, Rick Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Caplan, David Castrilli, Annamarie Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Crozier, Bruce |
Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lessard, Wayne Martel, Shelley Morin, Gilles E. |
Patten, Richard Ramsay, David Ruprecht, Tony Sergio, Mario Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 42; the nays are 22.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
NORTHERN SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES PUBLICS DANS LE NORD DE L'ONTARIO
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 12, An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à offrir aux résidents du Nord plus de choix et de souplesse dans la mise en place de mécanismes de prestation des services qui tiennent compte de la situation unique du Nord de l'Ontario et à permettre l'accroissement de l'efficience et de la responsabilité en ce qui concerne la prestation des services à l'échelle régionale.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's more than politeness for me to say what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and speak on Bill 12, a bill that's very important to the people in northern Ontario. I'm sure the member for Algoma will really appreciate it when this bill goes through.
Bill 12 is An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery. It's a long title for a very important bill, but I think it's important that it does contain all of that description.
The government of Ontario certainly has a significant responsibility to the residents of northern Ontario. I guess I see it through the eyes of someone in the south, having travelled there and having a daughter and son-in-law who live in the far north. But I see that it's important that it assist with the development of political and economic institutions. I see that the government has a responsibility to encourage sustainable development of the natural resources in northern Ontario, and we also, as a government, have a responsibility to ensure the protection of the northern environment.
There are many parts to this bill, but there are five that I think are particularly important. This act first and foremost would establish area services boards for northern Ontario, and that's really the basis and the most significant part of this particular bill.
It will streamline the delivery of services. Really, that's all about providing better service at lower cost and that's the bottom line of this government from day one. For the three years and one day since the election, it has been about providing better government at lower cost and doing a better job. Certainly there's no question that that's been carried out.
The third aspect of this bill that I see is that it's creating partnerships, partnerships among communities in northern Ontario and partnerships with the province of Ontario, and it's also recognizing partnerships in unorganized areas. A lot of people are unaware that many of the townships in the north are unorganized in terms of not having an official municipal government that is directly responsible for them. This particular bill recognizes those unorganized areas.
The bill also provides tremendous flexibility to accommodate some of the local conditions in the north. It varies tremendously, from some of the large urban centres to the very sparsely populated areas. I guess you'd call them rural areas; they're not as we think of rural here in southern Ontario.
The fifth point relates to the fact that these area services boards are optional. They're not required. They're only going into areas where wanted. In other words, the people in those respective areas would request that there be an area services board established.
At this point, I think it's a good idea to look at some of the quotes from when this was first rolled out. It was first announced on December 15; it died on the order paper in December. Then it was announced again; the first reading was April 30, 1998. When it first came out and the minister, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, announced it back on December 15, there were some interesting quotes from Jay Aspin, the president of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities.
He said, "The government recognizes that the needs of the north are different." There's no question, and there is the president of the association complimenting our government. Second, he said, "We were happy to work with the government during the extensive consultations that have preceded the introduction of this bill." That's so consistent with the operation of this government. We've consulted extensively before many bills have been brought into this House. We've had more consultation after second reading than any previous government. We've had more hours of debate in the House on average on any given bill, if you average them out. The consultation of this government has been absolutely exemplary, and I know that the two parties of the previous governments are upset that they didn't get that kind of recognition for their consultation.
The third quote from Jay Aspin, the president of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities: "We look forward to working with the government towards a successful conclusion." It's all about consensus-building, and that's what this government has a reputation for, working with area municipalities throughout Ontario, developing consensus and working together.
At the same time the president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, Neil MacOdrum, had some excellent quotes as well: "Introduction of this legislation means our members can get down to some of the serious work that must be done to finalize their plans to implement local government realignments." Looking forward to getting on with life and doing things.
He went on to say, "The government has been open to discussion," and I think that should be underlined because the official opposition party and the third party here have indicated that there has been some limitation to some of the discussions. Here is the president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association complimenting this government on being so open to discussion, and he's absolutely correct.
He goes on to say in his third quote, "This legislation reflects various concerns that NOMA has expressed." It's not only that we listen, and that listening is important, but we respond and act on the direction. Here is an example, this president of NOMA acknowledging that we not only listen but respond to those needs and carry them out.
The challenges of the north - I say this being from the south and having travelled in the north - are certainly very different from those of southern Ontario.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.
Mr Galt: As I was saying, even members from the south going to the north recognize there are some challenges there. There are things like physical barriers, like the temperature. People from other countries look to Canada and think it really gets cold here, but where it really gets cold is in northern Ontario. These are some of the barriers that they have to face and deal with - large quantities of snow. Even in eastern Ontario, we had the big ice storm, but those kinds of physical barriers are even more so in northern Ontario, and we in the south recognize that.
We even recognize problems on the highway such as moose. We don't have too many of those in southern Ontario, but in northern Ontario that can be difficult when you're driving the highways.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The only moose you have seen is called Moosehead in a bar.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane South, please.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, you can depart.
Member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: I mentioned highways. There has never been a government that spent more money on highways in northern Ontario than the present government here in Ontario for the last three years.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Check out the budget.
The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Sudbury East.
Mr Galt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don't think she was able to hear me as I was speaking, because she was talking so much. I appreciate your getting order in the House.
The distance in the north is exceptional. We recognize the isolation and the difficulties, and this particular bill is looking at coordination of some of those services. I think the members from the north would really appreciate that. I'll refer to it in a minute, but it recognizes a new technology that's there that will help to bridge that gap.
We also recognize the diversity of the population in the north and the special needs because of this. We also recognize the tremendous resources in the north, and there is just no question that those resources are important to the economics of this important -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury, please.
Mr Galt: I know that some of those in the north are making fun of this bill, but it's so helpful for them that I really don't understand why they would want to make so much fun of the bill.
I have had many opportunities to travel on my own in the north, but also on committee and as parliamentary assistant for environment, as well as on some of the budget swings and speaking on the budget.
1730
I've been in places like Thunder Bay, for example. I've been there umpteen times. It's a city of 158,000 people, one of the largest urban centres in the north. I was very intrigued when I was there to be out in the harbour and see some of the environmental issues and some of the problems that are there, and the cleanup this government is actively involved with, making sure the environment is protected in the north, talking to some of the pulp and paper industries and the changes they're making in recovery of some of the pulp and how the shorter period is nine months for the recovery of that pulp. It used to go out into the river and reduce the oxygen level of the river and fish would die. Now they're able to recover that pulp and in something like nine months they're able to recoup the cost of the equipment that they have to put in for that recovery.
There are Kenora and Dryden and seeing some of the unique environmental problems that are faced in communities such as that; Sault Ste Marie; also into Sudbury. I well remember a committee that met in Sudbury - I believe it was on Bill 20 - and ended up being fogged in. To be at the committee hearings in Ottawa the next morning, we went by bus, unable to fly out because of some of the weather conditions that were present at that time.
It's a city of some 172,000 people, a very important city in Ontario. It was particularly interesting to see some of the mines and some of the problems with mine tailings and trying to contain the acid flowing from those particular areas. It is tremendous what the Ministry of the Environment has come through with Countdown Acid Rain and the change in that environment around Sudbury.
The people in the north are really great, in spite of some of the catcalls from the opposition here this afternoon. I really enjoyed areas like New Liskeard, the clay belt and the ability to produce. I see the member over here for New Liskeard shaking his head in agreement. It's certainly a very lush area. Should we move into this so-called greenhouse effect, I'm sure the New Liskeard area and the clay flats will be the breadbasket at that time. I certainly recognize the late planting that's required there because of late frost and how early frost can come in the fall.
We've had a lot of complaints about the length of bills. I would think they'd be very happy with this one. This one is about 25 pages. We've had some too short and, they tell us, some too long, so 25 pages I think would be just about right.
We have some interesting sections in here.
Interjection: Goldilocks would like it.
Mr Galt: This is Goldilocks, right in the middle. It's not too hard and not too soft.
Subsection 37(1):
"One or more municipalities or local service boards or the residents of unorganized territory may make a proposal to establish an area services board for the consolidation of service delivery by submitting to the minister a report containing...."
What's interesting here is the unorganized territories are being recognized and being part of the north. That's certainly a very important part in this bill, to acknowledge and recognize those territories.
In section 38, referring to powers of the minister:
"Upon receiving a proposal that meets the requirements of section 37, the minister may by order,
"(a) establish a board...."
It doesn't say he has to and it doesn't say every area has to have an area services board, but it's pointing out the flexibility of this government to understand and to give and take as is necessary in important areas like northern Ontario.
This is a very modern part of the bill, recognizing having meetings and the distance problems in the north and some of the storm conditions:
"A meeting of the board may be conducted by teleconference, video-conference or other means of distance communication."
This is really taking particular notice of the north.
The core services of the area services board would include things like child care, assistance under the Ontario Works Act, 1997, a very important piece of legislation that this government brought in, public health services under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, social housing, land ambulance service under the Ambulance Act, and homes for the aged under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act.
There can also be additional services like services promoting economic development, airport services, land use planning under the Planning Act, administrative functions and prosecutions under part X of the Provincial Offences Act, waste management, police services, emergency preparedness and response under the Emergency Plans Act, roads and bridges, and any other service designated by the minister. It's a very complete act indeed.
This bill is unique in recognizing flexibility, and it's - as I mention that, there are some unique approaches by other organizations, such as the LCBO recognizing agency stores in the north. These are freestanding mini-liquor stores, and they're incorporated right into general stores or pharmacies, operated by private owners. This is recognizing the north in unique situations. The LCBO is one example of recognizing the north, and certainly that's what this bill is doing.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Purely for medicinal purposes.
Mr Galt: Of course. As the member for Algoma says, it's only used for medicinal purposes in the north. I can understand that, and that's an important part. This bill has that kind of flexibility. You can use those services as necessary and as is seen fit.
Winding up on this bill, I'd like to make a reference to Robert Service. Robert Service is a very famous author who wrote an awful lot about the north, and in particular he had that great poem The Cremation of Sam McGee.
Mr Wildman: That was in the Yukon.
Mr Galt: That was up in the Yukon, but it's still the north. North is north. You can't argue where the north is.
Robert Service said in his poem The Cremation of Sam McGee - granted, in the Yukon - "There are strange things done in the midnight sun by the men who moil for gold."
This is making reference to unique approaches that are required, and that's what's happening in this bill: having flexibility. It's also making reference to gold, one of the resources in the north, which are very important to be protected. This government is ensuring that kind of protection occurs for our natural resources in the north. We have so many, and it's wonderful that northern Ontario is all part and parcel of this marvellous province of some 11 million people. A third of the people in Canada are right here in Ontario.
In closing, to summarize the very important areas of this particular bill, it's an act that would establish area services boards in northern Ontario, recognize the unorganized territory, recognize the kind of flexibility that's needed in the north.
Second, it's going to streamline the delivery of services in the north, providing better services at better cost, which is what this government is about. It's about a smaller government doing a better job at less expense. We've been proving that for some time, during the past three years and one day since the election of June 8, 1995.
This bill is about creating partnerships, partnerships between communities in the north, particularly in some of these unorganized communities, and a partnership with the province. We have a real record in the last three years of developing these kinds of partnerships and working together. It's a hallmark of this government, and it's going to go down in history as a very special hallmark of this government.
As we mentioned earlier, it provides flexibility. There's no place in this province where it's more important to provide flexibility than in situations in the north, with the tremendous variations in the north, various districts and local distinctions that have to be recognized, from large cities like Sudbury and Thunder Bay to the very remote areas in the north.
Also, it's important to recognize that area services boards are optional. They do not have to form them. They'll only be formed where wanted and where requested. We are not a government to go out and force our will on to the people. We're providing the opportunity that if they want to have area services boards they can. All they have to do is request them. For those reasons, I'm enthusiastically supporting this bill.
1740
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The member for Northumberland obviously does what his government does best: not understand the north. For 20 minutes the people of northern Ontario have had to listen to someone who, when he left the notes and stopped reading what the bill was all about, was absolutely disgusting in his approach to northern Ontario. I tell you, the more that member talks and the more that government talks, the stronger we in opposition go up in the polls in northern Ontario. It's no wonder that there is no representation in northern Ontario on the government side of the House.
Interjection: There still isn't.
Mr Bartolucci: You're right, there still isn't. Every time somebody like the member who just finished speaking gets up and says what his vision of northern Ontario is and what it should be, the people of northern Ontario know why they feel that they are the forgotten people in Ontario.
This government allowed the bill to die the first time, before Christmas. This government brought the bill back. They delayed and delayed before bringing it to the House for debate. Now, because we in opposition want this bill to go to committee, they're trying to give it the soft sell that "We've had the consultation." You've had no consultation with people in northern Ontario, no meaningful consultation at all. Let me tell you, when the member for Northumberland gets up and says, "North is north," then you know and I know that he knows very little about northern Ontario.
I'll offer this government a challenge. Within a day or so we're going to vote on this legislation. If you are a government that cares about the north, send this to committee to travel across northern Ontario.
Mr Wildman: I won't be quite as harsh as my friend from Sudbury. I want to commend the member for Northumberland for his attempt to speak about northern Ontario, and I guess it indicates that he has some passing interest in the north. But I would encourage him, before he speaks on a matter like this in the future, to do a little more research, maybe travel a little more. He says he has travelled in the north. As a matter of fact, I think it should be a requirement of all members of this assembly, particularly those from south of Muskoka, to drive across northern Ontario at least once during their term, because they might get some idea about the size of the north and the problems and the challenges faced with the great distances and small communities across much of northern Ontario.
The member quoted from Robert Service. I'm a great fan of Robert Service. I very much appreciate the poem The Cremation of Sam McGee. It deals with people panning for gold, and people in northern Ontario do pan for gold, but The Cremation of Sam McGee is a great Canadian classic about the Yukon. When we pointed out that this is about the Yukon, not northern Ontario, the member's response was, "Well, north is north." I suppose north is north - that's not a very profound statement - but Whitehorse is not Thunder Bay or Sudbury.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): We're not allowed to comment on the points made by members opposite or I would certainly rise and suggest that what's really disgusting, if anything, is the arrogance displayed by certain members and the insufferable nature of the comments that come forward. They would have you believe that unless you live in northern Ontario you can't understand it at all. At the same time, I guess it would follow that they can't understand the challenges that southern Ontario faces, or are they that smart that they can handle that?
The reality, as the member correctly pointed out, is that all the government members have had tremendous opportunities to travel through the north, even those who don't come from those parts.
I remember, as the Chair of the resources development committee, having a choice of going out to dinner or taking the committee - the government members, because the opposition members decided that food was more important - and going and touring a lumber mill, and going and touring pulp and paper plants, and visiting reforestry projects and visiting mines, because it's obviously important to us that we understand the extent of industry in the north, that we understand the challenges that business and the people who work in those businesses face.
The legacy they inherited in the previous 10 years was even more devastating than what we suffered here in the south. Still 15% to 20% unemployment in the north is the legacy of 10 lost years under the NDP and the Liberals. If they were so concerned about the north, if they represented their constituents so well, explain to us why there is three times the unemployment rate in the north, why they failed to direct resources, why they failed to make sure that the people in the north had the same chance.
Mr Bartolucci: Because you guys are there. For the last three years, the unemployment rate went up.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury.
Mr Gilchrist: We recognize that all Ontarians deserve a fair shake. All Ontarians deserve to see the true wealth and resources of this province.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury, you have a voice that carries quite loud. I would ask you to refrain, please. The member for Timiskaming.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm just wondering what horrible thing happened to this member as a child, that's all.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Speaker, it was having to visit the House of Commons under the Trudeau government. I was scarred -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This is not a point of order. We will continue with the debate. Questions and comments?
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I wanted to have the opportunity to respond to the member for Northumberland for his remarks, as he would put it, being from the remote community of Thunder Bay, which I think really does show the member's understanding of exactly where Thunder Bay is, which is of course on the tip of Lake Superior. That was a term that you used, member, so I wanted to do that.
I think it's important, while we have the opportunity, to explain what this bill is really all about. In essence this is simply another one of the government's downloading bills. There's no question about it. The government simply decides to download responsibilities in a variety of areas to municipalities, discovers that the only way it can be managed ultimately is to have it done in a regional context and forces it upon municipalities.
The member talked earlier about having a choice. There's no real choice here. Ultimately it's a question of having the ability to go ahead and have an area service board or be forced into pulling together a district social services administration board, a DSSAB, under Bill 152, so we have that kind of legislation here.
The fact is we've had an opportunity to debate this, thank God. There has been no real consultation. I spoke to the past president of the Thunder Bay District Municipal League about this. After December, when it was brought forward, and not brought forward beyond being introduced in December, in the months of January through April there was almost no consultation at all.
If the member for Northumberland wants to quote Neil MacOdrum, the past president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, he should at least recognize that he's the past president. The fact is that what Mr MacOdrum was talking about was that if we're going to be put in this position, if we're going to be forced to do so, we really want to be able to actually get this bill in shape. The fact is, this bill is very flawed. We have put together a number of suggestions that you make some amendments and we've asked you simply to recognize that it's a flawed bill and to let it go out for public hearings and into committee. If you can do that, perhaps we can talk, but that's the least you should do for us.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: I think the response from the member for Port Arthur really points out he wasn't listening. It's just as simple as that. He's trying to say that I said Thunder Bay was remote. No, I was making a comparison: Thunder Bay and Sudbury are larger centres in the north compared to the other remote sparsely populated areas. You totally missed the comment.
You also missed the fact about consultation in the north, extensive consultation. The parliamentary assistant for northern development spent three months travelling the north.
I think you should apologize to people like Jay Aspin, president of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, who said there was extensive consultation. Neil MacOdrum, president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, similarly says that there's extensive consultation in the north.
Interjection.
Mr Galt: You owe an apology to both of them, as does the member for Sudbury.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury.
Mr Galt: You've insulted both of these fine, upright citizens, serving their communities, serving northern Ontario, serving their respective associations. I expect if they were watching or any of their friends were watching when you were up speaking -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Please.
Mr Galt: It's disturbing for the member for Sudbury to hear the truth and to be exposed on his comments on these two respective, upright citizens.
I want to send my sincere thank you to my good friend and seat-mate here, the member for Scarborough East, for his very thoughtful comments. He certainly recognized the content of my presentation. It was very insightful and very thoughtful indeed.
I do appreciate that the comments of the member for Algoma were very gentle this time, a little out of context from his usual response but he also must have been recognizing the content of my presentation.
1750
The Acting Speaker: The time has expired. Further debate?
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I almost feel like I'm on a different planet here today.
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Well, you are.
Mr Michael Brown: Maybe I am. I don't know. The rarefied air in here sometimes does that.
I want to speak a little bit about Bill 12. This is the bill, which is virtually identical, not quite, to a bill that was introduced, if my memory serves, in the second week of December 1997 and promptly died in the middle of December or whenever we left here, because the government thought it had to go around and think about it some more and have consultations and figure out how to do it better than this. I guess they either didn't have the consultations or couldn't decide how to do it any better.
People should understand the name of the act. I'm always entertained by names of government acts. This is An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery. Wow, does that ever sound good. Do you know what? It's quite entertaining.
I want the members over there to understand that northerners were told they were going to have a choice. The name of the bill says "choice." It says "choice." Well, what was the choice?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Brampton North, you are too loud.
Mr Michael Brown: The choice was you were having these services downloaded; you were having to pay for services you did not pay for before and now you were having them downloaded on to your property tax, and to be fair to the government, you're getting an exchange. You're not going to have to pay all the residential property tax. You're supposedly going to pay half the residential property tax.
I was down at the post office in Kagawong, talking to the reeve last week. Do you know what Aussie Hunt said to me? He said: "Gee, I can't figure this out. It's 70%. It's not 50%. People in my township will pay 70% of the education cost, not 50%. How does this work?" I said, "Well, it must be the new math, the Harris math, because that's just not what they told us." Reality is often different from the spin and the perception and the marketing that comes from across, over on the other side.
Choice: You talked about choice. We were going to set up service boards and you were going to have a choice. I think maybe today you should go and talk to the people in the district of Manitoulin. The people in the district of Manitoulin were told they had a choice; if there was a double majority, if everyone agreed, they had a choice, they would have their service board. The district of Sudbury would have one, and I believe the region of Sudbury has one. But those were decided.
The people in the district of Manitoulin were led to believe that each of the northern districts would have a service board. They are a northern district. They decided on their own after doing very careful studies of what the cost impact would be on them and how they would deliver services, what that would cost versus having it done in some other manner. They decided they could handle it by themselves, on their own, for less money and provide better services.
What are we told on Monday of this week? "You're the only district in the entire north that isn't getting your choice," the choice that the government promised. They were promised, if the people in Sudbury and district agreed. That was fine with them. There was a double majority, as there should be. But this government decided, for whatever reason, that local people didn't know what they were talking about, that local people couldn't provide local services, that local people didn't care about their own communities. I've got news for you. I would trust the local people to make their own mistakes before I'd trust you guys to do the right thing.
You sit over there in smugness. I've heard these speeches coming from the government side. It sounds like we're a colony. I think that may be how we're being treated these days. We didn't want service boards. Nobody wanted services boards. They only wanted services boards because they had to find a way to deliver your downloaded costs.
Interjection.
Mr Michael Brown: Someone says they volunteered. No, I didn't see anybody running around in 1995 saying: "Give us these services. We want to run them." You guys said this.
But on other matters you've decided, strangely, other things. You've decided that in the public school board, we amalgamate with Sudbury. However, part of the constituency for the separate board amalgamates with Sault Ste Marie. We're having very interesting times in our communities trying to sort out school governance at this time, as we are all across northern Ontario among the four boards that are often trying to provide service in some areas.
This is incredible. This is a mess. At the moment, you're buying your way out by throwing a bunch more money into various programs just to make sure that the property taxes don't go right through the ceiling. But when the so-called transition grants evaporate, I tell you, you'd better hold on to your wallet. My constituents know what this is about. It's about big government, autocratic government, shoving it down their throats.
I don't see any willingness in my constituency to envelop this new, efficient, streamlined model. They're doing it because they have to. It's kind of the best of a bunch of bad alternatives, but it isn't what they wanted. It would have been far better to be paying the full school tax like they did before, if you do the math. That would have been better for them. Let the guy from Northumberland run all these other things. They were quite happy with that. But this bill and what it provides to our people and the services that they will get is a distant, autocratic government that does not echo the concerns of the local people in Espanola or Killarney.
The Acting Speaker: It is now 6 o'clock. This House is adjourned until 6:30.
The House adjourned at 1800.
Evening meeting reported in volume B.