Journal des débats 1998-juin-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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 Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Chudleigh): This is a time-allocated bill and I'm now required to put the question.

Mr Wilson has asked for second reading of Bill 35. Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill carry?

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

I believe the ayes have it.

Would you call in the members please; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1830 to 1835.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Brown, Michael A.

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Castrilli, Annamarie

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cunningham, Dianne

Doyle, Ed

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Phillips, Gerry

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and be recognized.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Christopherson, David

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 60; the nays are 10.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the bill carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 24, the bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on resources development.

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.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Chudleigh): Debate? The member for Algoma-Manitoulin has the floor and he doesn't wish it. Further debate?

Mr Hodgson has moved second reading of Bill 12. Is it the pleasure of the House this motion carry?

All those in favour, signify by saying "aye."

All those opposed, by "nay."

I believe the ayes have it.

The motion is carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I would like to refer this to the general government committee.

The Acting Speaker: To the general government committee? Agreed? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (COMMUNITY SAFETY ZONES), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ZONES DE SÉCURITÉ COMMUNAUTAIRES

Mr Flaherty moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 26, An Act to promote public safety through the creation of community safety zones / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à favoriser la sécurité publique par la création de zones de sécurité communautaires.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I rise today to ask the honourable members to pass Bill 26, An Act to promote public safety through the creation of community safety zones. My remarks will be brief, and the remarks on this side of the House with respect to this debate on second reading will be brief because I am hopeful and optimistic that we will have a cooperative effort by both opposition parties so that this legislation can pass and we can have the community safety zones in place by the school year commencing in September.

The bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act to enable municipalities to establish community safety zones and to double the fines for committing certain offences within those zones. The safety of our communities, and particularly of our children, is of paramount importance to the government of Ontario. In fact, the Mike Harris government has demonstrated our commitment to personal and community safety on many occasions and the bill we are now considering is one more example of that commitment in action.

For example, this government passed the Community Safety Act in response to recommendations of the coroner's inquest into the murder of a young person who was killed by a convicted pedophile. Christopher's law, as we call it, allows the police to release the names of dangerous offenders to the public and it closes the loophole that had helped lawbreakers to hide their criminal histories simply by changing their names.

This government has invested $30 million in science and technology, such as DNA testing, to better fight crime, especially serial predators. This government has invested $150 million to add up to 1,000 new police officers to the front lines in our communities, to hire 115 OPP cadets to deal with paperwork so that fully trained police officers can get back to front-line duties of patrolling our roads and highways.

This government has invested to fight biker gangs involved in crime and to target break-and-enters and reduce crime in the rural areas of our province. These are just a few of the initiatives we believe in that we've put into action to protect people's safety in Ontario.

Now in this bill, Bill 26, we want to extend extra protection to areas such as school zones and crossings, school bus stops, day care centres and children's parks. These proposed amendments to the Highway Traffic Act would give municipalities the power to establish special community safety zones particularly around schools, where fines for many driving infractions would be doubled.

We have heard from people on the front lines - crossing guards, police and municipal officials - that something must be done. In fact, a crossing guard in Windsor is quoted in the Windsor Star as saying: "I think it's a fantastic idea. They definitely need to do something. We're trying to keep our kids safe, but these drivers have to slow down." The same crossing guard goes on to say: "They're supposed to wait until we're back on the sidewalk but they never do. It's not just speeding, it's rolling stops and people not paying attention."

Let's face it, why should a person be speeding past a school yard, endangering the safety of all our children? We should be cracking down on drivers who fail to stop at a stop sign, fail to obey a school crossing sign or won't yield to a person in a wheelchair. That's what this bill would do. What we have on our streets and highways now are too many irresponsible drivers who just are not getting the message that unsafe and aggressive driving is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. I believe this new initiative, which is the first of its kind in Canada, will help to drive that message home.

At the same time, we recognize the need to have prominent road signs to let drivers know when they are entering and leaving these special zones. Under this bill the province would not specify how a municipality will determine exact locations of the community safety zones. Municipal councils will be encouraged to draw on the knowledge and expertise of their local police service, the school board, parents and other interested groups as they make decisions with respect to establishing community safety zones. The responsibility for identifying and designating community safety zones will rest with the participating municipal councils, which have the authority to pass bylaws and initiate measures related to ensuring the health and safety of residents.

The community safety zones initiative will provide municipalities with another tool to help make our communities safer, especially for children. The amendments would also allow this government to designate parts of the King's highways as community safety zones.

This measure, following as it does the $150-million commitment to community safety initiatives announced in this year's Ontario budget, shows that this government is serious about protecting the people of Ontario.

I urge all members of this Legislative Assembly to support the speedy passage of this bill to establish community safety zones to help protect our communities, especially our children.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Chudleigh): Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Just speaking to Bill 26, the bill itself has I think some good intentions. We all believe in ensuring that areas near schools are enhanced with safety provisions. That's something that has been a traditional challenge for local schools, local councillors and school and family groups.

As you know, it's becoming even more of a problem lately. At one time a lot of children walked to school, but it's becoming more and more the trend to drop children off at school. In the areas of schools there's even an enhanced awareness about safety issues and the interchange between automobiles and children and so forth; there has to be an unequivocal, heightened safety awareness around schools. That type of attention is something you get support for all over the province, and the safety zones I think are a good first step.

There are some real gaps in this bill, though, in that many schools are also near major intersections. I can tell you intersection after intersection where there would be a high school and an elementary school clustered near an intersection. One of the biggest concerns I have about this bill is that there is no recognition that people all across this province are asking for this government to do something about what is happening at our intersections.

There is an epidemic of red light running where the public is no longer cognizant of or doesn't seem to want to pay any attention to lights. I think it is something the public wants and needs. The public is concerned. As their children cross the street, they're afraid now, and they are saying: "What will the government do? Why won't the government give our municipalities the right to install safety red light cameras that can catch and deter red light runners who are blatantly ignoring lights?"

1850

Children are being endangered daily at intersections as they go to and from school - some of them are even walking their bicycles etc - because there's a rampant disregard for basic red lights. This is happening all over the province in big and small cities. Why that kind of safety initiative wasn't included in this bill is beyond me.

If you talk about danger to children, there are 55,000 collisions a year at intersections in this province. Many of those collisions occur because of the disregard for a basic signal. A police officer said to me, "The most dangerous thing we probably have now is a fresh green light, because an ordinary person anticipates that he or she can go on the green, but you can't take that for granted any more." You have to stop and look both ways and hope to God that someone isn't coming the other way, because people are not respecting basic lights. You can have the safety zones. The problem is that you don't have any control over this bedlam that's happening at our intersections. It is so rampant that people are saying that even when they come to a stop at a red light, they're getting beeped at by people from behind because someone had the audacity to stop at a red light. People are being passed on the red light. They stop on the red and they are being passed left and right because they stopped at a red light.

That's what should be included in this bill. If this government and the minister were serious about doing something about the safety of children especially, they would allow municipalities - the minister talked about something the municipalities want. There are municipalities like Mississauga, Toronto, Ottawa, London and Sudbury that are begging this government for the right to install these cameras and try them to see if they can deter this rampant red light running. The government has sat on its hands for the last couple of years, stalling, deferring, making excuses for why they will not allow the municipalities to install these cameras which will catch the red light runners and issue them a ticket.

They are now running these red lights without any kind of hesitation because they know there are not enough police officers to be at the corners. There have been massive cuts in police budgets across this province. The money they have put back in isn't enough to fill the gaps for the people who have retired. In Toronto alone there are about 1,800 intersections with signals. They can't afford to have police officers at these 1,800 intersections because police officers are also running around on other kinds of calls. They're doing all kinds of work in break-and-enters, in drug prevention, in domestic violence. The police can't be at these intersections. The cameras help the police do their job better, and these cameras work.

They have been in Australia since 1983, in Brisbane, in Sydney, in Melbourne. They have worked, they have saved lives because they act as deterrents. If the policeman isn't there, the camera will take a picture of your car licence plate and issue you a ticket. If this safety zone was really a safety zone, it would include these intersections. You could at least try the cameras at intersections that are near schools.

If they're really interested in what's happening at schools and safety of children, look at what's happening on the main streets of our cities and towns. People are driving more aggressively. They're driving with an almost total disregard for basic courtesy or the basic laws of the road. How bad is it getting? This is a government that claims to be a law-and-order government. It is basically looking the other way as people are breaking the law every minute running red lights in this province. They have done nothing to stop that, and this bill does nothing when it could have done something to prevent this rampant epidemic of red light running which is occurring in all our communities. That is what children and their parents and their grandparents are asking for. They keep saying: "What is it with Mike Harris and the Tories that they won't put in something that's going to stop accidents? What is wrong with them? Why won't they try these cameras?"

They work in London, England. I had the pleasure last week of speaking to the Honourable Lord Jeffrey Archer, who is a former Conservative member of Thatcher's government and a famous author. He even autographed his latest book, The Eleventh Commandment. He's a very intelligent, astute individual. I asked Lord Jeffrey Archer: "Lord, what do you think of these Tories here in Ontario? They won't support the installation of safety cameras at these intersections." He couldn't believe it. He said in London they use them and they work. He's going to be running for mayor of greater London in the year 2000. He said that he is advocating the increased use of cameras to make London's roads safer. Here we have a Thatcherite like Lord Jeffrey Archer who advised Major and Maggie Thatcher, who is an astute individual, has been all over the world, and says, "What's wrong with you people in Ontario that you won't use this basic safety device?" Lord Jeffrey Archer, an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, couldn't believe that in Ontario this government is blocking a safety device like this camera. It's got nothing to do with politics, he said; it's got to do with safety.

He said, "What rationale does the government in power here give for blocking these cameras?" I told him the first excuse was about privacy, "Oh, we don't want to interfere with people's privacy." That argument doesn't hold water. In the safety zones we're interested primarily in protecting the lives of children, pedestrians and motorists, so when it comes to privacy, you can have privacy but you also have responsibility. We have cameras. If you go shopping in the shopping malls now, they have cameras; if you go to the bank machine, they have cameras. I think we have cameras in here. Anywhere you go in this legislative precinct, there are cameras. Yet the Tories say, "We don't want cameras in the streets to protect people from being killed." Put the cameras at the intersections, because in this case, if someone is breaking the law, running a red light, injuring people, they should be subject to penalties under the law. That was one excuse this government used, "It's about privacy."

Then they used another excuse. They said: "This thing is a cash grab. You put the cameras in and they'll collect all this money." It so happens this government also uses camera technology to grab cash on the 407. It grabs hundreds of thousands of dollars a day on the 407, because on the 407, if you don't have a transponder, they take a picture of your licence plate and you get a bill in the mail. So here's a government that says, "Oh no, we don't believe in this camera technology because it's a cash grab," but as we stand here talking, they are using this camera technology on the 407, grabbing money from people who use the highway. Why then not use this camera technology to help save lives and stop these ridiculous epidemics of red light running that are happening all over our province at these intersections?

The cost of this: Safety saves money. It's not only good in terms of protecting your little ones or the general population; it saves money because you don't have to have those hospital bills, God forbid, you don't have to have all the insurance and go to those garages, and the tow truck. The average accident at an intersection where a car runs a red light costs you about $15,000 to $20,000. We can avoid a lot of those accidents if people drive more carefully. Right now they don't care because there's nobody at the intersections to catch them. They know there aren't enough policemen there, so they run them at will. All over this province, as we stand here, there's somebody running a red light - in London or Sarnia or Markham. They're running red lights as we speak and this government refuses to act. It refuses to do its job to protect public safety. When the minister announced he was going to come up with a safety bill to do with safety zones, I thought, here we go, they've finally come to their senses and are going to do something proactive for safety.

1900

What do they do? They take one small step and they refuse to do what everybody's been asking for for the last two or three years: municipality after municipality, the councillors, the police chiefs, like Boothby here in Toronto, and Fantino, who was in London and is now moving to York region. The police chiefs are saying: "Let us use this equipment. We can't hire enough police officers to protect these intersections and to protect the kids and the seniors."

If you ask seniors all over this province, they tell you they're intimidated. They're afraid to go out and shop in busy areas. They've said they don't know what's going to happen if they cross the street because they can't walk that fast. They're caught. They say: "If I go to that intersection, what's going to happen? Cars are not stopping for me, red light, green light or whatever. They're not stopping. Cars are intimidating me."

What's happening is that as this thing continues to grow, it becomes a pattern, it becomes a norm, and it gets worse and worse and worse. That's what's been happening. Ten, 15, 20 years ago people in cities used to actually stop at the amber lights, at the orange lights; they used to slow down and stop at those. Now it's gotten to the point where the amber light just means. "Put your foot on the accelerator and go." You know what someone said to me the other day? At red lights now they beep and go through. They beep their horn and race through on the red light. This is what we're getting to.

It's not to say that this is just them. We all get caught up in this, because it rubs off. It becomes part of what they call road rage, where people are getting more nervous, more anxious, more hostile in their automobiles. We all can suffer that form of road rage because it is something that grows, and it grows to the point where it becomes an epidemic. That's what we're facing here in this province right now.

The province, with its legislative powers, has the ability to do something about it. That's what's so maddening. They say it costs too much to do. Well, let the red light runners pay for the camera technology. Let them pay for it through their fines. If they get a couple of fines in the mail, they'll think twice or hopefully not do it again. But these people just know they don't get caught. There's nobody there who's going to catch them.

I got a letter from a lady yesterday. She got hit at an intersection in the east end of Toronto. Her car was totalled. The police officer showed up and she said to the police officer, "This guy ran the red light and hit me." The police officer said: "Sorry, I wasn't here to witness it. There are no witnesses. Sorry, ma'am. I know your car is totalled. He could have run the red light. Too bad." So here's a woman who was visiting from another city, rammed, T-boned at the intersection, car totalled, and the cop could not even give out a ticket - no witnesses: "Just your word, ma'am, against his." The car was written off and she had to go to the hospital and not even a lousy ticket, because there's nobody there to catch this guy running the red light.

It's not to say that everybody who disobeys safety zones or runs red lights is a criminal, but what happens is that when you get into a traffic jam, into congestion - we have wall-to-wall congestion all the way from Windsor to Whitby - we all lose it sometimes. We all make mistakes on the road. We all drive too fast. We all do it. So why can't we all just slow down? That's what these cameras will help us do: to slow down and realize that this road rage gets you nowhere.

Speeding through a school zone, passing a school bus - the member for Essex South was saying the other day that there are cars that pass school buses on both sides when they stop. This is going on because they're in a mad hurry. Whether it's on a small country road or in the city, people are in this manic mission to get - I don't know where they're going, but they're always going somewhere important.

I would also like to say that these cameras can be used perhaps near school zones. Some of the school zones are more dangerous in your neighbourhood or in your riding than other areas. There's always that one school where there are more accidents than others. It could be as a result of the configuration of the road, the fact that the road is a through-road, a variety of reasons. But some of these school zones could possibly use a camera. I'm not saying that is going to solve the problem, but that's the type of thing we should be looking at.

Look at technology to help the police so the people will know someone's going to catch them; that if you do break the law and race through a school zone, pass a school bus, you're going to get caught. You can't do it with impunity. Right now people are saying: "I'm not going to get caught. I can do what I want because my car can do 100 kms" or whatever. They can do it without anybody ever catching them.

We have a growing problem with this. This is not a problem that is diminishing. It's not as if there's a solution out there. Sure, we can have more police officers; we'd love to have more police officers. We'd love to have more education about driving. We'd like to do all kinds of things, but none of those things is working. No one has put a stop to this total disregard for school zones, for stop signs, for running lights at intersections. Nothing has slowed this road rage down in this province.

I thought the minister would understand that an integral part of this Bill 26 could have been the installation, and the listening to municipalities, who have said, "Listen, we would like to try these cameras, not at every intersection, just at the high-collision intersections." Every city, every town has one of these intersections where over the years there's been a pattern of accidents, collisions that occur at these intersections. We all see them. We sometimes have to go through them on a regular basis.

By the way, the Ontario Conference of Traffic Engineers supports traffic calming devices like red light cameras; the engineers, the professionals, people like Les Kellman at the city of Toronto, Doug Floyd, who just retired yesterday, the transportation commissioner. They have asked for these for years. The experts say, "We go to traffic conferences all over the world," and they say, "Why won't you try those in Toronto?"

They're working in Scottsdale, Arizona. The US Secretary of Transportation, Mr Slater, at the end of April announced an expanded program. This is the United States, the land of the Wild West, where you can carry a gun and a six-pack and do whatever you want. In the United States, Mr Slater said he thinks the red light camera program is working so well in cities like New York City, San Francisco and Arizona that he wants to expand the safety program all across the United States. This is the US transportation secretary.

As you know, in the United States they're very cognizant of their privacy laws etc. But here they're saying that they're sick and tired of seeing these horrific accidents at intersections. The US transportation secretary is now going with this program to 200 cities. They're going to put a program in place to put a stop to red light running, to running lights and endangering life and limb. That's how serious it has gotten there, that even the national government is helping the municipal government.

Here, this provincial government - the mayor of Mississauga has pleaded with them. The good mayor of Toronto has pleaded with them. The mayor of London, the mayor of Sudbury, all these mayors have come to Queen's Park saying, "Give us the ability to stop this reckless driving on our roads," and over and over again this government refuses to listen to mayors who are dealing daily with these accidents.

1910

We had the Toronto Police Force out here at Wellesley and Bay with their camera about a month ago. They were here for about a six- to eight-hour period. They were catching one red light runner after another just around the corner from this building, running red lights at Wellesley and Bay. I hope it wasn't any of the limo drivers for the ministers, but they were running red lights right around the corner from here, about 50 metres from here - Bay and Wellesley, rampant red light running. The police couldn't believe it. They said, "These people, in broad daylight, right next to Queen's Park, no respect, are running red lights with impunity," right under our noses. What has to be done? The police chiefs, citizens' groups, safety groups, the traffic experts, the engineers are saying: "Try the technology. Try it. It saves lives in New York City, in London, England, in Virginia. It works there." You can make it so that this technology can be part of a comprehensive program.

This Bill 26, which is an attempt to deal with the concerns about children, doesn't go where it should go. The most pressing safety problem right now in this province is the disobeying of and disregard for basic traffic signals. That's the most serious traffic problem in this province as we speak. That's why it's incredible that this government, knowing that - there was an Environics poll that showed that 80% of motorists wanted these cameras. The motorists themselves are saying, "Give us the cameras." Even the polls are saying: "Try the cameras. Help us avoid these accidents. Slow things down so we don't have to play Russian roulette at every intersection in this province." But this government keeps on saying, time and time again, "We've got to look at more studies, we've got to look at the privacy issue, we've got to look at the technology."

The technology has been in use in Australia since the early 1980s. They use it effectively. When you put the cameras in, when you put these safety devices in, it almost automatically reduces the rate of red light running by 30%. Who in their right mind would not want to do that? That's what I can't understand. If you've got all this rampant red light running and you know that cameras in Australia and London reduced the red light running by 30%, one third, as soon as you put them in, why wouldn't you do it? How could you rationalize that? How could you tell someone who has been in an accident, "Well, we didn't put in the cameras because" - what? What is the explanation? We have not got an explanation from this government about why they've sat on their hands for the last three years refusing to move on this epidemic of red light running occurring all over this province.

Children tend to be carefree. I've got four kids of my own. I can remember that I got into an argument with a driver who almost ran over - came near to a collision with my daughter, who was walking across the street. The driver started yelling at my daughter, "Why don't you look where you're going?" She was about three or four at the time. The driver had the audacity to get out of the car and yell at my three-year-old daughter, "Why don't you watch where you're going?" Mr Speaker, you have kids of your own. You know that kids don't always look where they're going. Kids are going to be kids.

Interjection.

Mr Colle: Grandchildren? Children are going to be children. If the Speaker has six grandchildren, he knows exactly that: We cannot expect our children to always be cognizant of where they are. They may be chasing a ball, they may be going across for a friend. Therefore, we as adults and lawmakers have to protect these kids. When I see a driver blaming it on a kid - and they do it. As you know, when you get into an intersection, sometimes the driver who's at fault will yell at you, sometimes if you stop when you should stop, they'll say, "Why don't you keep going?"

That's why government has an important role to play. It has a critical role to play especially when it comes to children and seniors and traffic. Right now, nothing is being done to meet a demand that's out there, and it's a growing demand. At one time it was quite the norm to have one car per family. We're no longer one or two cars per family. It's not unusual in the 905 and 516 area, up Killaloe way north, sometimes for every adult member of the family to have one car. You have to, to get around. It's no longer one or two cars per family; you've got four or five cars per family. It's not unusual. There are a lot more cars on the road. The more people you put into a tight space, the more problems there are. It's not a fault of the people themselves, because you do have more cars on the road, you have more congestion, and this congestion is going to increase.

If you look at what's happening just north of Toronto, Highway 407 has just been built. Highway 401 is like a parking lot. The Don Valley is a parking lot. You try to get to Niagara Falls, it's a parking lot. We've got moving parking lots everywhere. This congestion, this angst on the roads is going to continue. It is not going to go away. There is no magic solution. But I do say there are technological things that can help us, and one of the things that helps us is using technology that has worked in other jurisdictions. As I said, there are so many clear examples of it that if you use a technology at intersections that slows people down, it makes them think twice before they break the law. We can avoid a lot of serious accidents if we use these cameras at these intersections.

In Toronto there are 40 very bad intersections. Out of the 1,800 signalized intersections in the city of Toronto, there are 40 really bad ones. The city of Toronto has their plan ready. They want to put these cameras at those 40 intersections. This government won't let them do it, because they need the permission of the government to issue tickets and collect the fines. They need a change in the Highway Traffic Act and this government is saying no. Yet they have the power and they are passing laws, changing laws, amending laws daily. All they have to do is amend the Highway Traffic Act to enable the municipalities to issue these tickets and these fines for people who break the law.

What is the government saying? Is it okay to run red lights? I don't understand what their position is, why they won't do it, because it's the municipality that will do it, at no cost to the province. The cost saving is in fewer accidents, lower insurance rates and the fact that you don't have to worry every time you cross the street or every time one of your children or grandchildren or your grandmother goes out to shop that they are going to be safe as they go across that intersection. Right now, I tell people: "When that light turns green, be careful. Don't just go when you see the green."

I see the member for Dovercourt there. He knows. We share a corner which we both live near, at St Clair and Dufferin, where we had a horrific accident two years ago. A red light runner ran through a red light, went up to the streetcar island, hit nine people waiting for a streetcar, unfortunately killing one and injuring a little boy badly - nine people hit by this red light runner. At that corner of St Clair and Dufferin, every minute there's somebody almost running the red, turning illegally. They do it rampantly.

The police and the local councillors have said, "Let us try the red light camera at St Clair and Dufferin." They tried putting up a sign that says, "High-collision intersection: Be careful." One day a car ran into the pole holding the sign so the sign is gone, the high-collision sign is down. They having nothing there to protect them. The police have said, "Put the camera here," but this government says no. They won't listen to the police.

1920

By the way, that driver who ran the red light and killed a person and injured nine others eventually went to court and the judge fined her $305. Killing a person, injuring nine people, she got a $305 fine and is gone, scot-free. The only reason she got caught is that her car got jammed up on the pole on the streetcar island. But these red light runners now are thinking nobody's going to give them tickets; there aren't the police on the corners.

In safety we have to be smarter. We're in a digital world now. We've got digital cameras. We've got digital everything. Why can't we use this digital technology to take pictures of these red light runners? Use this smart technology to find these people and stop them, because maybe if they get that ticket they won't do it the second time; they'll know.

But this government has got its head buried in the sand, full of excuses, full of stalling, refusing to move. I don't think it's all the members of the Conservative caucus. There are a lot of them who support the red light camera initiative. I know the police commissioner is in favour of it. Even the crime commissioner knows in Scarborough they would like to have these cameras. I don't know whether it's the whiz kids or whoever. They don't want this to go ahead. I had members on the other side support it, so it's not your average MPP who's against trying this technology. Someone has got this brainwave that this camera technology is not good politically; or for whatever reason they're not doing it.

If the acting Solicitor General really wanted to do something about safety - because starting today, as you know, children are going to be out of school. They're going to be in the local playgrounds, on the main streets. They're going to be all over the place. It's too bad that as part of this Bill 26 we couldn't have had the installation of red light cameras at the most dangerous intersections where they're needed. That would have been a very fitting thing to do the day school gets out, to make these killer intersections safer.

As I said, you don't have to do it at every one. Do it at whatever you have, the two or three most dangerous, and let them work. They do work. They reduce accidents. They slow people down. They make us all think before we rush through orange lights. We all have to do that. We're all guilty. I'm as guilty as anybody. I see the orange and I think, "Maybe I'd better go." Now I'm beginning to think, "Let's be careful." That's what the camera does. It makes us all think a bit. I don't want to get out of the habit of seeing that orange and you've got to slow down. I think we can all do it with the help of this technology.

I had hoped that the minister would have included this in this bill. It would have been an ideal thing to do, and I hope we do it before school gets back. I hope we do it, because in government you just can't say that you're doing the right thing if you know something is going on which is hurting people and you tolerate it, because that's what the government is doing, tolerating this disregard for public safety by people who are risking their own lives, their own health and the health of innocent pedestrians, cyclists. Everybody's at risk.

We should not tolerate it, and I hope we get that kind of legislation through before this thing continues to hurt people. We don't need these useless things to happen when we can do something about it. They are something that has no value. Running a red light has no value added. It's nothing but a negative. If we really want a true safety zone, let's put the camera technology into at least the dangerous intersections. As I said, most of the dangerous intersections have a school nearby: a high school, an elementary school or a day care. Why not do the right thing? What is most upsetting about this initiative is that it's missing one big part of a safety program, and that is the installation of these safety cameras which can deter people from running blatant red lights.

I'm not talking about people that get caught on the turns, on an orange light in an intersection. This would just fine people that run red on red. The cameras don't come on until the light turns red, so we're not talking about people who get caught in those turns. We're talking about blatant red on red. It's not people that are caught by accident trying to make that turn and get caught up in a configuration intersection. It's blatant red on red running that should be stopped.

I would like to now pass it over to my colleague from Downsview, who has a lot of safety concerns in her area also.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I want to commend, first of all, the member for Oakwood for his very eloquent dissertation on this legislation and his concerns about safety in general in our community.

Bill 26 is a good bill in principle. I think it goes without saying that we, as parents of children, as children of parents, as grandchildren of grandparents, are concerned about the safety of the members of our community, regardless of who they are. Any measure that can increase their safety is one that all of us should be supporting.

But I just want to say at the outset, it's hard to imagine why we would stop short of addressing some of the issues that my colleague from Oakwood has mentioned, and others that have been put before the House, if we truly care about community safety. I think it's obvious what the bill does. It gives municipalities the power to be able to enact special zones, community safety zones, to ensure the safety of children and others in areas that are a problem for safety.

The by-law that is enacted by the city must be very clear. It must specify the hours, the days and the months that the zone is in effect. The zone has to be clearly marked with signs. The effect of that would be that anyone caught violating in those areas would be fined twice as much, and the hope would be that that would be a deterrent. The minimum fines for all driving infractions would be doubled.

I want to take just a little bit of time to talk about some of the concerns around this legislation, good as it is in principle, and focus on some of the things that other have said, not just people in this House, but people who have experience on the outside and who have some very important things to say.

The first I want to quote is the Canada Safety Council. Émile Thérien, who is the president of the Canada Safety Council, heads a non-profit organization whose main focus is traffic safety. Mr Thérien agrees that the plan has merit but worries that officials will need to spend a lot of time researching which areas will be designated as safety zones. In addition, he worries that you've got to look at the enforcement mechanism. It's no good to have laws that look very good on paper; you also have to make sure that they are practical, that they can be enforced, that there's the manpower to enforce it.

Specifically, we're talking about policing. Will there be the manpower to ensure that the violators in these zones will be ticketed or apprehended and therefore caused to pay? That's a refrain that seems to go through the community in general with respect to this issue. We're accustomed in this Legislature to pieces of legislation that are sometimes no more than a public relations exercise. They look very good, they say all the right things, but ultimately cannot be enforced and are not worth the paper they're written on. That's what we hope will not happen to Bill 26.

This is also repeated by parents, and I refer to a particular parent who is quoted in the Globe and Mail, who is delighted with the initiative but who goes on to express that she is concerned that there won't be enough police available to enforce new zones. We know there have been tremendous cuts in the police budgets and in the Solicitor General's budget, so this is a very real concern that this government has to take into account. We hope, therefore, that part of the announcements that will come with respect to Bill 26 will include some realistic measure for making sure that Bill 26 can be enforced.

1930

That takes me to the Toronto Police Association. These are the people who have to enforce the legislation that we pass here in the House, and they are the people on the ground who know best what some of the perils are. I want to quote the Toronto Police Association's vice-president, Jack Ritchie, who on looking at this legislation said quite clearly: "Strengthening the laws so they are obeyed is always a good idea. But without a commitment by the police services board and the municipalities to hire the necessary police officers to enforce these laws, all of this is for nothing." That's really the fear, that all of this may be for nothing. We will have a wonderful new law on the books but nobody around to make sure that its terms are obeyed and that offenders are made to pay and deterred from offending again.

I would also like to raise the question of why we would open up such a large piece of legislation as the Highway Traffic Act to deal with a narrow little measure of public safety such as the one that is being advanced here in Bill 26, when we know that there are legitimate concerns that have been expressed in this House about public safety and when we know that there have been very concrete measures put before this House with respect to public safety and what can be done to achieve it. I need to refer no further than to the proposal that my colleague the member for Oakwood has put before the House. There is no question that in our neighbourhoods there are very serious intersections where people are at risk. I, for one, come from the area of Downsview, where we have three such intersections where people have been killed, where quite frankly it's dangerous to drive through, and people do it at breakneck speed, in a hurry to get from one place to another. One wonders, when you have such a sensible measure as was proposed by the member for Oakwood, to install red light cameras to detect who is running these red lights and apprehending that individual, why you would choose not to take that measure.

We had a discussion on that legislation brought forward in this House by the member for Oakwood. It was referred to committee, and the committee refused to study the matter further. That's very serious. It's part of the public relations exercise I was talking about before. We pretend we're interested in community safety and then, when we have an opportunity to do something concrete, to do something that will actually save lives, we shy away from it.

This is not a controversial measure for anybody at all who has looked at it. Municipalities are in favour of it. Police have spoken about it. People have had demonstrations throughout the city on this very matter, yet the government persists in ignoring this very worthwhile amendment proposed by the member for Oakwood and chooses instead to open up the Highway Traffic Act to deal with one very tiny area.

I give you again the example of our colleague Mr Hoy from Essex-Kent. That member introduced, again, a very worthwhile piece of legislation that those individuals who did not stop for flashing lights whenever a school bus was stopped would also be fined and would be punished, again saving lives. That legislation was brought forward because of an experience that Mr Hoy had in his own constituency of a young boy who was killed precisely because people did not stop when the school bus stopped and when the lights flashed.

The government talks about wanting to create these community safety zones. You had an opportunity with the bill of the member for Oakwood to create additional community safety zones through the establishment of these red light camera areas. Each one of those areas would have been a community safety zone. You chose to ignore it. In the case of the member for Essex-Kent, there are 16,000 buses in Ontario that twice daily take children to and from school. You would be creating 16,000 community safety zones. You chose not to.

It really makes us wonder how serious you are about public safety. This is a good bill, assuming you can enforce it. It would be a far better bill if you could really take seriously the legitimate concerns that have been brought forward to this House by individuals who truly care about public safety, like the member for Oakwood and the member for Essex-Kent. I entreat the government to look again at this legislation and make sure that you really cover everything that is required to be covered and not just deal with these very serious issues in a piecemeal fashion and only for the purposes of public relations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Rosario Marchese): Questions and comments?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's a pleasure to rise to comment on the comments of the members opposite on Bill 26. With regard to the red lights, I believe that the government has already said it's willing to allow red light cameras if they can come up with technology that will identify the driver, number one, and satisfy the Information and Privacy Commissioner's concerns, number two. I don't think that's asking too much. We really believe in what the privacy commissioner has to say. I don't think the government is asking too much, so I don't think red light cameras are too far down the line.

I take community safety very seriously and that's why I support Bill 26. My daughter Aynsley is 20 months old and in fact made me this tie for Father's Day recently, which I'm very proud to be wearing tonight.

Applause.

Mr Maves: Thank you very much. Ainsley has a lot of friends in the neighbourhood - the Smith girls, Victoria and Jessica, Alex Rotundo and young Brody McCabe, the Luciano girls around the corner, whose father is one of our very brave police officers in the Niagara region, the Schwartz kids next door, Alissa and young Zachary. We care very much about community safety and I think it's very important, as parents, that we teach safety to our kids, teach them things that we learned when we were young about looking both ways before crossing the road and a variety of other lessons that kids need to know from their parents in order to stay safe on our streets. I think those are vital things.

The government has done some other things in introducing this bill which will increase fines in community safety zones. It is very important to community safety and I think it will go a long way. We also have enhanced community safety with the addition of 1,000 new police officers through the community policing partnership. It's a five-year, $150-million commitment in which the government will match funds for up to 50% of officers' salaries. These are very important steps for community safety. I'm proud that this government has put forward Bill 26 and I will vote for it tonight.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to comment on the remarks made by my colleagues, and in so doing, indicate my support for the bill. I think that the members for Oakwood and Downsview have made plain the views of this caucus in terms of additional measures that the government might take; in fact, my colleague from Oakwood has some specific measures that he has been trying to advance that I think certainly should be advanced by government more speedily than appears to be the case.

I spend a great deal of my life on the highways of Ontario, and I must say, over the last number of years I have been struck by just the growing want of civility both in urban environments and on the thoroughfares of the province. It is truly a sad comment on the lack of good manners, tolerance and courtesy. It's not just on the highways. The American press is reporting about what are now called air rage. The behaviour of, in the main, middle-class folks as they travel the skies of the United States is absolutely appalling. We have developed a society now where tolerance and mutual respect are apparently not values that are held in very high esteem. Certainly the members for Downsview and Oakwood have underscored the importance of ensuring that we have the best possible enforcement and penalties in areas like school zones and hospital areas.

But I want to say particularly to the neo-conservative right that if you think that penalties and such measures at the concluding end of this process are going to solve the problem, I tell you I think you're going to be disappointed. Something more troublesome and something more basic appears to be happening, and that is a very serious measurable decline in civility, tolerance and mutual respect, not just on the highways but apparently in the airways as well.

1940

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Speaker, it's interesting to have to address you as Speaker. Usually I refer to you as my friend and colleague from Fort York.

Mr Conway: We call him Rosie.

Mr Silipo: We call him Rosie even, that's right. I don't call him Rosie, actually, but others do.

I just wanted to say a couple of things. First of all, I do agree with the member for Niagara Falls. He has a very interesting tie. It's actually a very nice tie.

Seriously, I just wanted to briefly commend both the member for Oakwood and the member for Downsview for their very good analysis of the bill and, more importantly, for the things they touched upon that go beyond what's in this bill and that I think strike closer to the heart of how we address issues of safety in our communities.

I, like I suspect everyone else in this House, will certainly support this piece of legislation, but I also want to say that it certainly falls short of what needs to be done to address the problems that exist out there, whether it's safety around our schools or safety in other parts of each of our communities.

The problem is a growing one, but what we see unfortunately in this piece of legislation, as in many other pieces of legislation coming from the Tory government, is the very kind of simplistic approach, picking up on the things that are very superficial and that seem to sort of strike at the heart of what the problem is, providing very simplistic solutions, I think, but yet trying to give the impression that they're fixing the problem. Fixing the problem here is much more complicated than this piece of legislation.

I will support this because it's a little bit of a step in the right direction and so it needs to be supported, but like my colleagues from Oakwood and Downsview, I also believe there are many other things, including the red light cameras, that should be looked at in a very serious way. I particularly commend the member for Oakwood for continuing to raise that issue. I think those and many other measures we need to be considering in a very serious way both here and through the municipal level of government.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions?

Mr Bob Wood (London South): The government appreciates the support of the two members who spoke for the bill. We also appreciate the suggestions that were made, and all of them will be carefully considered.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for the brief comments. Member for Oakwood, final two minutes.

Mr Colle: I want to certainly thank the member for London South and the member for Dovercourt, who is well aware of the reality of what happens when you don't have a government that listens to people in the area of safety. The member from Pembroke and the member for Downsview, thank you very much for your comments and input. I appreciate that. Also, the tie from Niagara Falls, I love that Niagara Falls tie.

I just want to say clearly again in terms of the government's excuses, the technology is there. The red light camera technology has been there since 1983. If you want to take the picture of the licence plate or the driver, the technology is there. So that excuse doesn't hold water for this government for delaying the red light cameras. The technology has worked for over a decade. It's there and it's getting better. It works. The city of Toronto, as I said, has 40 sites ready to go to implement the technology.

In terms of privacy, the privacy commissioner does not have a problem with this. This is the same government that uses the same type of licensing cameras as they do on the 407, and the privacy commissioner allowed that on the 407. So if he allows it on the 407, he's going to allow it here. The privacy commissioner is not the problem.

The problem is a government that has some very convoluted way of looking at a basic thing like safety. Here we have an opportunity to do something about a very real danger, where people are getting run over and killed, and this government makes excuses and stalls. It is a government that rams through all kinds of bills regularly, closure without any kind of hesitation. When it comes to a bill like the red light camera bill, which is a safety initiative, it has all the stalling and excuses you can ever find.

Let's stop the stalling and let's listen to people and do something about this red light running at these intersections.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to say right off the bat, who could be against community safety? It's like motherhood. We all want our communities to be safe for our children, for our elderly citizens, for anybody who uses them. Walking, riding bicycles, driving cars, we want safety. But therein lies the concern that I have with this bill, because it is so consistent with everything else that this government has brought forward.

We have a bill that speaks to some things that all of us respond to, like motherhood, but when you get into it and you begin to analyse it and read it and discover what's in it, it really isn't very much and really doesn't speak to or come anywhere close to rising to the expectation that we all have of a bill that would speak of community safety and caring for each other in that way.

This is so typical of this government: so many bills we've seen over the last three years that have come forward with names and titles that would lead you to believe that there was something good happening here for the people of Ontario, that there was something important that was going down that had depth to it, had breadth to it, had some very intelligent discussion attached to it that we all were part of putting together and talking to and we had our fingerprints all over it, and at the end of the day, because of the process that it was put through by way of this place and all of the traditions we've come to honour over the years, that it would be something that we could all say amen to, that we could all say yes to, this is what we want.

But alas, again we find something here that we'll probably all support because it's the only thing we're being given. What else is there? This is all they're bringing forward. This is what they're putting on the table. This is what they've served up. This is what we're confronted with.

At the end of the day, here we are, Thursday night, the last night of this session, perhaps even the last night of this government's reign of power in Ontario -

Interjection.

Mr Martin: We could all wish. Wishful thinking is still not against the law in Ontario. It will be soon, though; wishful thinking will be soon. It could happen that we might have an election in the fall of this year.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): It could happen.

Mr Martin: The member for High Park-Swansea is -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, avoid that debate.

Mr Martin: But, Speaker, he's -

The Acting Speaker: He's enticing you, I know.

Mr Martin: He's engaging me. I get so excited. We get up here; night after night we speak. Nobody's listening. Everybody's reading the paper, they're sleeping. Tonight the member for High Park-Swansea is engaged in the debate. I can see. We have eye contact. He's listening to what I have to say.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, always through the Chair.

Mr Martin: Always through the Chair.

Interjection: Give them a little bit of power and see what they do.

Mr Silipo: Did the member for Fort York say that?

Mr Martin: I was just wondering, do I genuflect as well before I speak?

Interjections.

Mr Martin: I'm glad because I tell you, Speaker, I was up my feet last night here in this place and there was conversation and talk and heckling going on all over the place, I could hardly think to get my speech out. This place was out of control. Tonight we have a good New Democrat speaker from Fort -

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): No, non-partisan.

Mr Martin: A non-partisan Speaker who knows his business and who's going to make sure that we do the right thing here.

Anyway, I was saying, before I was rudely interrupted - I'm sorry, I apologize. I didn't mean to be rude.

Mrs Boyd: Heckling the Speaker.

Mr Martin: Heckling the Speaker, yes. I know what happens around here when you heckle the Speaker.

I just wanted to say that this bill, like so many other bills, is a meagre offering. We have a problem out there; we all know that: safety, road rage, people driving too fast, going through red lights. A lot of things that are very troubling and disconcerting certainly concern all of us. We had some excellent speeches here tonight laying out some of the very real and personal experiences and concerns of some of the members of this place as we look at the challenge of people going through red lights and safety in communities.

I suggest to you that this is very narrow and I think ill conceived. I think it will prove to be rather ill conceived and I'll talk to that in a minute, to why I think that might be the case. It's another of these knee-jerk: "We have to do something. There's a political problem out there. People want this. Communities are calling for cameras at corners. We don't want to give them that because ideologically we're opposed to it, or we said in the election we were not into photo-radar."

It's to heck with intelligence and doing the right thing, responding to municipalities and communities and giving them what they say is a further answer to this problem than what we're being asked to support in this bill, which I suggest we'll probably all support at the end of the night, because it does go ever so slightly some distance to taking some action in this direction.

1950

When you look back at what we did as government, it was a step down a road to a more comprehensive and intelligent way, which didn't put the lives of people in danger by trying to chase people who were driving too fast. We talked about photo-radar and we put it in place. We found after a short period of time of having introduced photo-radar that it did slow people down, that it did lessen the number of accidents on major highways, particularly around Toronto.

It gave some level of comfort to some of the police officers who before used to have to get into the old car and chase down the road after these guys and sometimes get into accidents, and sometimes, because of the speed, cause other things to happen. We brought in photo-radar.

But this government, for politically expedient reasons, laid out in their Common Sense Revolution that they were going to withdraw that. I guess some of their friends found they couldn't travel as fast as they needed to get from meeting to meeting to make more money - I suppose; I'm not sure. They were incensed and angry about this. It became one of those hot-button issues, one of those red flags that people responded to in the last election in a major and serious way.

The government went ahead and said, "We're not going to do that." One of the first things they did, right after they took 21.6% out of the income of the very poorest of our citizens in every community across this province - what a shameful and immoral act to have done - was they took out photo-radar.

The money they were making on photo-radar - we were accused of putting in a cash grab. Anybody who had any interest, who spent any time at all analysing that piece of legislation, knew that's not what it was about. It was about slowing down traffic. It was about giving police officers another vehicle to use so that they don't have to kill themselves and kill other people chasing speeding drivers. It was about safety on the highway, but it also generated a few dollars.

If they wanted to put one moral thing together with another moral thing, and they had a problem about how much money those who were poor had, who didn't have a job because we have an economy that constantly has as part of it anywhere from 7% to 12% unemployment - so we decide we're going to whack those people as well: "We're going to take photo-radar away for ideological, politically expedient reasons, and we're going to take 21.6% out of the income of poor people for ideological, politically expedient reasons. Then we'll start putting in some Band-Aid, makeshift things that will be" - hopefully, they think - "politically attractive out there."

People will say: "Wow, they are doing something. They're not just ignoring this." Municipalities raise a hue and cry and say, "This is what want." They say: "No, we can't do that. We can't go there." They know they have to do something so here we are. This is what's presented to us. No effort to try to analyse a little bit more. No attempt to back up and say, as the previous Solicitor General at one point said when he was being honest - sometimes I find in a moment of weakness, moment of strength in my view, people actually tell it like they feel it - that he thought photo-radar was good. He thought it was a good thing. He thought it was a mistake to have walked away from that. He was right.

Interestingly enough, we hear the Liberals tonight talking about cameras at corners. They voted against photo-radar. Some night I'd like to hear one of them get up and tell us why it is they felt photo-radar was not a good idea. I am genuinely interested in knowing why you did that.

Mr Conway: Make me the offer.

Mr Martin: Any time, Sean, any time you want to get up. You spoke the other night about how we need to listen to each other here and explain to each other why it is we do what we do and where we're going. I'm all ears. I want to know why it is, on the one hand, you would vote against photo-radar, and on the other hand, tonight be calling for these cameras on street corners so that we can catch people going through, and I think we should be. I agree with you there that we should be doing that.

But you spoke to another issue tonight that I want to speak to for a few minutes here, and that's the broader question of why it is that we find on our streets today, when travelling hither and to from work and going places, more and more angry people, more and more frustrated people, more and more people who are raging about things, at things, at people. Why is that environment out there? I think you raised a very legitimate and real point, something that eventually this government, if it lasts long enough, is going to have to answer to. We're going to have to have that discussion some day. I suggest to you it's all tied up in a whole lot of the other policies of this government - and they're all connected - that are creating real angst out there among people. People don't know any more much about their future. They don't know if they're going to have a job, and they know that if they have a job, it's not very secure.

A lot of people used to have jobs where they could plan a year or five or 10 years out. God, there were some people in this province at one time who used to be able to imagine retirement 20 or 25 years down the road from the same workplace, and work with their employer around pension and different things like that. That's less and less the case any more. We're moving into a market-driven economy that is interested in nothing but money and the bottom line, particularly for those who are most well off, and the rest of us, well, we just have to deal with it. So we get angry, we get frustrated, we get anxious, and it starts to show itself.

I spoke on other nights in this place about other pieces of legislation, and I spoke about a disease, an uneasiness that is beginning to happen in communities. In my own community of Sault Ste Marie we have 20% unemployment right now. You don't think there are a lot of people driving around Sault Ste Marie a little preoccupied, a lot of people driving around Sault Ste Marie wondering where they're going to go next, wondering, even if they have a job, if their job is next?

I have been talking to the Solicitor General for the last couple of weeks about the Northern Treatment Centre in Sault Ste Marie. Who would ever have thought that would be under attack, the only treatment centre in the province, in northern Ontario, with a native component to it for that community of people to get some assistance? All of a sudden, one day out of the blue we find out that the government is thinking of closing it down, just like they out of the blue decided one day, ideologically driven again, politically expedient - they said they were going to do this in the Common Sense Revolution - that they were going to close down the lottery corporation. Here's a corporation that was making profit hand over fist every year since its inception, including the years since it was moved to Sault Ste Marie, and those people were just thrown out.

Our community, because of that kind of thoughtless action, that decision-making by this government, finds itself now in a situation where we have 20% unemployment. Even the people who still have jobs aren't sure any more whether their job is going to be there a year or two years from now. So you have people out there who are anxious, who are angry, who are preoccupied, and they're booming through the red lights and they're booming through the stoplights, and they're not watching the little three- or four-year-old coming down the sidewalk chasing a ball who runs out on the road. They're not doing that, and that's why we have a problem.

I suggest to you, Speaker - are you still with me?

The Acting Speaker: I am with you all the time, member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: I suggest to you that there are issues at play here, as the member for Renfrew North referenced a few minutes ago, that are also part of this whole scenario that's unfolding. The answer we are being given here is that we create community safety zones where we raise the fines and charge people more who get caught and that is going to answer this. It's not. It's not even going to go a distance down that road to resolving this problem.

One very real practical consideration, for example, is how do you police it? If you're laying off police officers and at the same time putting into place legislation that's going to call for the monitoring of new community safety zones in communities, and you don't have enough police in place to take care of the laws that are already there and you add some new ones, how are you going to catch these people? Fine them a thousand bucks, fine them a million bucks. It doesn't matter. You can't collect. You can't charge them and you can't collect, so what's the point? I say that, although I don't want anybody to misunderstand here. I'm going to support this legislation, because as I said, it takes us just a slight distance down the road.

2000

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's motherhood.

Mr Martin: It's motherhood, yes. It's community safety zones. It's motherhood, exactly, and that's what this government is about. It's about feeding us Pablum. It's about keeping us satisfied just enough so that we think, "Oh, maybe they're not so bad, and they're doing this and they're doing that," not recognizing that at the core of this whole thing we're being hacked and chopped to death.

Mr Wildman: Whacked.

Mr Martin: Whacked, a familiar saying around this place.

Mr Silipo: It has a certain ring with the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: It's quite parliamentary. Continue, member for Sault Ste Marie. The word "whacked" is quite acceptable in this place.

Mr Martin: It's a good word, okay. It's parliamentary.

Is the member for High Park-Swansea still with us? Yes, he is. He is listening here, yes.

Mr Shea: Yes. I won't leave you for a minute.

Mr Martin: He wouldn't leave me for a minute.

Mr Shea: I'm all over you like a fly.

Mr Martin: Okay, you're listening.

Interjection: Here comes trouble.

Mr Martin: Oh, God, we had it good in here, didn't we? Now we have a new Speaker - or the old Speaker back.

Anyway, as I was saying, if we're going to respond to what we see out there as really serious challenges to the safety of communities, we have to be willing to go the distance. We have to be willing to take the time to really study and analyse and understand the problems so that what we put in place will at the end of the day be effective, will answer the real issues, the real questions, the real problems, and not just be sort of a gloss-over, a politically expedient answer to something that needs to be responded to.

The member for Fort York a few minutes ago, in talking to me before I got on my feet, said that there are a number of different things we have to look at, particularly in the larger cities, around the question of community safety and people going through red lights and being angry, things like: Do we have too many stop signs that cause people in between stop signs to rush? Do we do good traffic planning? I don't know. Do we?

Mr Colle: The trouble is the supply. The supply of cars is increasing.

Mr Martin: There's another issue. Should we not be putting more effort and resources and energy into public transit so that fewer people are driving cars? We have too many cars. We're responding to the issue of too many cars inappropriately and there's no long-term planning. There's short-term planning, "Let's put up another stop sign here." I remember in my own neighbourhood back in Sault Ste Marie, they opened up a road. You'll remember, the member for Algoma, that to get into my place you had to come through almost a maze, the pea patch, from McNabb to Pentagon to Lake, where if they had just broken out about 100 yards of road, they would have joined up Lake Street from McNabb and got in. So they did that.

Mr Conway: What is this, a works committee meeting in Sault Ste Marie?

Mr Martin: Yes. I'm glad the member for Renfrew North is engaged again. We have another member listening here.

We opened up that little piece of road and created some more traffic, which caused some of the neighbours to become rather anxious, so they responded by calling city hall and saying: "Listen, we've got a problem up here. We've got all this traffic. They're speeding and creating all kinds of problems for us when we back out on to the road." So the city decided they were going to put up a new stop sign, but they put it right in front of this guy's house. It wasn't on a corner anywhere. They put it right in front of this guy's house. He woke up one day and there's a stop sign and there are cars parked in front of his house.

This is the kind of thinking that's going into this bill here. We have better answers. We have more intelligent answers. We have planners out there who can deal with this in a way that responds to the real issues. We have too many stop signs, I guess, and we want to put them up somewhere. We put a big cement block around the bottom of them -

Mrs Boyd: Supply and demand.

Mr Martin: Supply and demand, that's it.

Mr Wildman: Make the stop signs and they'll be put up.

Mr Martin: Does this kind of thing happen in Renfrew North? I don't know. Possibly it does.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): There are not enough cars there.

Mr Martin: Not enough cars there. Anyway, very real problems. I don't want for a second to diminish the concern of the people on Lake Street as the cars come whipping through. It is a problem if their kids go out on the road and they're not used to it, and there's more traffic and they're going faster, but there's got to be other answers to that kind of thing. I don't suggest for a second that we put those cameras in up on Lake Street in Sault Ste Marie. I don't think people would appreciate that.

Mrs Boyd: Why not?

Mr Martin: I don't know. We should talk to them about it. Maybe they would. I don't want to go on the record here tonight as saying that wouldn't be an appropriate response. I'm saying to this government that you've got to go out and talk to some people and listen to some people. The municipalities told you before you brought in this bill that they wanted the cameras on their corners because they felt this would do the trick, or at least go a further distance in what we're being delivered here tonight by you to do the trick, but you don't want to listen. You don't think they have anything intelligent and useful to offer.

You go into the back room in the Premier's office with the whiz kids and you say: "Holy mackerel, we've got a problem here. All the municipalities out there and the mayors and the councillors are saying we've got to do this. We know in the election, in the Common Sense Revolution, we said we were against photo-radar, and this smacks of the same thing. It smells like it, feels like it, tastes like it and probably is it. People will see it as the same thing." Right, Alvin?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Right.

Mr Martin: "We can't do that. So what are we going to do? Oh, I don't know - community safety zones." It sounds like apple pie, it sounds like motherhood. Who wouldn't vote for it? Who wouldn't see it as the absolute right thing to do?

I suggest to you that community safety is a bigger issue than that. It would behoove this government and all of us to get serious about it and to begin to talk to communities about some of what they're beginning to feel because of the very draconian and difficult and damaging agenda and decisions and policies of this government.

You are creating a situation out there in all of our communities where people are becoming more and more uneasy about their lives; whether they're going to have health care; whether they're going to have education for their children; whether they're going to be able to afford to send their kids, when they're finished high school, to university, because of the spiralling increase in tuition fees; whether they're going to have a job; whether they're going to be able to pay for the house they invested in five or 10 years ago; whether they're going to have a pension when all this is done, because if they're out of work for a short period of time in the new Ontario, they dare not go on social assistance of any sort because then you become labelled as one of those, and as soon as you stick your head out, whack, you get a crack across it with a baseball bat and you're told: "You're bad. Get out there and get another job and don't be lazing around and collecting from the public trough."

They're anxious about that. They know they may not have a job. They know that the job they have has a very limited window of existence under this government, because we don't know what you're going to close down next. You don't seem to understand that when you knock out a good job in a place like Sault Ste Marie or Wawa or London or Windsor that pays a half-decent wage to people, that used to be one of those jobs that everybody wanted because it had some longevity to it, because there was a benefit package, there was a pension at the end of the day, when you take one of those out you also knock out probably anywhere from three to five more jobs in the private sector, because it takes three to five people to service one of those people in the clothing store, at the gas station, in the grocery store, to help them with their licence, to help them with their mail. It's all connected.

You're creating an angst. You're creating a disease in communities today that's causing some of the problem we see showing itself, showing its head in the guise of road rage, of anger, of people driving preoccupied, driving through red lights, driving through stop signs, because they're thinking about what they're going to be doing tomorrow, they're thinking about how they're going to tell their kids that they lost their job, how they're going to tell their kid that he can't go to university or that he can't go to that particular university because it's too expensive and all that kind of thing. You have to put it all together.

Interjection: It's reptilian.

Mr Martin: It's reptilian.

You have to put it all together and you have to understand it in that context.

It would behoove this government, instead of this makeshift, every day another motherhood piece of legislation, to actually think these things out and help communities work together to resolve some of the problems that we see coming before us more and more each day as this government continues down its road.

2010

That's my offering tonight. Those are my few thoughts on this piece of legislation. I hope those who are listening - the member for High Park-Swansea was with me all night. The member for Fort York, who was in the chair for a bit, was listening attentively. Not only that, he was doing a fabulous job. He kept everybody under control, kept me speaking in the right direction and all that kind of thing. It was good.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Bravo. You are fantastic.

Mr Martin: I know.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Tony, you are like a -

Mr Martin: Even Mr Ford's awake tonight and listening.

Mrs Boyd: Don't go there.

Mr Martin: No, don't go there. Okay.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This is the close, right?

Mr Martin: I'm getting there.

I was just looking up the riding of the member for Dufferin-Peel. I think he was listening tonight. You were listening. So we've got people listening. I think I had something to say that was important. It's what my constituents are telling me about some of the legislation that's coming forward here. I'm hoping you will take it into account as we move forward, as we bring further pieces of legislation forward, or even as we go towards an election perhaps in the fall, that we will get less of this sort of apple pie, motherhood stuff and more work of substance before us to deal with.

We're going to support this bill because it's all that's on the table.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): We are?

Mr Martin: Yes, I think so. We're going to support it because it's all that's on the table tonight, and I look forward to listening to others speak on it.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Colle: I want to thank the member for Sault Ste Marie for giving us such critical information about Lake Street and the traffic problems on Lake Street in Sault Ste Marie. I hope you can solve that problem with this bill. It may help you.

One of the things he did bring to mind, as this bill deals with safety areas near schools, is that one of the real problems is when parents drop off their children, which they do in their cars more and more. In inner-city areas there isn't a drop-off area and they always have to do it on streets where the parking is limited, where there are cars already parked. So the police are always being asked to come and ticket or supervise. The police can't win and the parents can't win. They're trying to get as close as possible to the school. They don't want to be parked at the end of the street because they don't want to see usually their younger child walk a long distance to the front door. They want to try to get as close as possible to the front door of the school, which is understandable.

One of the things the government might be able to do to help this is to give the schools and the municipalities the wherewithal to allow the building of drop-off areas near or around the schools that are safe, where you don't have to do it in the middle of the street where parking and sight lines are a problem. So along with this creation of a safety zone, what would really help is the creation of a zone where there is a safe drop-off area.

This may not be a problem in Pembroke or where there's a lot of real estate, but it is a problem in older neighbourhoods throughout this province. I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Transportation, who are here, would take that into account, because I think in the long run that's what will really help cut down on accidents.

Mrs Boyd: I always enjoy listening to the member for Sault Ste Marie. I seldom get up to criticize something that has been said by one of my own members, but I will tonight, because the member for Sault Ste Marie made the assumption that if something was a motherhood issue, everyone would be in favour of it. But that's not true, is it? Everybody isn't in favour of motherhood when the mother happens to be a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. There's only one other woman in the House tonight who's also a mother. One of the things that has happened today has been an attack on the ability of someone who is a mother, who is a member of this Legislature, in terms of being able to keep her children with her and do her job as mother as well as her job as Legislative Assembly member.

I would just say to the member for Sault Ste Marie, I would like to believe that it is true that when we all support something, it's a motherhood issue. But in fact he made a mistake in language, because motherhood is no longer supported by everybody and not for everybody; not when members of this Legislature, who are supposed to be able to be equal, and equal in their ability to represent their constituents, and equal in their ability to be family members, get attacked not only by the press but by other members of this Legislature for their willingness to do a very tough job and also be a very good mother.

I would just say to my friend from Sault Ste Marie, I don't want any more discussion in this House about something being a motherhood issue until we as members all support those members of the Legislature who are mothers and who are also representatives of their constituents. Until that happens, nothing in this House is a motherhood issue. Nothing in this House is going to be supported simply because it's labelled as a motherhood issue.

Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to thank the member for his support of the bill and for his suggestions. All suggestions will be carefully considered.

I would draw to his attention that this is only one part of our overall strategy to improve road safety. I think it will be an effective part, but I hope he'll look at the strategy as a whole, because we're going to continue the 40-year record of reducing accidents. I think this will be a very successful part of doing that.

Mr Conway: I want to commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for a very lively, if at times very idiosyncratic and parochial address. But he made one very telling observation with respect to me and I want to address it.

He rightly observed, and I don't have the time tonight, when he said, "Conway is here tonight supporting this bill and supporting the red light initiative of the member for Oakwood, but he spoke out against photo-radar." That's true. I feel a certain ambivalence on that subject because I see the difficulty.

I want to be fair in saying to my friend from Sault Ste Marie that I was a very harsh critic of photo-radar in large measure because the sense I had in a previous administration - and it was not the fault of the administration; it was some of the application by police forces - was that the evidence was becoming clear that for too many police officers and police departments, photo-radar had more to do with revenue generation than it did with -

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, it did. I remember distinctly about three years ago -

Mrs Boyd: It's going to be worse now.

Mr Conway: I want to respond to a very good point that the member made.

I remember three or four years ago around Christmas somebody from the OPP saying - I think it was in Peterborough - that they were actually going to set the meter at five kilometres above the speed limit. I'm going to tell you, if you did that on most highways, you would fine everybody.

I'm not here arguing that the law isn't the law, but if you've ever been a referee in any game - I've not been a police officer - you've got to use some good judgement. I was opposed to photo-radar, I'm going to tell you, because if under moonlight some midnight on Highway 41 between Kaladar and Denbigh somebody wants to ticket me for five kilometres over the speed limit, then I'm not going to be a very happy camper.

The Speaker: Response? The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: I want to thank the member for Oakwood, the member for London Centre, the member for London South and the member for Renfrew North for taking time to comment and respond to my comments here tonight. It certainly indicates that you were paying attention and listening, which is wonderful. I take the member for London South at his word that what I had to say was worthwhile and that he will consider it -

Mrs Boyd: Send him a one-page fax.

Mr Martin: Send him one-page fax, yes - in his consideration of all the other issues he suggested that we're going to see coming from this government under the guise of community safety, from the crime commissioners, I dare say.

2020

The member for Renfrew North I think makes some interesting points about revenue generation. Yes, indeed, photo-radar did generate some revenue, because unfortunately the only way you impose penalties in our society today for infractions against the law is to fine people, and that came with it. I'm just wondering, in listening to him - and perhaps he'll answer tonight or some other time - is he changing his mind on photo-radar? If in fact he discovered in the actual playing out of the photo-radar that we weren't putting these vans in those parts of northern Ontario and rural Ontario where it didn't make any sense for them to be, would he be in favour of photo-radar and is he going to put together the two logical arguments of what he's supporting from his own party in this?

I also wanted to say that the member for London Centre makes probably the most important point in this round tonight about motherhood and the attitude from this government particularly about the question of motherhood in the way she referenced tonight, very specific, and in many other ways.

The Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, Mr Flaherty has moved second reading of Bill 26. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried. Shall the bill will be ordered for third reading?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Justice committee.

The Speaker: The bill will be referred to the justice committee.

CONDOMINIUM ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

Mr Tsubouchi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 38, An Act to revise the law relating to condominium corporations, to amend the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and to make other related amendments / Projet de loi 38, Loi révisant des lois en ce qui concerne les associations condominiales, modifiant la Loi sur le régime de garanties des logements neufs de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications connexes.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm pleased to explain the government's rationale for its proposed changes to the Condominium Act.

The last time it was amended was in 1979, before the big building boom of the 1980s and certainly before some of the new and creative uses we're seeing today. The market has grown by leaps and bounds, in some cases faster than the legislative framework could keep up. The act became stale and inflexible, no longer reflecting the reality that was there. Developers, owners, property managers and other interested groups were telling us that the time was right now for change. Our government began broad public consultations on the Condominium Act shortly after we were elected.

Under the able stewardship of the then minister Norm Sterling and the parliamentary assistant at the time, who was Jim Flaherty, we embarked upon a round of consultations. We wanted to hear not just the views of industry but of the people who live and work and manage these buildings.

Mr Flaherty and his group quickly realized that the scope of the issue was significantly broader than they had imagined. At the same time, the stakeholders were telling them that they needed more time to give the proposals their due consideration. They were convinced that for the outcome to be effective, the process had to be sound.

We shared these concerns and listened to the input from our stakeholders. We allowed more time for consultation to ensure we had more of it and that what we heard expressed the fullest possible range of views.

As with any legislation, this bill reflects a balance of interests. There's a little something in it for everyone.

Builders get more of the flexibility they need to ensure that they can provide much-needed housing and have a reasonable expectation of profit. Condominium boards get some clarification of their role in a number of key areas and assistance in some of their management areas, and owners get a guarantee of some representation on those boards, a first in Ontario. Also, new consumers receive new and better rules of disclosure.

We believe this bill achieves the necessary balance among competing interests in the condominium community. One thing that everyone agreed on, however, was the need for change. We've said all along that we did not expect everyone to agree with everything that's in this bill but we would seek consensus, and I believe we have arrived at that point.

I would also like to point out how this bill conforms to our government's general approach to business, both its own and in the private sector. The consumer ministry has led the evolution to a new and more mature relationship between the Ontario government and the province's business community. We've done that with the move to self-management for mature industries, we've done it by providing enhanced electronic access to our services and now we've done it by creating a more flexible Condominium Act.

Our reforms to the Condominium Act will have important benefits to the province as a whole. By giving developers and builders more flexibility and freedom, we are helping them to do what they do best, and that's to create jobs and stimulate economic growth, at the same time ensuring better consumer protection. We are also confident that as the number of condominiums in the market grows, that will create more housing at all levels. That's good for everyone.

In closing, I'd like to thank all members of the House who are participating in this debate. I would also like to express our appreciation to the many stakeholders and interested groups that have provided us with perspective and insight and valuable analysis as we move through this process.

I'd like to just name a few of the groups we've consulted with during this process: the Canadian Condominium Institute; the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario; the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario; the Urban Development Institute; Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association; Ontario Home Builders' Association; Greater Toronto Area Condominium Association; Richmond Hill Association of Condominium Owners; Markham Association of Condominium Owners. There's a number of others as well.

The result has been a bill a bill that does the job it set out to do for today and the future.

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

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to take these two minutes just to be on the record as saying I support the general direction this bill is taking and to point out that this is something our former government had worked on very hard under the able leadership of Marilyn Churley, the member for Riverdale - I think the minister was remiss in not commenting on that - and also to say that our caucus supports this legislation.

I want to make one second point. I understand that the government is willing to send this bill to committee for I believe up to two weeks of committee hearings and I find it somewhat -

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): One week.

Mr Bisson: It's down to one week. But the point I want to make is that the government has seen fit to send this bill to committee for one week, a bill that all of the parties of the House support that we know tonight is going to get second reading, if not more. But the government is unwilling to bring other bills that are more controversial that I know people want to speak on, such as Bill 31. We saw no committee hearings whatsoever when it came to one of the most regressive attacks on labour we've seen in a long time. When it came to the Election Finances Act, the government refused yet again to go to committee hearings.

On the question of Bill 17 I'm asking the government House leader, through these two minutes, to allow that bill to get to committee hearings in order to give francophones and others in Ontario the ability to talk to that bill and say why they figure it should go forward. The government refuses. The government says: `You know, when it comes to controversial bills, we don't want to hear the public. We're just going to do what we want. We'll use the new rules of the House and we'll allow the new rules to ram the legislation through without giving people any say, limiting debate in the House."

When it comes to a bill that members in the House agree on, they say: "Let's take it out to committee. We all want to hear what people have to say about it." I'm sorry, I'm a little bit cynical. I will support this bill and I will encourage those in support to come to committee, but I sure wish you would bring other bills.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I just want to go on record too that while I have no problem supporting this legislation, it is interesting that the NDP talk about that they were moving on this and then let their bill die on the order table and nothing was done about it.

An important bill like this, an important piece of legislation like this should have had much public discussion. It's unfortunate that we are not having that because it's a good part of housing strategy in Ontario and condominiums play a very important role. But I understand. I understand that they don't want public input. I understand that's why it was introduced so late. I understand the opportunity you had to have more public input into this.

I know you're talking about discussing with other people outside, consultation. But I would like to see many of the condominium owners have some more talk on this. I'm sure you'll have your second and third reading by tonight and it'll be completed.

2030

It is long awaited. There is great concern. I have to say I applaud your bringing this forward, because there are many issues that have never been addressed for years. Condominium owners who had purchased were living in a sort of twilight zone all along, not quite sure where they were going in their possession or ownership of their condominium.

I was extremely encouraged by the fact that you were addressing some of the issues that need so badly to be addressed. But I would have hoped that more discussion would have taken place, that people outside, the public, would have much more say in this. So while I do applaud you and am encouraged by this, I would just hope that there would be more participation and debate on this issue.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? Response?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I wanted to say is that the bill is going to bring a number of issues to light. I thank my colleagues for commenting on this. There are a number of things.

First of all, when you're a consumer buying a condominium unit these days, there's such a thing as a phantom mortgage, which really costs the consumer money for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

There's concern as well, when you have a condominium, in terms of having the ability to assess what the common elements have done prior to the expiry of the new home warranty program. I think that's another important element of consumer protection that's being brought forth in this bill.

I believe we've struck a balance. We've had quite a considerable consultation out there. It was over a period of two years that we consulted with many groups across the province, under the leadership of Minister Sterling and also now Minister Flaherty. I believe we've had a considerable amount of consultation. I see that my colleagues in the NDP are saying there is quite a lot of consultation that has taken place already.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I want to just add a few comments about Bill 38. Certainly I think this is a bill that many of the condominium owners, the people directly affected by this legislation, are supportive of. They have been asking for this type of legislation from previous governments, and I know they want to see this bill passed because there are some of these specifics they've asked for.

I just have some interesting questions.

The member for Kingston and The Islands passed on a note to me that is quite interesting, and I should mention that his neighbour, the member for Frontenac-Addington, is also aware of this. One of his local residents, who lives on Bath Road in Kingston, asked two interesting questions.

First of all, this individual asked whether or not the provision of an arbitration board to settle disputes between owners and the board of directors is in the bill. As he states in his letter, "The government created the act but leaves its implementation to a board of directors who may have no competence or knowledge in management." That's a question raised by this resident.

The other thing that he raised was property managers. He hopes these property managers somehow become certified, with appropriate professional qualifications, because I guess there are some people who like to call themselves property managers and perhaps have no training or no basic knowledge of managing a property. This is raised by this gentlemen from the Kingston area who was just asking as a matter of concern.

In terms of the bill itself, I think if there is one area that the general public has questions about, it is the whole area of disclosure in terms of the financing charges of a unit they buy or a home they buy, what the real charges are. It's part of this advertising that you see - I call it microprint advertising - where you see "Zero down, zero per week, and you can live free for 20 years," and then at the bottom they've got it in microprint, and when you take out your magnifying glass you find out you have bought something you can't afford and you've got to pay $100,000 down and you've got to pay for the rest of your life.

I think the advertising of condominium home ownership, and this also goes into straightforward home ownership, is the type of thing the minister should, and I hope he does, monitor a bit more closely. There is just too much of this microprint advertising that takes place in this province, especially in the print media.

It's really difficult for an ordinary consumer who is going to make what may be the biggest investment in his or her life to know what they're buying, and they can't really get a true indication on that from the advertisement. As you know, a lot of people go to places on the advertising, and sometimes they are given the wrong impression. That's not all people who are selling homes or condominiums, but I would say the advertising has to be a lot more legitimate than it is. Right now there's a tendency, as I said, to mislead people by saying always these big zeros or half a per cent, nothing down. I think that's got to be monitored, because when people are buying a condominium, they're buying, as I said, the biggest thing they'll probably ever buy in their lives. They want to make sure they know what they're getting into, and they want to make sure that everything is disclosed, that the total cost of financing is disclosed.

One concern that people have brought forward to me is the condominium fee, that there be full disclosure on that, that it is the real fee, that it isn't subject to escalation that essentially goes literally through the roof soon after they move in. That is one of the protections that the ordinary citizen is asking for, that there isn't the escalation of these condominium fees.

There are concerns about when the building is registered. That's one positive change in this legislation. I think that before, you required that 80% of the units had to be sold before it was registered. That has been reduced to I think about 60%, which is reasonable, because what was happening, especially during the late 1980s and early 1990s, was that people would buy units, and the market collapsed in the early 1990s. They would buy the units and the owner or developer had a very difficult time selling them. Therefore, the building would not get registered, and so people would be living in a bought unit and, through no fault of their own, there would be no registration on the building. This act does address that concern, which was a common concern, as I said, especially when the real estate market collapsed in 1989.

The whole makeup of the board of directors and how it functions is addressed, and that is something that I think this bill answers some of the stakeholders' concerns about.

As you know, condominium home ownership is becoming one of the fastest-growing types of home ownership. When your father first entered the housing market, it was unheard of. Who ever heard of a condominium in Mimico? It never existed. But as you know, in Mimico, in Long Branch, in New Toronto, I'm sure even in Sault Ste Marie there are condominiums everywhere. It's part of everyday home ownership, and it has got to be transparent, it has got to be made understandable and it has got to be something that the ordinary consumer can feel comfortable with without having to spend a lot of money on lawyers, because as you know, lawyers, God bless them, love getting into everything. No offence to my colleague from Downsview, but we hope it doesn't become a situation where lawyers are there - we want them there, but only maybe for a small retainer. We don't want to make our laws too complicated so that you have to pay for lawyers by the hour, by the day, by the week. Just a moderate intervention on behalf of lawyers would suffice. I hope this bill minimizes that.

2040

I don't want to cut back on hours of work for lawyers, but we want to have laws that at least make it possible for an ordinary consumer to understand, read and decipher what the law means. I think this is an attempt to do that, because it is very complex in terms of an ordinary person trying to understand home ownership, and then getting the Condominium Act involved, it can be very complicated. I hope that is addressed.

By the way, the change is not 60%; it's when 66 2/3% are sold that there is the ability to register the building.

These condominiums are popping up everywhere. I know certainly in the megacity of Toronto, every time you turn around there's a condominium going up.

The one thing I don't like is that we don't see any rentals. This government has been promising rental units going up, and there is no rental construction still. Now that they've taken rent control off, I think a lot of ordinary people who may not be able to afford a condominium or a so-called regular little bungalow in Mimico will not have the ability to keep their rental apartment. They're worried because now if you move out of a rental unit in Toronto or in Wawa or in Kitchener, that rent goes through the roof. There are no controls left. As soon as you leave, anything could happen to the rental charge. So I'm not sure whether these people who can't afford rent can afford to buy a condominium. That's the problem. But I do not see any rental construction. It is basically still at zero that I've seen in the greater Toronto area.

We hope the government will somehow get back into the housing business, because there are a lot of people who may not be able to afford condominiums and who can't afford to pay these high rents which you'll see. The tragedy is that with the new legislation you can also convert to condominiums, and that is another threat. People in the Avenue Road area and the Bathurst Street area who have these older units know that this government has passed a law where conversions are very easy. It's not bad to convert to condos. The problem is, people living in these buildings are usually older people who are on a fixed pension and they don't want to move out and they don't want this threat of conversion hanging over them.

The other thing that's a threat in Toronto especially is the threat of demolition. At one time, demolition was very difficult in Toronto. I remember when the laws were passed back in the early 1980s which made it very difficult to demolish an existing rental building. Now this government has made demolition very easy. The city cannot really block a demolition permit, so they can bulldoze a nice little building. I guess the big developers will come and bulldoze a little tiny building in a good little neighbourhood in Toronto and they'll want to put up a 10-storey condominium. That is a threat.

There is a lot of uncertainty in the housing market in Toronto. This government has brought forward this bill to try and respond to some of the concerns of the condominium owners, and I think it's a bill that deals with their real questions. Our party is supportive. We're more than willing to see this bill go right through to third reading, Mr Minister, if you want. If you want to proceed, we will go ahead and have this go-through. I haven't received any concerns from the stakeholders. Unless there's a technicality or something, we're willing to let it go through because we know the stakeholders have asked for it.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bisson: I agree with some of the comments made by the member for Oakwood. One of the things he wanted to speak about and just touched on at the beginning of his comments - I guess he got somewhat distracted - was the issue of how this government, when they have a bill everybody supports, decides they want to bring out the public hearing. They want the bill to go out for everybody to come forward and have something to say about it. They want to do some touchy, feely things. They want people to come and present to the committee about how good the bill is.

It's funny that when the government has bills that are contentious, which is about 90% of the legislation around this House, the government says: "Oh, closure motion. That's consultation. That's democracy. Let's just allow bills to go through the House in, let's say, maybe four days. And we won't allow any committee hearings. We'll put a closure motion in place. We'll cut debate. We'll just let things go right through the House. That way, it's a much more democratic system." I know the member for Oakwood wanted to speak on that at some length, but given that the government wants to get this legislation through, and we support it, he didn't go on about it.

If you ask people on the street why people are cynical about politicians, when they look at the actions of the government and see what the government does and how it plays games with legislation, I think that's a good reason for people feeling cynical. The government speaks a good line when it comes to democracy and saying they really care about consulting with people, but if they were serious about it - I listened to the minister as he got up for his statement. Consultation would mean that you would have a real process, where legislation would go through this House in a way that makes some sense in terms of a democratic institution, and then allow the bill to get out to the public so the people can say: "Yes, we support the legislation, and here are the reasons why," or "No, we don't support the legislation and here are the reasons, and this is what we suggest by way of amendment."

So if I'm a little bit cynical about this government, along with other people, that's one of the reasons. This government talks a good line when it comes to democracy, but I'll tell you, they act like a bunch of dictators.

The Speaker: That's out of order. You've got to withdraw that.

Mr Bisson: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I just want to let the member for Oakwood know that, indeed, even in Sault Ste Marie we have condos.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? Response, member for Oakwood.

Mr Wildman: It's on Lake Street, as a matter of fact.

Mr Colle: Is there one on Lake Street? The whole thing about condominiums is that they're everywhere. Whether you go to Wawa - I don't know if they're in Wawa or not.

Mr Wildman: No, not too many in Wawa.

Mr Bisson: Ask him if they have streetlights in Wawa.

Mr Colle: No, I don't want to go that route. Anyway, they are a fact of life, a growing part of the home ownership that Ontarians want, and this bill deals with that changing world of condominium ownership. Many of these changes people have asked for, the people on the building side and the owners specifically, and they are in need of this update. That's what this is, an updating that has been worked on over the last couple of years, and the bill addresses major concerns. We have not received anything but favourable comments about the changes. As far as we're concerned, we'd like to see this bill go ahead. It's needed.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Martin: I want to join with my colleague from Oakwood in saying that we are also anxious, on this side of the House, to have this bill go through. I think the minister spoke rightly in praise of the process that has gone into bringing us to where we are today re this bill: the consultation, the fact that all the stakeholders, the players were brought together to talk about what could be done to improve the lot of everybody concerned. Compromises were cut. Plans were made and concerns were addressed.

We have in front of us tonight a piece of legislation that, yes, has taken quite some time to work its way through this House. When we were government, we dealt with it. The member for Riverdale did a tremendous amount of work on this act with the various stakeholders and players. The previous Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr Sterling, the member from Ottawa, or Carleton, Stittsville -

Mr Wildman: He's the member from Manotick, actually.

Mr Martin: From Manotick? Okay. Anyway, we all know who we're talking about. They and now the present minister have spent a fair amount of time dealing with this, have had their staff dealing with it. Now we have in front of us what I think is an excellent attempt at some legislation that will take this industry a step further down the road to being fair and equitable and reasonable in terms of the concerns of each of the players.

2050

I remember the morning I went over to the office of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to be briefed by the ministry staff and how impressed I was with the information that was given, how it was given and the way the questions that I had to ask were answered. I was left with a very good feeling that this thing was well thought out and that we could probably move rather quickly to making it the order of the day, making it the law of the land where condominiums are concerned.

I know at that point I did ask for a couple of hours of hearings on this, because I thought, given the normal process of this place - first reading, second reading, out for some hearings and then back into the House for third reading and then on - it seemed to me that this government, in its haste to pass legislation, particularly legislation that is unpopular or has in it some land mines they would rather other people not see, rammed things through. We don't appreciate that on this side of the House.

But this is not such a piece of legislation. We're happy with this piece of legislation. Since we weren't able to get an afternoon of hearings, two or three hours, so that people out there who wanted to come forward could speak to this, I was surprised to hear that we were entertaining the possibility of taking this out over the summer months. I would prefer that we deal with this as expeditiously as is absolutely possible.

I have not, as the member for Oakwood has suggested tonight, heard from anybody in my office who has any concerns about this act. I've certainly had phone calls from those people who support it, those people who were involved in the discussion, and they were certainly in praise of it and wanted to see it enacted so they could get on with the business of developing the condominium world out there.

We're supporting this tonight, and we're hoping the government will move to making it the law of the land as expeditiously as possible.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bisson: To the member for Sault Ste Marie, again I come back to the same point. The member raises the issue well. He has praised the government in regard to the consultation on this particular bill. It doesn't happen very often, but on this bill they've done a fairly good job of consulting with the community when it comes to this particular issue. They've followed up on the work that was done by the former NDP government, by the member for Riverdale, who is out at her nomination meeting tonight and who I'm sure will be nominated.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Marilyn Churley.

Mr Bisson: Marilyn Churley.

The member asked why the government is so intent on sending this bill off to committee. I think most people agree that this is a good bill. The member says there have not been any phone calls to his constituency office or his Queen's Park office when it comes to people saying, "Let's take this to committee."

It brings us back to the point: Why is it that this government, when it comes to committee hearings, says that the only bills the Mike Harris Conservative government is going to send to committee are bills that everybody agrees on? When we have bills that are not supported by the general public, such as the changes to the labour act, Bill 31, such as changes to the Election Finances Act, Bill 30, the government says: "We're not going to have any committee hearings. We're going to pass a time allocation motion." The government House leader comes in and says, "Here is a time allocation motion," and, let's say, in four days the bill goes through the House, with no debate hardly. It is quite a contentious bill, and the government will not allow public hearings on what is a contentious issue.

I'm feeling somewhat cynical on this particular bill. If both of the opposition parties are saying this is a good bill, the government says it's a good bill and there's nobody in the community who's really complaining, why is it they are so intent on sending this to committee but not bills where there is contention? Could it be that the government says they don't want to hear from the public when it comes to contentious bills? I wonder.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Colle: I want to thank the member for Sault Ste Marie for his comments. He talked about protecting consumers. As you know, it's one of the concerns we don't have here in Ontario, luckily, because our building code is much stricter and much more protective than it is in British Columbia.

In British Columbia, they've had a horrendous problem. I think they still have the leaky condo task force headed by former Premier Barrett there. What happened in Vancouver, especially in the lower mainland, is that they put up those condominiums so quickly that they've had horrendous problems with leakage. It's costing the condominium owners in the lower mainland hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in retrofits and upgrades because they weren't built to code. I think one of the recommendations is to change the building code. But in Ontario we don't have that. Over the years, in previous governments, we've had a very strong building code. So we don't have that problem here.

That's why, if you look at a bill like this, which the general public may think is innocuous, it is important to have these protections in place so that people who do buy their homes aren't subject to poor workmanship. Once you get in there, it's not just your own little apartment that you're worried about. If something happens to the roof or the garage or the amenities of the building, you're liable. So it's critical that the whole building be constructed properly, with safeguards, and that the board of management can ensure that before they take over ownership there is that audit of the building and those safeguards are in place to ensure that you don't end up buying a building that's got these faults in it when you take it over as the owners of the building.

The Speaker: Response?

Mr Martin: I really don't have a whole lot more to add. I want to thank the members who took time to respond. I would just encourage and urge the government, since the stakeholders in this are out there waiting for the enactment of this bill, to move expeditiously.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I just want to take a few moments to put this act in context. The Condominium Act was first introduced in 1967. It might interest members to know that condominiums were just being built at the time, and in fact the legislation that was designed had no real appreciation of the problems that would be encountered by condominium owners and developers as time went on. The last amendments to the legislation were in 1979, so you can see that some 20 years have elapsed, and the industry certainly has changed. There was an attempt in 1990, when our party introduced some draft legislation, which had some consultation, but, as you will remember, the election of that year put those plans on hold. Then the NDP, in 1992, introduced Bill 81, and it languished on the government agenda and was never passed, contrary to what has been said earlier in the House.

Bill 38 was introduced in draft form in 1996. In marked contrast to what this government has done in previous legislation, it actually sent it out for consultation. It received some 200 submissions, which included everyone from individual owners to developers to condominium corporations to property managers to lawyers to bankers to anybody who had any kind of stake in the condominium industry. I think the issue has had a fair hearing.

What has happened in the last 30 years, and more specifically in the last 20 years since we've had any major amendments to the condominium legislation, is that the industry has boomed. If you look at the statistics, most recently you will find that we now have some 36,000 condominium corporations registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, with some 288,000 residential units and 13,000 commercial units. So there's a real need to address the current reality and what has transpired in the last 20 years.

2100

It's also of interest that during that period of time, from 1967 to the present, there has been a veritable boom as well of condominium litigation. That condominium litigation has arisen because of the ambiguities in the legislation, because the terms are not only not well defined but sometimes not defined at all. I can tell you, as someone who has both owned and lived in a condominium and practised in that area, it's quite fascinating to look at the problems that have been plaguing condominium corporations since their inception. They include everything from initial disclosure to purchasers and definition of common elements and ownership of and damage to common elements; the rights of specific condo owners vis-à-vis each other vis-à-vis the corporation vis-à-vis the developer; the rights of the corporations in that same instance; occupancy fees; and the list goes on and on. There have been constant calls for change over that period, from everyone from owners to practitioners, and the only thing we've had since then is litigation in the courts and, as my friend from Oakwood has pointed out, some substantial legal fees that have been paid.

The major provisions in the bill, therefore, are welcome. The industry wants clarity and stability. All the stakeholders require that for peaceful living. Members know quite well what some of the provisions of this legislation are. It's safe to say that they provide a fair amount of clarity and a fair amount of security for individual owners and for everyone involved in the system.

It's particularly scary from the point of view of an individual owner coming into a condominium corporation. You are truly at the mercy of the person you've purchased from, which can be a developer or can be a previous owner. The disclosure requirements really are fundamental to the bargain the individual makes. It isn't always possible to get full disclosure under current legislation, and even if you do get full disclosure, it's sometimes difficult to insist on your rights under the current legislation.

What is in here in terms of improving the quality of disclosure to purchasers; in terms of clarifying the rights and responsibilities within a condo corporation; in terms of the increased protection for investments by consumers; ensuring that the quality of existing new condo structures is high; new and diversified forms of housing options which are formed here - there are four different options for condos here that have been asked for for a long time: common elements condo corporations, phased condo corporations, vacant land condo corps and leasehold condo corporations. These are all new forms that need to be sanctioned by law to make the industry more marketable and safer for everyone.

Other things in here include the right of the purchaser to pay the full price for a unit to eliminate phantom mortgages - a huge problem in the industry for anyone who has been involved in condominiums at all; and the right of purchasers to be represented on a condominium board while the developer is still in control of the project, which sometimes can take quite a long time before the developer is actually out of the project. The lien priority for arrears of common expenses granted to commercial and industrial and communities is extremely important, as well as the requirements for post-construction audits and safeguards and maintenance through mandatory reserve funds are all extremely important.

But let me raise a couple of issues that I think one should emphasize, as good as this bill is in its current form. The member for Oakwood has alluded to one: the role of property managers, the qualifications of property managers, how they perform their jobs. These issues are quite important to ordinary consumers, and at the moment there is no way to address those issues. Sometimes you have very good property managers and sometimes you don't, and I don't think consumers should have to take a gamble on that when they buy a condominium. They should have some certainty that the people who are going to be managing the property are qualified to do the job.

The issue of disclosure of material facts and occupancy fees remains a central one that needs to be constantly emphasized. I can cite numerous cases of people in my riding who have come to my office to complain precisely about the issue of disclosure.

The act as currently proposed still needs to work on the notion of adequate notice to owners when repairs are in order. There are some good things in the act with respect to that. It allows for individual repairs to be done where, for instance, you have to bring property up to code, without going through hoops as you used to have to in the old legislation, where you had to prove "substantial change," which was not defined, and you most often had to have a legal opinion to be able to do that, which was difficult and expensive.

I caution the minister and the government in this legislation not to go too far the other way. You want to be careful to strike the right balance. You want the condominium corporation to be able to do certain things, but also recognizing that you cannot ignore the rights of individual owners. We'll wait and see whether this legislation strikes the right balance, but I would say that at a minimum that's something that should be looked at.

In principle, I endorse this legislation, as indeed I think all of the stakeholders do. The consultation process has been admirable in this particular case. I think all the major issues have been flushed. They need to be monitored for the future, but I am happy to support this piece of legislation.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bisson: I listened to the member for Downsview speak about this bill. I know she wonders why the government yet again has decided with this bill to go to committee. On a bill that has all-party support, a bill that the government and the two opposition parties say should go forward, the government says: "Hey, we want to consult the people of Ontario. We want to hear what they've got to say about the Condominium Act." I really wonder - I'm past the point of wondering. I've concluded that this government wants this to go to committee because they believe this is probably the only good bill they've passed in this session and they're so proud of it that they want to run it up the flagpole in Ontario and say to people, "Look at that, we've got a piece of legislation that everybody agrees with."

Why is it, I ask the member for Downsview, that this government doesn't go to committee with bills like the Election Finances Act? That bill does not have the support of the two opposition parties, and people in my riding - I wouldn't say in droves, but a number of people - came to me to speak about that at functions I was at on the weekend. In fact, I was speaking to a group of people in Mississauga today, and when they had the questions and answers, that was one of the issues people asked me about. They said, "What is the government up to when we read all this stuff in the paper about the Election Finances Act?"

With Bill 31, where the government has taken yet another attack on the working people of Ontario, the government doesn't want to bring that bill out to committee. No, they see fit to bring time allocation motions into the House, shove legislation through by way of their new rules that they introduced some year and a half ago, and just jam it through the House without any consultation, without any proper debate and without talking to the people of Ontario.

I ask the member for Downsview, why does she think the government refuses to take contentious bills out to the people in committee, yet when bills are agreed on - one in this session - the government says, "Let's go to public hearings"?

The Speaker: Questions and comments? Response, member for Downsview.

Ms Castrilli: I'm grateful to the member for Cochrane South for his question. It's not often that a member of the opposition gets a question. I guess my question is to the minister: Why does this bill go to committee? It is absolutely clear to everybody here in the room that there's no need for more inquiries. You've had 200 submissions on this subject from everybody, from individuals to the biggest corporations. Frankly, for a government that believes in efficiency and in saving the taxpayers' money, may I say to the minister that you are accomplishing neither by sending this issue to committee.

We on this side of the House have amply said we're prepared to have this bill go forward this evening to third reading and finalize it, because there is absolutely no contention. I have pointed out that there has to be some monitoring of the legislation, but beyond that it would be indeed perverse to send this matter to committee and waste taxpayers' money. So I thank the member for Cochrane South for his question and the opportunity to be able to raise that issue.

2110

The Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, Mr Tsubouchi has moved second reading of Bill 38. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Martin: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move to third reading.

The Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? No.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): General government committee, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: So ordered. Orders of the day.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wildman: Let me get this straight: The government says no, it isn't going to let it go to third reading.

The Speaker: We're in orders of the day. We've got the House leader and he's going to give us an order of the day.

Hon Mr Sterling: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to Bill 26, An Act to promote public safety through the creation of community safety zones.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold it, hold it, I want to hear this.

Hon Mr Sterling: Such attention.

I move that Bill 26, An Act to promote public safety through the creation of community safety zones, be discharged from the justice committee and be referred directly to third reading.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (COMMUNITY SAFETY ZONES), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ZONES DE SÉCURITÉ COMMUNAUTAIRES

Mr Sterling moved, on behalf of Mr Flaherty, third reading of the following bill:

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

Be it resolved that this bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems that the House is trying to advance legislation through the House. I would ask yet again for unanimous consent to allow the Condominium Act to go to third reading. We just did it with the other bill.

The Speaker: Agreed? No. Orders of the day. Government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to Bill 37, An Act to designate a week of recognition of Ontario's Farmers.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that Bill 37, An Act to designate a week of recognition for Ontario's Farmers, be discharged from the committee of the whole House and be referred directly to third reading.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. Orders of the day.

Hon Mr Sterling: I seek unanimous consent to call third reading of Bill 37, An Act to designate a week of recognition for Ontario's Farmers.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DE L'AGRICULTURE EN ONTARIO

Mr Bert Johnson moved third 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.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Mr Speaker, at this time of night I have no statement. I'm just pleased that this is able to proceed.

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

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Being that the member had no speech, I will give no comment.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Perth for his fine work in recognizing the farmers of Ontario, the former mayor of Listowel, a fine town where they've got the best cheese in western Ontario.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? Response, member for Perth.

Mr Bert Johnson: My thanks to the members for their brief statements.

The Speaker: This is the first time the response has been longer than the speech, actually. Further debate?

Mr Johnson has moved third reading of Bill 37. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

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

Mr Grimmett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 59, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences / Projet de loi 59, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les suspensions de permis de conduire.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It being this time of night, I think people know that this is a bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow for the suspension of drivers' licences upon the conviction of a vessel operator with impaired operation of a vessel. I'm just pleased that it's proceeding.

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

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Thank you to the member for bringing this forward. I know this is boating season coming up and I think it's a much-needed piece of legislation. I hope the bill goes through quickly. We are supportive of it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): If he can just clarify "convictions against a vessel."

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I would really like to just take one moment to congratulate the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay on his presentation of this bill to this House. It's a very important bill and we all appreciate the intent that he has with this bill. It's an excellent bill for the people of this province.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? Response, member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Grimmett: Just to clarify, the bill is designed to allow the removal of a driver's licence upon the conviction for impaired operation of a vessel.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Grimmett has moved second reading of Bill 59. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Mr Grimmett.

Mr Grimmett: I move third reading?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Okay. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, we're going fast, but not that fast.

I believe we have unanimous consent to call orders 41 to 44, together with second reading of Bill Pr19. I believe we're going to move the Pr bills of private members at this point in time.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

2120

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT, 1998

Mr Skarica, on behalf of Mr Wettlaufer, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting The Corporation of the City of Kitchener.

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

Mr Skarica, on behalf of Mr Wettlaufer, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting The Corporation of the City of Kitchener.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

REDEEMER REFORMED CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ACT, 1998

Mr Skarica moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

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

Mr Skarica moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): On a point of privilege if I could, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: No, a point of order.

Mr Skarica: The president of Redeemer College is here, along with the staff, and they want to personally, through me, through the Speaker, thank everyone in the House for their cooperation in passing this bill.

The Speaker: That was neither a point of privilege nor order.

EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1998

Mr Stewart moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.

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

Mr Stewart moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 1998

Mr Carroll moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

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

Mr Carroll moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

CANADIAN INFORMATION PROCESSING SOCIETY OF ONTARIO ACT, 1998

Mr Tilson, on behalf of Mr Saunderson, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario Act.

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

Mr Tilson, on behalf of Mr Saunderson, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario Act.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion with regard to our standing committees meeting this summer.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the clerk of the standing committee on public accounts, and one committee member from each recognized party on the standing committee on public accounts, be authorized to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees in Yellowknife;

And that the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly to examine and inquire the following:

The standing committee on general government to consider:

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;

And the standing committee on social development to consider:

Bill 18, An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Oh, I'm sorry, debate?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I won't prolong this debate. I just wanted to make a few comments with regard to the motion to authorize committees to sit.

I want to indicate clearly that we on this side of the House support the referral of Bill 35, dealing with electric generation competition, to the resources development committee. We actually think there could have been additional hearings on that very complex bill, a very historic one and one that's very important for the economy of the province.

We also appreciate the commitment of the government to short hearings on the northern service boards, Bill 12, and the need for consultations in northern Ontario.

We appreciate the opportunity being given to the member for Sudbury to have his Bill 18 dealt with by the social development committee briefly in the summer.

What I wanted to say in particular, though, is our concern about the tendency of the government to move bills into the administration of justice committee, in this case Bill 22, dealing with the prevention of unionization with respect to community participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997. There are two concerns I have in this regard. Number one is the blatant attack on the constitutional right of people to form collective bargaining units, to join unions if they so wish. Their constitutional right of association I believe is curtailed by this bill.

For that reason I think it is important that the matter go to committee, but I am concerned - and this is the other matter I want to raise - about the commitment by the government of bills to the administration of justice committee, in a clearly blatant attempt to make it impossible for there to be public hearings, even the short 12-hour public hearings under standing order 124, on the Ipperwash scandal and the confrontation that led to the death of Dudley George. Our caucus had referred that matter to the justice committee. It is pretty obvious that the government continues to refer bills to that committee in an attempt to stymie that request for a hearing, a hearing that is becoming more and more necessary as we see the events unfold.

First we have the conviction of a police officer for wrongful death in the courts and the acquittal of nearly all of the aboriginal people charged by the police with regard to that confrontation. Then we have suggestions made by a credible police officer that his notes and files were left with the Solicitor General's office, notes and files which now appear to have gone missing in some way or other.

It's obvious that there is a need to have a public airing of the events that led to the confrontation that resulted in the death of Dudley George, the first aboriginal person to lose his life in a land claim dispute in the history of this province, and indeed in the history of Canada, since the Riel rebellion.

I think it's a tragedy that this should happen in this province and it's a travesty that this government does not want to have a public inquiry, a public hearing, so that we can find out what exactly led to that terrible tragedy.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Sterling has moved the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move adjournment of the House, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: 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.

The House stands adjourned until September 28 at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 2133.

25 juin 1998