role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 1, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Nov-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 1 November 2001 Jeudi 1 er novembre 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE MARIAGE

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' SEVERANCE PAY

DISCLOSURE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA DIVULGATION DES INDEMNITÉS

DE CESSATION D'EMPLOI

DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE MARIAGE

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' SEVERANCE PAY

DISCLOSURE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA DIVULGATION DES INDEMNITÉS

DE CESSATION D'EMPLOI

DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

NEWMARKET CELEBRATIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

COUNTERTERRORISM MEASURES

BLUEPRINT

ADDICTION SERVICES

BICYCLE EXHIBIT

MINISTER'S REMARKS

CANADIAN DOLLAR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(APPROPRIATE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

IN SCHOOLS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(UTILISATION APPROPRIÉE

DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

DANS LES ÉCOLES)

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CONSERVATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA CONSERVATION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA

AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA

SEMAINE DE SENSIBILISATION

À L'ÉPIDERMOLYSE BULLEUSE

BUILDING CODE STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DU BÂTIMENT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

AN ACT TO REVIVE

1205458 ONTARIO LTD

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

BUILDING REGULATORY REFORM

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ORAL QUESTIONS

COUNTERTERRORISM MEASURES

CONTAMINATED SOIL

RETAIL SALES TAX

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

LUMBER INDUSTRY

CORPORATE TAX

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

NORTHERN MEDICAL SCHOOL

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ORGANIC WASTE

ONTARIO PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CAMPUS ASSOCIATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

HOME CARE

SENIORS' HOUSING

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AIR QUALITY

OHIP SERVICES

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

HIGHWAY 407

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REMEDIES FOR ORGANIZED CRIME

AND OTHER UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES RECOURS

POUR CRIME ORGANISÉ

ET AUTRES ACTIVITÉS ILLÉGALES

Thursday 1 November 2001 Jeudi 1 er novembre 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE MARIAGE

Mr Murdoch moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Marriage Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le mariage.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): This is not a large act. There's not a lot to it. It's funny, we've been working at this for a few

years and you certainly get a lot of different letters and things about

an act when you start to bring it into this House.

This problem came to my office about six years ago, when it was not ordered but suggested that JPs not perform marriages any longer, and I think in most cases

they don't do that any more. I think legally they still can, but they've been asked not to do that because they want justices of the peace to get on with the other work they do.

This caused a bit of a problem in communities if someone wanted to get married and didn't really want to have a religious ceremony. They could go and buy their

marriage certificate at city hall, but then they couldn't have the JPs marry them. So this caused some problems if they really didn't want it done in a church. It also causes problems for

ministers, because when they're asked to perform a ceremony, their duty is to do it in a religious manner. And there weren't very many that would do it without that.

We have a problem and it's out there today. I get many calls in my office from people who say, "We have our marriage certificate but who can marry us?" Now in

Ontario only ordained ministers who are registered legally can do this. This is the reason I've brought this act forward.

It even goes back to the days of Charlie Harnick. I was bugging Charlie to do something when he was Attorney General. It comes under consumer and commercial

relations, except that JPs are under the Attorney General, so now we have two ministries involved. You can understand, Mr Speaker, how we run into problems with one ministry, let alone working with

two ministries. They certainly can cause us problems. As I say, it goes back to the days when Charlie was here, and since then we've been trying to change this.

When Bob Runciman was the minister, he announced we were going to do this. This was after I had introduced this bill. I think it was Bill 158 at that time and we

never had a chance in here to debate it. He announced that the government was going to do this. What happened or where it got lost in the bureaucracy, I don't know, but it didn't happen.

We still have the same problem out there. We still have the problem that if somebody wants to get a non-denominational marriage on the city hall steps, it's

tough to do that. We had a list in Owen Sound of two ministers who would do that, and both of them are gone now. I'm not sure who would do that in the city of Owen Sound. I did have a letter in

here and I have a letter in my file from the Salvation Army that they would perform this. But the gentleman who signed that letter is not in Owen Sound any more, so I'm not sure whether the people

over at the Salvation Army will still do this or not.

It causes problems. People should have the right to decide how they want to get married. Guess what? If you want to get a divorce, you get a lawyer. Maybe we

should have some lawyers out there who are able to marry people.

My bill would allow each riding -- we have 103 ridings in Ontario -- to have up to six marriage commissioners who would be appointed in the same way that we

appoint commissioners on other commissions -- LCBO, the Niagara Escarpment Commission. What would be the problem with the government appointing six marriage commissioners? It won't cost the

government any money. They should be happy in this government, and any other members here, that it won't cost money to do this because the person getting married will pay that cost. We may have to

license them, but that will be fine. We appoint them so we'd have to license them; maybe a half-day seminar or something so that they know the rules.

Interjection.

Mr Murdoch: In a way, yes. I'm sure some of the other members will have something to say and they'll be able to say that when their turn

comes.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Don't be too sure.

Mr Murdoch: That's right. They'll be able to talk when they want to, when they get their chance.

We can set that and we can set the price, what it would cost. The fees could be set here and that would be under regulations. It might cost a little bit of money

to do that, but other than that, it wouldn't be -- and it certainly could be covered if you had a licence fee for the people who are appointed, if that's what we wanted to do here.

I think it's long overdue that something like this happens. I have the media

article right here where it says, "Tories Vow to Take Hitch Out of Tying the Knot.

As more couples tie the knot outside church, Ontario seeks suitable knot-tiers." So we've already announced it. As I say, I don't know what happened to it.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): You announced a lot of things.

Mr Murdoch: The member across says we announced a lot of things, and that's true, but this is one of the things we should be doing and I'm sure

he'll agree with me on this. It's not something new and, as I say, we have people who would like to see this happen. I have a letter from Bob Runciman saying that as soon as he could get this done,

it would happen. Well, you know what happens. Sometimes ministers change, bureaucrats change, things like that, so it didn't get done.

Here is a letter from the council in Owen Sound saying, "Now that civil ceremonies are no longer being performed by justices of the peace, arrangements for

weddings may be made through ..." and it's two ministers in my riding, but they are both gone now. So that doesn't help us any.

I have a letter here from Reverend Franklin Pyles. He was with the Alliance Church and he said he would do that. I would like to read it to you. This gentleman

has performed many marriages. He's from the Alliance Church, one of our big churches in Owen Sound, and he had some problems with the way we handle marriages. He came from the States and he

performed many marriages there. I'd like to read his letter.

"In conjunction with the other pastors of the Owen Sound area" -- so this is through our ministerial association also -- "I wish to discuss with you several

issues relating to what it takes to get married in Ontario." This is coming from a minister and he's writing this on behalf of our pastoral association in Owen Sound.

"First let me say that one of the things that makes Ontario `family unfriendly' is the presence of obstacles to getting married. While on the surface, getting

married seems as easy to do as can be, in reality it is not. First, the price is high." This is what he says. "If people wish to live together for a certain length of time, they are considered

married. No cost. If they attend a church they may post banns. No charge. But, if they are someone who does not have a church, or, it is their second marriage, or at least one partner is from out

of province, they must buy a licence, cost, $100." This was written on April 19, 1999, and that cost may have gone up since then; I'm not sure. "I believe this cost is too high. Many of the fees

charged in the province are justified because a service is being provided by the province. In this case the province provides no other service than registering the marriage. That should require a

nominal fee at best.

"A nominal fee at best, except for the fact that the $100 fee supports the Registrar General who is under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What

does this office do besides file marriage certificates as they come in?" I guess that's for another debate. We could debate what that office does, and I think we could look at that on a different

day.

"One thing they do is monitor the `legitimacy' of people officiating at weddings in Ontario. I have officiated at, or solemnized, marriages in a number of states

and provinces. Never have I seen a bureaucracy like Ontario's. Please look at what the pastor must do to be so authorized according to the attached memo from the Registrar General's office." He had

a big, huge memo of what they must do. "Please remember, it costs money to have people check all of that out, file, issue numbers, etc.

"When I solemnized my cousin's wedding in Kansas I dropped into a local county seat, signed a piece of paper saying I was a pastor, and that was that. In

Saskatchewan it is a bit more complex, but not much. In Michigan and in many states, there is no such thing as government authorization of who may or may not solemnize marriages.

"This is an especially important point in light of the recent decision that justices of the peace are no longer to do weddings as part of their duties. As we

discussed with you, now there is, in addition to the hurdle of the $100 fee, the fact that only pastors, ie, those who have jumped through the various hoops of the Marriage Act, can do the

ceremony.

"Here is what we propose.

"First, lower the fee for a marriage license; $50 is plenty for the act of filing.

"Second," and this is the one that comes into this bill, "change the Marriage Act so that there is absolutely no government regulation regarding who may, or may

not, solemnize the marriage. The only issue for the province of Ontario should be that the couple has purchased a licence, they have signed it, and that they have witnesses to the fact that they

have signed it. Same as any contract. All the rest is a religious issue. If they want the mayor to officiate, the bride's uncle, or their pastor, that is their decision and is of no concern to the

government.

"These actions will at once make getting married a simple and straightforward matter" --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to discuss Bill 74, I think it's called, Mr Murdoch's bill. I'm very supportive of it. I appreciate his introduction of

it and I think it's a sensible move. It illustrates the problems we have in government these days of getting things done. The challenge here was that it seems it may amend two different acts, two

different ministers and what not.

I personally have always been a supporter of omnibus legislation to change non-controversial legislation. The NDP did this during their reign and I was

supportive of it. I do think we have to find mechanisms around here that allow us to quickly make reasonable changes without an enormous amount of time and effort spent.

To me, on its face, this seems to make an enormous amount of sense and we should pass the bill. But I also think we should encourage ourselves to find ways that

things like this are able to be accomplished without having to spend an hour of legislative time, an enormous amount of effort by one member. As I say, I would encourage us to look for ways that

we're able to accomplish that. I've always supported what is called omnibus legislation where you bring forward all the changes and if there are in fact controversial issues in them, you remove

them and bring them forward in a different bill. But there are probably a thousand things a year we should be amending here that we don't because we get bogged down in the legislative time and it

needs to be scheduled and all those things.

On the surface this makes an enormous amount of sense. I believe the faith community by and large would be supportive of it because I do think in some cases they

are put into positions where they feel uncomfortable, where they don't know the couple who are getting married and they feel uncomfortable. I think it also helps to reflect the diversity of our

province. We are an enormously diverse province.

It would have helped a personal friend of mine. I'll tell this quick little story. I was invited to a wedding at the Scarborough city hall. They have a chamber

there for weddings, and on a Saturday weddings take place there every half-hour. I was invited to a wedding at 1:30. I was there at maybe 1:25. I went to the chapel, and one of my clergy friends, a

United Church minister, was just leaving. He asked me why I was there. I said, "I'm here for a 1:30 wedding." He said, "I've checked the docket and there's no clergy scheduled for 1:30." So I said,

"Would you mind staying around?" My good friend Walker arrived at 1:30. I said, "Walker, have you got a clergy to marry you?" "Well, no. Don't they supply them?" I said, "Luckily, believe it or

not, my friend here" -- it was just an enormous coincidence. I introduced him to my friend Walker and his wife-to-be at 1:30. They spent 10 minutes together. Then the ceremony took place -- I would

have sworn that the clergy knew Walker and Suzanne all his life -- and they got married. I'll forever feel somewhat responsible and proud of that. In any event, it may be part of Mr Murdoch's

bill.

I believe it also is supportive of our kind of Ontario. We are a very diverse society now, and whatever we can do to help to reflect that diversity, we should be

moving on. I've often said I view Canada like a flower garden. We had originally one flower, our First Nations people, but we have flowers from all around the world now with different faiths and

beliefs, and this reflects it.

I think in most communities the justices of the peace are overworked. Our legal community has difficulty accessing justices of the peace for extremely important

matters -- not that marriage isn't important, but for matters involving the law. So I think it makes sense on that front as well. It's kind of, as they say, a win-win.

I would add, though, that my recollection is there was some member or members of this Legislature who wanted to introduce legislation that would require people

wanting to get married to take a two-week course or something like that. That's my recollection; maybe my memory is failing me. In some respects this heads in somewhat the opposite direction, which

is to facilitate marriage and to recognize that it's a choice between two people and that the state does not have a right to dictate how people feel about and prepare for marriage.

So on all counts I think it's a good initiative. I'd go back to the first point I made, however, and that is that I think it illustrates the need for this

Legislature to rethink how it deals with obsolete laws on its books and to find mechanisms that -- to use a cliché, we're in a fast-paced world. People are moving quickly. Things are changing

dramatically. Our economy and our society need their government institutions to be contemporary, to be able to change at the same pace as society is moving, but we don't have that mechanism.

For laws to be changed, we need first reading, we need second reading, we need debate, we need third reading. We are still locked very much in the past, and I

would challenge us to look at mechanisms that will modernize the way we do our business around here. Nothing better illustrates it perhaps than Mr Murdoch's bill today to do what I think most

people believe is a very sensible move. But it takes an incredible amount of energy to get it done. You've got my support, Mr Murdoch, and I appreciate your bringing it forward.

Mr Kormos: We support the amendment to the Marriage Act. It's rather interesting when Minister Bob Runciman -- he was the Minister of Consumer

and Commercial Relations -- announced it with a whole lot of enthusiasm here in the House, I trust after cabinet consultation. I know that particular minister and I know that, far from being a

renegade, Minister Runciman would surely have only made that announcement had cabinet thoroughly analyzed it and clearly supported it. So I find it strange that now it's incumbent upon a backbench

member, with the modest resources he has in his constituency office, to come forward with this amendment and to not only move it through second reading today, because that could well be the easiest

stage in this whole process, but (1) get the bill to survive the prorogation of the House come Christmas and (2) get it in front of a committee.

What this government has done lately, if you notice some of the paperwork that's been floating around, is that interestingly and uncannily, the number of bills

that are being referred to general government has -- Mr Guzzo, you should be aware of this. The general government committee has all of a sudden become a very popular repository for government

bills. No kidding, in view of the fact that Mr Guzzo's successful bill on second reading was similarly referred to -- oh, could it be? -- general government. Uncanny, isn't it, that all of a sudden

general government has become so popular.

Nonetheless, the issue today is whether this Parliament agrees in principle with this proposition. When Minister Runciman, on behalf of the government of

Ontario, made the announcement -- how long ago was that now? A good chunk of time. I canvassed, and I'll admit to you right off the bat that it wasn't every single clergyperson in my riding, but I

canvassed what I believed to be a representative number of them because I was concerned that the clergy may have concerns about this type of proposition, that this was an inappropriate, let's say,

secularization of marriage.

On the contrary. Just as you've heard from the sponsor and author of the bill his references to clergy he's consulted, clergypeople I spoke with acknowledge the

difficulty that they have accommodating from time to time people who want a purely secular marriage. They acknowledge that there are people who do not want the faith component, the religious

component, in their marriage ceremony in the exchange of marriage vows. The clergypeople I talked to from down in Niagara thought this was a good proposition. It solved a whole lot of problems. I

think it's a good proposition as well.

If you take a look, though, at the Marriage Act, then the author/sponsor of the bill is quite right. Judges and justices of the peace have the power to perform

marriages. My understanding is similar to Mr Murdoch's in that JPs have been sort of encouraged not to, and if some of the purely anecdotal comments that I've received are accurate, judges have to

seek some sort of dispensation, depending upon the venue for the marriage ceremony, at the very least. And besides, judges are busy. Our provincial judges are working with incredible caseloads and

delivering very complex judgments on a daily basis. Our judges are incredibly busy here in Ontario. Some of them remain busy even into their retirement as they serve as supernumerary judges. Some

judges have been more interested in doing civil marriages than others. Many will go through the ropes they have to go through if it's for a family friend or a member of their family, and I know

that judges have from time to time done that.

In the Marriage Act, you've got sections 20 and 24. The interesting thing about the Marriage Act is that if -- you've got to take a look at

section 31 -- persons

holding themselves out as authorized to perform marriages aren't authorized, the people who undergo their exchange of vows, if you will, in front of that party cannot subsequently, if they carry on

and treat the marriage as a marriage in good faith, attack that marriage as being invalid by virtue of the person performing it not being licensed or authorized. Now, that doesn't excuse the person

who isn't licensed or authorized, because then they're subject to a penalty appreciating a fine of not more than $500 for having performed a marriage when they're not authorized to do so.

There are a couple of questions, though, that I would put to the sponsor of the bill that I hope he would respond to.

(1) Why the limit of six per riding? For some ridings that might not be an inappropriate number. But look, when you're Howard Hampton, representing the riding of

Kenora-Rainy River, it's larger than France. When you're in a riding like Timmins-James Bay, represented by Mr Bisson, again you've got huge geographic expanses. You've also got a whole lot of

incredibly isolated communities. One of the things that would be interesting, because this bill should go to committee, is to provide some rationale for the number of people being appointed. But

also understand that this bill can accommodate people living in distant, far regions like the far north. It can accommodate people living in isolated communities.

I think it would be very interesting to see the response of the native aboriginal community to this bill. I believe, along with any other number of very diverse

ethnic and cultural groups in our province, that it may well accommodate them in a way that the Marriage Act, with the prerequisite -- because, you see, the Marriage Act requires under

section 20

that a person who, other than a judge or justice of the peace, is going to be entitled to perform marriages be in a religious institutional structure that is ill defined. You know and we all know,

we're all aware, that the Church of Scientology spent years obtaining the right to have their clergy, for lack of a better word, perform marriages for people who belong to that particular movement.

Again, I'm trying to choose words very carefully so as not to offend anybody. There's a whole lot of debate about that. But at the end of the day it seems to have worked out quite well.

What I'm saying is that this bill, then, accommodates other parallels based on ethnicity, based on culture, based on belief as compared to, let's say, religious

faith and permits people to respond to the special needs of those respective communities. But that's where we've got to really speak to the matter of, why six?

(2) Clearly this is a patronage pipeline. It has the capacity to be that. That's why what I'm questioning now is the three-year terms on appointment. The lineup

by people who want to exploit their intimate relationship with the government in power -- and look, before you condemn me, I spent an awful lot of time on that boards, agencies and commissions

committee that screens people applying for any number of appointments. That committee room just reeks of foul patronage. The dogs that were being advanced for any number of positions, you could

hear them barking all the way up the Queen's Park hallway as they were led in on leashes by Tory handlers -- muzzled, of course. One of the secrets that was soon uncovered was that you just keep

these political hacks quiet. You'll muzzle them, shut them up and let them take their marching orders from the whip on the government benches.

Look, there's potential for patronage here. So be it. But I think we can control the patronage a little bit. The issue, really, in this area should be one of

merit as well. In response to Runciman's announcement, I had two contacts from people in my own riding. One was a stranger to me; one I knew well. The gentleman who said, "Look, I'd really like to

apply for the position being contemplated," I tell you has not been particularly partisan in any respect, way, shape or form but has a background and a set of standards and ethics and a compassion

for people that that person would be an ideal candidate. He also has a broad sense or a broad understanding of the sorts of resources and support systems that are available in the community. I can

tell you I know, by knowing him as well as I do, he would be incredibly cautious as he approached a marriage between people.

People from the government backbenches, as Mr Phillips did, have talked about people having to attend courses before marriage. It's remarkable that people can

enter into that profound a contractual, among other things, relationship without even needing independent legal advice. There's no other relationship with such profound liabilities that people

enter into where the current state of the law would have required them, yes, in fact to get independent legal advice on that boilerplate lawyer's certificate that lawyers sometimes charge

outrageously for -- well, they do; other times they don't -- indicating that the party has received independent legal advice and advising them of what the consequences are of entering into this

particular relationship.

There's got to be some standard of training and constant contact with people performing this role. They've got to be the beneficiaries of some sort of constant

upgrading or at least the maintenance of skills or the development of those skills initially, the maintenance of them and the upgrading of them to ensure that they're complying with the law, to

ensure that they know the seriousness of the work they're doing and, again, to equip them to deal with any number of issues that arise.

This is a secularization of the role of conducting the marriage ceremony. Mr Murdoch is very much in tune with the times by virtue of his sponsorship of this

bill. Just as this government introduced same-sex spousal benefits to the province of Ontario with the support of opposition parties, this bill recognizes the changing realities and the

inevitability of the fact that people are going to be -- as we know people have with strong passions -- pursing the right to marriage, the right to that contractual relationship without having to

be screened or filtered by the standards imposed by one religious group or another. This provides that opportunity. This provides an outlet without in any way diminishing the seriousness of the

ceremony being performed and the seriousness of the obligations being assumed and the responsibilities being imposed upon entering into that agreement.

Back some years ago Al Capp -- remember Al Capp, Li'l Abner, Marryin' Sam? You got a $5 weddin', you got a $10 weddin', and if you went all out you got the $20

weddin'. I'm surprised you didn't call this the Marryin' Sam/Samantha bill, Mr Murdoch. It was the first thing that came to mind.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: That's right. I suggest that the majority in this Legislature are old enough to well recall Al Capp, Li'l Abner and indeed Marryin'

Sam or Samantha.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: Maybe. I don't know. He was in law school. What would he know about Al Capp and Li'l Abner and Dogpatch?

This is what we do. I would advocate a prohibition against charging fees and let these people operate on the basis of honoraria. I would also submit that, in the

context of the Marryin' Sam imagery, there actually be a prohibition against advertising. I don't want people assuming these positions to regard it as a source of income or a business venture. I

want responsible people, and I think they're out there, who rely upon the honorarium that so many clergy do by virtue of performing marriages that respects the ability of the parties to pay. I

think the mere listing in any given marriage licensing office -- to wit, city halls -- be it on a computer or in a hard copy of the names, addresses and phone numbers, of these civil marriage

commissioners would satisfy the need for people other than by word of mouth to find and identify a Marryin' Sam or Marryin' Samantha that they wanted to access. That would abolish all of the Las

Vegas imagery of the marrying Elvises. Again, far be it from me to tell people that they shouldn't be married by somebody dressed up like Elvis. It could really be Elvis, but it avoids the

tawdriness of that sort of imagery.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): It's a pleasure to rise today to support my honourable colleague's bill,

An Act to amend the Marriage

Act. As Mr Murdoch has just stated, couples looking to get married in certain areas of Ontario are having difficulty accessing officials to solemnize non-religious marriages. Actually, the bill

does point out the closeness that the honourable member has to his riding. He's always bringing things from his area into the House that are provocative, that quite often make members like myself

from the city just realize that although Ontario is one place, it's a number of places with different ideals and different cultures and different problems indeed. So this bill really speaks to a

unique situation that maybe isn't prevalent in all parts of Ontario but certainly is the case in many of our rural or more isolated areas.

Perhaps in this regard it's timely to review the rules by which marriages are legislated in the first place and who can perform those marriages.

Religious marriages can only be performed by those who are registered under the aforementioned

section 20 of the Marriage Act. In addition to registering with

the registrar general at the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, that individual must have the following points to be so designated: he or she must be ordained or appointed according to the

rites and usages of the religious body to which he or she belongs; he or she must be duly recognized by the religious body as entitled to solemnize marriages; he or she must be within a religious

body that is permanently established; he or she must be a resident of Ontario and his or her parish must be, in whole or in part, in Ontario and fall under the control of the Legislative

Assembly.

Non-religious marriages, or what are more commonly known as civil marriages, are covered this way. Under

section 24 of the act it states, "A judge, a justice

of the peace ... or any other person of a class designated by the regulations may solemnize marriages under the authority of a licence."

Although

section 34 of the act authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which of course is the cabinet, to make regulations designating classes of

persons for the purposes of

section 24, no regulations have yet been made to date, which is obviously the member's point. In other words, current law permits only a judge or a hard-to-find justice

of the peace to perform civil marriage ceremonies.

As Mr Murdoch has already said, residents of rural Ontario who prefer to have a civil marriage often have difficulty in finding a justice of the peace who can

solemnize their marriage. Where there's likely to be the availability of religious institutions and clergy in a community, the availability of registered civil officials, being justices of the

peace or judges, is just not the same.

I am here today because my colleague and I believe that Ontarians should be given an expanded choice between having religious or civil marriage services.

Although that choice technically exists, the difficulty of getting access to officials who solemnize these marriages reduces the choices Ontarians have.

I recall years ago -- when you get into something like this, it brings back memories -- a good friend of mine was to be married at Toronto city hall and I was

the best man. Actually, I was terribly impressed because it was the one and only occasion that I had to be involved. I don't know whether it was the majesty of old city hall or the fact that we

were young men and terribly impressed with officials, but it was a kind and moving ceremony and it worked out very well. That was some 45 years ago. That's why the honourable member's bringing

forward this bill intrigues me because I just assumed that these things were still available and that there was no problem at all.

In addition, we are looking to provide choice, within reason, for Ontarians to choose when and where they can get married, should they choose to have a civil

marriage. Marriage is an important event for many people, and although the ceremony and celebration varies among many people, the ideal time to get married is not always on a Wednesday morning in

the winter, when that might be the only time a justice of the peace is available. What I would like to see is the ability to respond to the demand for marriage officials when the demand is

high.

We are not asking for a marriage factory or a marriage mill where drive-through marriage ceremonies can be conducted. We are simply asking that Ontario couples

be given access to a dignified marriage ceremony, should they so choose, and to have a civic official there to provide that service, should they so decide.

In relation to the question of commissioners and terms of service, I think that could be handled in many ways. I take seriously the previous speaker's concern

about fees. It would seem to me that for we MPPs, who have access to the public and the public has access to us, or should have, it could be one of those expanded duties we could perform. It might

be one of the best and what I call "good-feeling" things that we do as members.

The one duty I perform most often in my office is using my signature as witness or in some legal way that I'm legislated to do to provide this service to my

constituents. It's a pleasure to do it and it's a pleasure to do it without a fee. It makes the government work better and it gives the public a better feeling about the institution of government.

If this is a problem, and I can see it even happening quite often in my own riding -- I'm a city member, as most of you know -- I can't see why, with a little training, the average MPP couldn't,

with dignity and dispatch, perform the wedding ceremony.

I was looking around for a way to finish and a way to add some, perhaps, levity to this very serious bill and --

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Hurry it up.

Mr Kells: -- just let me finish -- and I came upon the Frank Sinatra song, Love and Marriage. I won't sing the whole song for you --

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Oh, don't sing.

Mr Kells: No, I can't sing, but I will just read quickly the first two paragraphs:

Love and marriage, love and marriage

Go together like a horse and carriage

This I tell you brother

You can't have one without the other.

Love and marriage, love and marriage

It's an institute you can't disparage

Ask the local gentry

And they will say it's elementary.

But it's not elementary if it's not readily available to each and all.

Mr Peters: I want to stand and express my support and my congratulations to the honourable member for bringing forward this piece of

legislation. I can tell you that in the past two and a half years of service here in this Legislature, a number of ministers, clergymen, lay people and even justices of the peace have come forward

asking that we consider this type of legislation and these legislative changes. I will throw a little fault on the government because they've been very slow in replacing justices of the peace and

there have been areas where justices of the peace have not been replaced, so it's put an added burden on their job. So it's partly their own fault.

I want to speak in favour of this initiative. I think there need to be some clear standards and training for individuals who are going to perform these

ceremonies. We can't have a layman just coming off the street and receiving an appointment to perform a marriage. I think there have to be some clear standards and training involved in the

preparation of an individual for performing these services.

I want to comment too on the concern about political appointments. I would not like to see this as a means of reward for individuals for service to any

particular party, be it the ruling party right now or the Liberals or the New Democrats. The process of appointment must be clear and transparent, and not be a process that is going to allow this

to become a patronage issue.

Like Mr Kells, I too would like to add a little bit of levity to this issue. A couple of years ago, two good friends of mine, Crystal Fulton and Glen Phillips,

published a book, Four-Foot Cucumbers, Juvenile Delinquents and Frogs from the Sky! Snippets of Life in Victorian Canada. This is just to add a little bit to the discussion today, to add some

thoughts of Victorian Canada when it comes to marriage. Most of these articles are taken from newspaper accounts across Canada.

"Newspapers assumed an active role in the drama of courtship. Besides printing wedding notices, marvelling at scandalous elopements, and generally remarking on

the power of love, they also readily dispensed advice about the proper selection of a mate."

I'm going to quote from a few newspapers across Canada and some of their thoughts on marriage. This is from the Truro Advertiser in 1867. There was an

advertisement, "A lady advertising for a husband says she wants a full-grown man. None under 6 feet need apply. A chance for one of our tall Truro boys."

The member for St Catharines spoke to me earlier about his support for this legislation because he's had individuals come to his office supporting this

initiative. This was an

article that appeared in 1872 in the St Catharines Evening Journal, and it's entitled "Epidemic." "The marrying and giving in marriage fever has broken out again in this

town since Easter, and so many young folks are joining their fortunes together for better or worse that it would make your head swim to count them."

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): What's marriage fever?

Mr Peters: I don't know what marriage fever is.

The London Free Press in 1877 reported, "Six and a half feet of bride stood before the altar in a Dundas Street church the other day, and promised to love,

cherish and obey her five feet of bridegroom, and that's the long and short of it."

There's another article, and this one is kind of interesting. This is from Manitoba in 1884, the Portage La Prairie Weekly Tribune. "Two young Portage ladies

took advantage of their leap year privileges" -- and just to interject for some of the young people, when you have a leap year, it's OK for the woman to ask a man to get married. I didn't know if

you knew that, but keep that in mind, some of you pages, down the road, to be ready for that.

These two young ladies "took advantage of their leap year privileges the other day and proposed to a young dry goods clerk who works in an Avenue store. He

accepted both offers, and then one of the young ladies was cruel enough to say that she was sorry he accepted her offer because she would sooner have a new silk dress than him."

We'll go on. This is from the Acton Free Press of 1886. "The Course of True Love: A few days ago, John Mooney, of Erin, cut his foot so badly while chopping

wood that he could not leave his bed. To be crippled was bad enough at any time, but what troubled John most was the fact that his wedding day was fixed, and now an indefinite stay in the

proceedings loomed up. However, as the Fergus News-Record states, the bride elect, daughter of Mr and Mrs John McDonald, a neighbouring farmer, was a true-hearted girl, entering into matrimony from

the best of all motives, pure and unalloyed affection, and the groom being unable to go to her, she went to him, and the marriage ceremony was performed on Dominion Day, the date arranged, while he

lay helpless upon his couch."

Another common theme we don't see very much of any more in marriages, and I think it should come back, is the practice of a charivari, which was celebrating

the marriage when the young couple was on their honeymoon and they came home and found their house in disarray, toilet paper in the trees, cornflakes in the bed and things like that. I've never

partaken in any of these charivaris, but it's something that doesn't happen very often. Here's one, a charivari that didn't come off.

Mr R.R. Hall, of a village just outside of Kingston, "has again taken to himself a wife -- Mrs Daly, of Kingston. The ceremony was performed at Kingston, and

the newly married couple arrived home on Wednesday evening. Of course, a charivari was organized; this appears to be one of the barbarisms which civilization is unable to shake off or put down, and

against which there is no protection. The mob assembled on Thursday night with their horns and pans, but Mr Hall met them with a compromise, and liberal `treating' bought them off." That was from

the Kingston Daily News of 1873.

One of the things we've seen is the number of marriages these days ending in divorce. I think the number is very close to 50% of all marriages today ending in

divorce. It's much easier to get a divorce today than it was many years ago.

Here, from the London Advertiser from 1889: "Judging from present signs, the divorce cause list for the next session of the Senate will be heavy." Divorces had

to be approved. "In three cases notice has been given already, and a fourth notice is expected. Three cases come from western Ontario, and the fourth is from British Columbia. Divorce is Canada is

an expensive luxury, each being estimated to cost at least $1,000."

There's a bit of trivia from our past in Ontario. I just want to commend the honourable member for this initiative, because I think it is one that is going to

be most welcome across this province.

Mr Tascona: I'm very pleased to join in the debate of Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Marriage Act. I think it has been fairly clearly stated by

the member from Etobicoke West, in terms of dealing with

An Act to amend the Marriage Act, what we're doing here is specifically amending one part of the Marriage Act to allow for civil marriage

ceremonies to be broadened in terms of who can perform that ceremony. Right now, it's restricted to justices of the peace or judges. What I think the member from Owen Sound is trying to accomplish

here is to allow for greater choice in terms of who can perform those ceremonies and also to meet the demand that's out there, not only in his riding but in other ridings, a demand not only for it

to happen but also the respect for the institution itself in meeting the wishes of the people who want to be joined in marriage, in terms of being able not only to accommodate their schedules but

also to give some dignity to what they're going through.

The pressures on justices of the peace and judges today in terms of administering our court systems are tremendous, and obviously they have a role to play.

Perhaps at one time they had greater time to play that role. I don't think that may be the circumstance today. Obviously, the evidence we've heard here today from the different speakers would

support that that's not the case.

Religious marriages can only be performed by those who are registered under

section 20 of the Marriage Act. In addition to registering with the registrar

general at the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Business Services, the individual has to satisfy a number of other criteria. What Mr Murdoch is focusing on here is non-religious marriages, commonly

known as civil marriages under

section 24 of the Marriage Act. That is specifically where we're looking to amend the act. I think the member from Etobicoke-Lakeshore correctly pointed out that the

Lieutenant Governor in Council hasn't made any regulations under that specific act to deal with the situation, though it does have authority in

section 34 of the act to do that.

The choice technically exists, obviously, with respect to civil marriages, but the difficulty, as I think the member has correctly stated, is getting access to

officials who will solemnize civil marriages. You always hear of people going to city hall and getting married there, but a justice of the peace or a judge would have to perform that ceremony, and

if time restrictions are present, which they are in this day and age, you're not going to have anything more than a very regimented routine in terms of the marriage ceremony taking place. I think

what the member from Owen Sound is trying to accomplish is some flexibility in the process and not do anything else other than make the procedure more efficient.

I'm going to give my time to the member for Northumberland because we believe in fairness here, but I want to say that I think the House should give this piece

of legislation some serious thought to ensure that we have dignified marriage ceremonies and flexibility in the system.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I can support this piece of legislation enthusiastically. I am rather disappointed that it is necessary, but

with church attendance and the recognition of our religious organizations, this is reality in Canada and in the province of Ontario, and I think it's our responsibility as legislators to meet the

reality and to meet the needs of Ontario. Certainly when it comes to marriages, that is not happening presently in Ontario.

Having said that I support the legislation, I have some concerns with it, and I hope that some of this will be sorted out in committee. What the member is

bringing forward suggests six marriage commissioners per each electoral riding, some 103 electoral ridings in the province. I really don't know whether that might be a realistic number to fill the

gap or not, but certainly as we look at other provinces -- BC, Alberta, Manitoba -- very large percentages of the marriages there are being carried out by marriage commissioners. Obviously we're

going to require some training of these individuals, which is not covered here, but I expect it would be in regulations; things like record-keeping, things like the setting of fees and even

counselling. Counselling is something done in connection with religious ceremonies, and I think because of the seriousness of this particular activity, counselling would be a very, very important

part. Probably a marriage is one of the, if not the, most significant decisions a human being makes, and because of that it should not be taken lightly. It's a very personal one that people take,

but also down the road it can have some extreme financial implications, and if the proper records are not kept, then that makes it very difficult for judges to make those kinds of decisions when

it's necessary, and also some of the family decisions, particularly if the marriages should end up breaking up.

"Until death do us part" really doesn't hold true in a lot of marriages today, so I see a need for guidelines and parameters to ensure that there is consumer

protection here in Ontario, but I congratulate the member for bringing this particular bill forward. It was also brought forward by the member for London West, I think, previously. I look forward

to it going to committee and having further discussion.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Murdoch: I'd like to finish the letter I had, in this short time.

"These actions will at once make getting married a simple and straightforward matter and also an affordable one.

"Be bold. Sweep away this musty apparatus from the past. The pastors will thank you.

"On behalf of the Owen Sound Ministerial, I remain,

"Your friend,

"Rev Pyles, Senior Pastor" of the Alliance Church.

I just wanted to finish that.

Now I'd like to thank the speakers who support this bill today. There was Gerry Phillips from Scarborough-Agincourt; Steve Peters, with his anecdotes, from

Elgin-Middlesex-London; Peter Kormos, from Niagara Centre.

Peter, I used six because I thought of the Rainy River district, because you'd need one in Fort Frances, one in Kenora, one in Dryden, one in Ear Falls. So,

yeah, that's when I was thinking of six. I'm open on that; that's where a committee could look at that. The patronage of the appointments? I don't know how you get around that. I sat through

opposition, I sat when your government made them, and I always said the government of the day has to live with who they appoint, but they should look --

Mr Kormos: We were appointing Liberals and Tories.

Mr Murdoch: You could have been, and that's fine. But we have to look at who we appoint, and we should be looking at it and not looking at

what they are -- Liberal, NDP, Conservative -- good people who are concerned because marriage is an important thing and we want people there who are concerned about that. Again, I'd be open to

that.

Morley Kells, from Etobicoke-Lakeshore, mentioned that maybe there is life after politics, that MPPs could do it. Or as MPPs here, maybe we have that

authority. We do sign documents. I sign documents for birth certificates, for passports and things like that, so maybe we could do that.

Joe Tascona, from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Doug Galt, from Northumberland -- I appreciate all the people here supporting it. I think this is one of the

important things, that all three parties in this House support something. That's certainly a step forward. Maybe our ministry will bring it forward, if I can't do that, and maybe the justice

committee should look after this.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on this item. I will place the question regarding this item at 12 o'clock

noon.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' SEVERANCE PAY

DISCLOSURE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA DIVULGATION DES INDEMNITÉS

DE CESSATION D'EMPLOI

DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mrs Bountrogianni moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 53,

An Act requiring the disclosure of payments to former public sector employees arising from the termination of their employment / Projet de loi 53, Loi

exigeant la divulgation des versements effectués aux anciens employés du secteur public par suite de la cessation de leur emploi.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Bill 53 is

An Act requiring the disclosure of payments to former public sector employees arising

from the termination of their employment. This is my second attempt to bring accountability to this issue. About a year and a half ago, I introduced another bill that passed second reading and was

referred to the general government committee, but because the Legislature was delayed it died on the order paper, as well as any other bill that had not passed third reading. There are a lot of

other topics that I would have loved to bring forward as a private member's bill, but I feel very passionate about this because it has to do with democracy, it has to do with open accountability

and it has to do, basically, with the waste of taxpayers' money which could be used for health care and education.

This was motivated a year and a half ago by some extremely beautiful golden handshakes to unaccountable senior CEOs in the public sector in Hamilton. Then,

upon researching these golden handshakes, I discovered, in consultation with my colleagues, that these golden handshakes were not just limited to Hamilton; they were across the province. Obscene

amounts of money were paid out for severances, about which the public did not have a right, and does not have a right, to pick up the phone and say, "How much is the CEO of that hospital or of that

board or of that city council leaving with?" We don't even have that right, number one. Number two, the amounts at times -- not always, but at times -- were obscene because, let's face it, it's

easier to let them go quietly if you give them more money. So there are two things here: the openness and the waste of taxpayers' money. At a time when programs are being delisted from OHIP, at a

time when special education budgets are being cut, we could be using these millions and millions of dollars for those programs.

I'll just give you a few examples from my hometown but also from across the province. The transition board from Ottawa bought out 72 senior civil employees for

$13.4 million; former acting regional chief administrative officer Mike Sheflin, $600,000. I want to remind this House that this information was sought by some very clever reporters under the

freedom of information act. This was not open to the public. None of what I'm about to say to you was ever offered to the public -- a former city commissioner of engineering and public works,

$408,000; seven other public employees, more than $300,000 each.

Just very recently in Hamilton, former city manager Doug Lychak, $359,000; city of Toronto former chief administrative officer Mike Garrett, $500,000; Hydro

Ottawa, former secretary-treasurer and director of finance Wilmer Barber, $309,000; and very recently, Ottawa Hospital former CEO David Levine, over $700,000. Actually, it was 730 -- did I say

thousand? I meant million, no, thousand -- $730,000. You see, I can't even say these numbers they're so big. I can't even perceive getting this much in severance.

David Levine qualifies for a payout, according to the Ottawa Sun, equalling about $729,480 over two years. This would have paid for three labs for patients,

$750,000, or the amount spent on health care for 426 people between 15 and 44 years old for one year, or 27 defibrillators for the city, or a nuclear medicine camera valuable for diagnosing

strokes, Alzheimer's, coronary artery disease and other ailments. One severance package could have paid for any of these important pieces of health equipment or other services.

Getting back to Hamilton, this probably started before Dr Jennifer Jackman, but Dr Jennifer Jackman, who was the CEO of Hamilton Health Sciences, really was

the golden handshake of golden handshakes, the mother of golden handshakes. In 1996 the initial settlement potential was $1.8 million. With all due respect to Dr Jackman, she didn't leave on good

terms from Hamilton. This was eventually reduced to $800,000, we think -- we think; we're not even sure. We don't know how much Catherine Rellinger, the former president of Hamilton Mohawk College,

received. She left before her contract was up. Again, Mr Rowand: his initial severance figure when he left Hamilton Health Sciences was half a million dollars. We don't know the final figure.

I want to emphasize that I'm not criticizing the individuals. It's human nature to look out for yourself. They're not breaking any laws. They've got their

contracts and if they're let go or they're forced to go or they want to go, they're going to take care of themselves, and they do. It's the law that is wrong.

Windsor Regional Hospital, former CEO Lloyd Preston, $675,000. We're talking severances here. Windsor former police chief John Kousik, $250,000. Then there are

former superintendents of school boards. When school boards amalgamated, a lot of the superintendents and some of the directors were considered redundant, and we don't have a right to know how much

they received. We do have a little bit from freedom of information. The Greater Essex County District School Board former superintendent of human resources received $170,000, plus $85,000 in

benefits. This is because he was redundant because there were two of them from amalgamation, and therefore he got this golden handshake.

Ontario Hydro former CEO Alan Kupcis, $942,000. I can't imagine that. This isn't IBM, Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola. These are public sector employees.

Kitchener-Waterloo Grand River Hospital former CEO Al Collins, $200,000; and Toronto St Michael's Hospital former president Roger Hunt, $360,000.

At least in Hamilton -- and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues from across the House -- that money could have been well used for health care and

education.

Very recently, one of my constituents brought to my attention that yet another health program for seniors was cut in Hamilton. Mr Ross Hopkins is 72 years old,

he's suffering from asthma, emphysema and silicosis as a result of working many years in one of the steel mills in Hamilton. For the last two years he's been involved with the Asthma and

Respiratory Centre in Hamilton, in the exercise program. This program is offered three times a week for three and a half hours a session. Each session is directed by a technician with a background

in kinesiology and special skills in physiology and has to be supervised by a licensed physician.

According to the information I received, as of July the code G467, which covered funding for this program, was eliminated from the fees of OHIP. It was

delisted, in other words.

Mr Hopkins has a wonderful support system, a wonderful family, and when he came to me he said, "You know, there are people a lot worse off than me, who have

even worse asthma and respiratory conditions than me, who really rely on this program. It's such a shame that it's cut. It's one more program that we really needed that was cut."

When we add up over $2.5 million in golden handshakes in Hamilton in the last five years, when we add up the millions of dollars in golden handshakes, a small

percentage of that could have gone for this program, could have gone for audiology, could have gone for special education, could have gone for so much more that was cut from our community.

What do other people say about this? The Hamilton Spectator, April 2001: "When the public pays, it has a right to know. This is accountability. Mohawk College

is the latest example."

Again, the Spectator:

"The public's right to know about matters involving taxpayers' money is neither a privilege nor a favour. It's a right, one that needs to be enshrined in

law.

"Elected officials have the privilege of spending public money and have the responsibility to do so wisely....

"Severance payments given to public sector managers are often so enormous as to be in the public interest....

"Severance packages that collectively add up to millions of dollars require scrutiny. The agreements to pay them require accountability.

"Once and for all, let's end secret severances. Queen's Park has the means.

"Severance payments to municipal employees have created a firestorm of protest from Ottawa residents." Ottawa Citizen, March 2001.

The Toronto Star, February 1992 -- this is not a new problem -- "Cash-strapped St Michael's Hospital is dumping its highly paid and highly touted new president

for a rumoured $360,000 in severance pay."

There's more. All I want to say is that I congratulate my colleague Caroline Di Cocco for bringing in a bill that says public meetings should be public, not

behind closed doors. If Mrs Di Cocco's bill, which is successfully going to go to committee next month, passes before Christmas, and if I have support in this House and this bill passes before

Christmas, there's a hope that there will be more accountability in the public sector.

I understand that across the way there is a lot on people's minds, that there's a leadership race going on and that the Legislature may be prorogued again, so

I'm really hoping you support this bill, that you support it in the committee I refer it to and that it's done before Christmas. This is an extension of your sunshine law. Anyone who makes $100,000

or more, the public has a right to know.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I'm very pleased to rise and offer support and my compliments to my friend and colleague from

Hamilton Mountain, Marie Bountrogianni. Given the recent history in Hamilton, and I certainly won't repeat it, this is something that's more than needed.

In fact I will go so far, since I'm in such a good mood, as to suggest that the government did a good thing too in picking up on the announcement we had made

as government, that such a disclosure law in terms of public salaries should be made, and they did continue that through. Unlike a whole lot of community investment programs we had announced, which

they slashed and did immeasurable damage to communities like Hamilton, they did continue with this announcement and they brought to this Legislature and passed the Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Act.

I think therein lies the best argument you could look for in terms of supporting this bill today. I don't know what the indications are from the government

members, whether they intend to support this or not. Marie, have you had any communication from them?

Mrs Bountrogianni: I've had some positive feedback.

Mr Christopherson: Some positive, so hopefully they'll support it because it is very consistent. Once you've made the principle that there is

a certain point at which the public right to know crosses into an individual's right of privacy -- that's always been the argument: how much someone makes, unless you've got a collective agreement,

is usually one of the biggest secrets one can possibly hold. I'm not sure that's the healthiest attitude, but there it is.

What we've said in this Legislature is that if you are past the $100,000 mark in pay, and are receiving and deriving that pay from the taxes of Ontarians, then

at the very least they have a right to know. Obviously over time that figure will grow and change to reflect inflation, but the principle that one's personal financial information, ie your wages,

is superseded by the public right to know has already been established. That's done.

Now all we're saying is there are other circumstances where monies that are spent on behalf of the public, with the public's own money, make the $100,000 mark

look like chump change, and that in light of the previous law we've passed, when you apply that principle, there's really no argument not to be divulging this. I'd be interested to hear the

arguments, if there are any, opposing this because I really can't imagine what they would be.

It also plays an important role in the dynamic of a democracy. Most of the agencies the member for Hamilton Mountain has mentioned are not elected bodies.

There may be municipal elected representatives as members, but it's usually just one or two. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of people who are on college boards, university boards,

hospital boards are appointments and there isn't that same accountability. It's sort of once removed, as opposed to the accountability of any of us who go out and put our name and our reputation on

the line and the people decide, very publicly, whether our contract is going to be renewed or whether it is time for us to go out to pasture.

I think this puts an important dynamic into play there because it forces those individuals to recognize that the accountability of the decisions around

severance is something they'll have to answer for just as they do every other decision they make that affects the public service they're responsible for.

Having said all this, I do want to say one thing; that is, I don't have the same level of difficulty as my friend with the amounts. Let me put that in its

context: $700,000 is a staggering amount of money. No matter who you are, that's a lot of money. And $250,000 is a lot of money. There are a number of people in Hamilton and other communities who

make that amount or more for a lot of reasons. Number one, they're responsible for often hundreds of millions of dollars of public money. They're ultimately responsible for a workforce of thousands

of people. They're accountable to a board of directors and to the users of the service they provide. They're also accountable to the general public.

When you're dealing with that level of responsibility -- it is very much like a deputy minister here -- if you're going to find people who can perform that

task in the way the public has a right to have it performed, it is going to cost you. If you want to go cut-rate, then that's the kind of service you're going to get. That's unfortunate,

particularly for the taxpayer, but that's the reality. I have yet to be in a position where I'm elected or appointed to be responsible for an organization where the top person who works with me,

the top civil servant, doesn't make tons more than I do. That applies not only to when I was a municipal councillor and all the directors made at least twice what we did -- that's the directors,

not even talking about the CAO -- but also, as a former minister, my deputy minister made a lot more. Even as the president of my local union back in the 1970s, the administrator in the office made

more than I did.

That's a reflection of the requirements for those positions and the competition, because we are competing with the private sector for these individuals. People

who can run $100-million organizations are very much sought after privately, and we need them publicly. When you start looking at severance and you use the multipliers that the courts have

established -- this gets to the nub of where I have some difficulty with saying the dollar figure is a problem. The dollar figure is usually based on a formula in the contract. Those formulas are

often reflective of what courts have said is fair.

Being a former labour leader, I've spent a lot of time, and the labour movement continues to spend a lot of time, fighting for decent severance. Those formulas

are key and crucial to people who make a heck of a lot less. But again, extremes ought not to be used to establish law. I don't want to get into a situation where we start saying that somebody who

receives two years or more, or 18 months, in severance is not entitled to that because of the dollar figure it ultimately reaches, because that could have an impact on an awful lot of working

people who have fought for decades to have a decent severance payout.

I would also remind the House that often those severances are established as part of a contract of employment. They reflect what has already both been

established by the courts and what is out there in the world of competition, in terms of competing to bring them out of the private sector where they can still usually make an awful lot more and

bring them into the public sector where, I would argue, we need them even more.

With that one caveat -- it has no reflection on this bill; that was really part of an earlier bill -- my colleague feels somewhat differently about that, and

that's cool. That's what this place is all about. But given that what we're talking about today in this bill is explicitly the issue of whether or not the public has a right to know, to me this

ought to be motherhood. This should be a slam dunk here today that, yes, we support the earlier bill that says anybody receiving over $100,000 a year will be known to the public, and that now will

extend to include severances. If that causes some boards and commissions to put a little finer point to both the clauses they put in contracts and what they're considering about throwing into a

deal to have someone move along that they feel is in the best interests of the organization, great. I think that's a dynamic that helps public service, helps the democratic process, particularly at

the local level, because that's where we're seeing all of this.

But what it may do also is start to set the precedents that when you're dealing with that much money, at the end of the day there's no justification for

keeping it secret. On a broader scale, I'm going beyond and saying this is a principle that may find itself applied elsewhere, and that's healthy, that's good. But for today, really, this is just

common sense if ever there was, an extension of a principle we already have.

I would also say, on my last point, that it's actually of benefit to those representatives on the boards and commissions. More headlines were generated in

Hamilton over the refusal to give out the dollar figure than probably ever would have happened if they'd just been given out in the first place. Yes, there still would have been a kerfuffle. You

can't spend half a million dollars or more of taxpayers' money without ruffling some feathers. But I don't think there would have been near the firestorm we saw in Hamilton, and in other

communities, obviously, if there hadn't been this first attempt to say, "No, we're going to keep it secret. You can't be told."

I think this is of benefit all around, and I would hope and expect that this would receive unanimous support here today.

I want to end by congratulating my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for having the perseverance to continue with this, even when it died on the government's

order paper last time. She brought it back. This is an important contribution to public service. I commend her for the efforts and I intend to offer my support today, and our NDP caucus will be

supporting it also.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today and speak to this bill. I'm going to support the

bill in principle. But before I get into it, I want to congratulate the member from Hamilton West on his amazing transformation, or maybe I should say even reformation, on recognizing that people

in business -- I presume you meant not just organized labour but business people as well who have charge of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of budget -- should be well paid. I do want

to congratulate you. After what your government did to small business and the equity that small businessmen had in their businesses, I congratulate you.

This bill addresses greater openness and accountability, and that's something this government has supported since 1995, when we were elected. I congratulate

the member from Hamilton Mountain, Dr Bountrogianni, on this bill.

We're not talking about dollars that are actually spent by government; we're talking about dollars that are spent by non-governmental agencies but,

nevertheless, they are tax dollars. We have said many times that there's only one taxpayer in the province of Ontario. So I really congratulate you.

There is a belief, I believe by all members of this House, that there is a need for all transfer agencies to be more accountable for the money they spend.

The member did introduce a bill, Bill 104, in the previous session. I could not have supported that bill because I felt that it created a bloated bureaucracy.

This one does not. This one does not have that extra layer of reporting involved, and I'm quite pleased about that.

Nevertheless, I have some concerns and I really urge the member from Hamilton Mountain to give these concerns some consideration. I feel that the execution of

the bill is complicated --

Interjection.

Mr Wettlaufer: You know, it's bad enough to get heckled by the other side of the House. Now I'm getting heckled by my own members. That's

because there aren't enough members in the House.

I believe that the execution of the bill should be a little more detailed. It should outline in mandatory terms of disclosure. Should it be published or should

it be available for just anyone who wants to see it? Would there be a fee that could be levied, for instance? Would the report be disclosed annually, would it be disclosed semi-annually or would it

be disclosed within a mandated time period after the severance takes place?

I believe also that there is no provision for regulation in the bill. That, I think, should be explicitly provided. Without that, the bill could not be amended

other than by legislation. I would urge you to consider that amendment.

One thing I want to point out is that the bill also does not allow for the context to be given to any severance payment: ie, would the disclosure shed on

whether or not it was reasonable? What were the terms of this severance, ie, the salary, the terms of the severance itself? Was there a contract involved? What were the duties of the employee or

manager? These are things that I would like to see looked at.

There are some legal implications as well. For instance, disclosure of salary and benefits are often discussed in public as part of a public discourse on value

for taxpayer dollars. The terms of severance, including confidentiality issues surrounding termination of employment and decisions of labour tribunals, could make it very difficult for an employer

to give context to the dollar values made public under the bill. Forced disclosure could prompt the affected employers to lowball severance packages. That could result in litigation.

We did a little research. We got the legislative library to look at something here. We looked at the law in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario. In

British Columbia, for instance, there is no specific legislation, but BC's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act covers the issue. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has held

that severance packages constitute remuneration or discretionary benefit of a financial nature under the act and, as such, disclosure of the amount is not an unreasonable invasion of personal

privacy. Alberta also has no specific legislation, is also covered by the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner in Alberta held

that it did not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the employee's personal privacy and that disclosure was therefore permitted.

Quebec also does not have a specific statute. The information -- I'm talking about personal information now in all of these -- including the amount of

severance, is public information and can be disclosed.

Of course, Ontario is governed by the province's Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I was wondering if perhaps the member had sought out the advice of the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner. That would be helpful.

I don't have any real concerns in terms of whether or not this is privacy information. My only concern is the legal implications. I believe that if the House

passes this bill and we can send it to committee, the committee could also do some work on this as well with the member and make any improvements necessary, if the member agrees, and I think she

does because she's nodding her head. I would say that I could support this.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): It is a real privilege to speak on Dr Bountrogianni's Bill 53, which in my view is about what good

government is about: the good process, if you want, of disseminating public dollars. That's what this is about.

This bill has one objective: to bring accountability to public sector severance payments. It comes about not because the member for Hamilton Mountain thought,

"I have to decide what a private member's bill is and therefore find an issue," but because it comes from real experiences in her own constituency that dealt with an abuse of providing severance

pay -- or, as she calls it, the golden handshake -- to the tune of I believe $1.8 million.

I understand that it isn't necessarily the dollars in and of themselves, but the public does have a right to know when public funds are expended in this

manner. You have the sunshine bill. With any public sector employee who makes over $100,000 a year, that is listed as tax dollars provided to pay their wages. The member for Hamilton Mountain is

just saying there are too many packages. I know, because we've certainly had incidences in my constituency. There are way too many incidences where directors of education, CEOs of municipalities,

CEOs of hospitals, get huge amounts of money but the public never is told what that amount is. I believe that is just showing respect to the openness of government, if you want to call it that, for

the public. It's about management of public dollars, their hard-earned tax dollars.

We had an incident in my area of Sarnia-Lambton even during the last municipal election. We had a CEO, the director of education. We had an inquiry that cost

hundreds of thousands of dollars because of dollars that were misspent. Not only were they misspent, there were millions of dollars lost, that literally flew out the window, went into private

developers' pockets and were removed from the auspices of education in the area. This director, it was seen through the inquiry, played a huge role in how these dollars were misspent. What did our

board do? They did want to get rid of him, so they gave him a wonderful severance package of over $600,000 for misspending $3.5 million and eroding the credibility of a system. That, to me, is

inappropriate.

It was interesting because in one of the public debates a trustee was asked, "How much money did you actually pay out for this director?" She said, "That's

private. I can't say what it is." I think the public becomes incensed. Not only that, I think the public deserves better than that. I think that's what this bill is all about. As a matter of fact,

I know that's what this bill is all about. It's simple.

I know the member for Kitchener Centre made some comments about some complexities which he saw in this bill, but my view, at least my understanding of it from

the member for Hamilton Mountain, is that this is similar to your sunshine law. It simply requires public disclosure of severance pay of $100,000 or more to public sector employees. So after the

decision has been made, after of course they have been held to the contract and they've said, "You're going to go. We're going to give you so much money," the public is just notified so that they

understand where their hard-earned tax dollars are going. I believe they do. It's about good government.

The member for Kitchener Centre mentioned non-governmental agencies. A hospital board may not be a legislative agency, but it certainly is a part of the

governmental agencies at the provincial -- you know, it's another jurisdiction. It's a finger of the same arm. Again, it's about better government. It's about better public service, in my view.

I really commend the member for Hamilton Mountain. I'm quite passionate about this type of transparency that I think the public deserves. As we move on in our

journey as legislators, we have to try to make these areas that we have tremendous -- I sat here and listened to the specific dollar figures and how this information came to be known in the public

view, and I think it's nonsense.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It's unbelievable.

Ms Di Cocco: It really is. I think we can change that. We can change it if we can pass this Bill 53 and we can change it if we allow it to go

to committee in this House and get good public hearings on it. Maybe we can restore some of that cynical environment that the public has. We can do it. I know if there is the political will in this

House, we can pass this bill. I urge us as legislators to support this type of legislation that makes public bodies accountable for those decisions. It brings transparency to the expenditure of

millions of taxpayers' dollars. They deserve that. The public wants to understand. "Where are our dollars being spent and why?" They deserve that. I believe this bill does that.

Again, I urge the members to support it. It's a valuable step toward what I believe in and what I believe I'm here for. I know the member for Hamilton Mountain

is on exactly the same road, and that is ethical transparency and accountability, true accountability, not just in rhetoric but in action. That's what this bill is all about. Again, I urge all of

us to support it.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): In the three and a half minutes that I have available to me here, I would like to commend Dr

Bountrogianni for bringing this forward. We will of course be supporting it. It's trite to say we live in a litigious society. People run off to lawyers every day. They run off to lawyers when they

feel they've been wronged. They run off to lawyers for publicity. They run off to lawyers and go to the courts to try to get money if they see advantage in their case. It is the right of all

individuals to seek redress and it is the right of individuals as well, though, on occasion to seek privacy. Much of what we have seen before in past years is individuals attempting to protect

their privacy, corporations attempting to protect their privacy, and municipalities and governments attempting to protect their privacy. The courts have interpreted that and have had mixed messages

on whether things can be released or not. I compliment this bill in making it clear and unequivocal that the Legislature expects that it will be released, so that the courts do not have to weigh

privacy laws against the right of the public to know.

One has to remember, on the other hand, that many of the people who are dismissed are dismissed without cause. I heard the list of all the people. The one I am

the most familiar with is the former CAO of Toronto, Mr Mike Garrett, who was dismissed without cause. The reason in part that his salary was, as she said, $500,000 was because that had been

negotiated at the time that the city gave him a renewal of his contract, said laudatory things about him, said what a great CAO he was, how marvellous he was to the city, awarded him this, and

guaranteed that if he was ever dismissed without cause that would be his package.

Part of the reason this is such an important bill is not because we are letting the public know how much money is being spent, but one of the side benefits,

and I think a really good benefit, is that we are going to let the public know that $500,000, in that particular case, was given for firing a person who just several months before that had been

given a renewal of his contract and a lot of public acclaim for the brilliant job he was doing in the city. In reality, what needed to happen and I don't think happened enough in the city of

Toronto is that the people of that city had to ask why the council of the city of Toronto wanted to spend $500,000 of taxpayers' money to do what they did when there was no cause whatsoever. It had

to be reversed back, not to the person who had been released and not to the package they got, but why the council would do such a thing and why in fact they did do it. That was a very mixed council

vote. I was one of those who voted not to do it, because I thought it was an abuse of public dollars.

This bill will make sure that happens, and I support doing exactly that. The true test, of course, will be -- if this bill is passed into law, and I hope it

will be -- what the courts do with it concerning the privacy legislation where people attempt to negotiate or where corporations or civic bodies try to invoke the privacy clause. That will be the

real test. I can only hope the courts will keep it public.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to stand and speak this morning to Bill 53, the private member's bill introduced by the

member for Hamilton Mountain.

I'd also like to welcome all the young people we have in the audience here today. It's great to see so many people out to see the workings of Parliament.

I support the general intent of this bill and take the member in good faith that it is designed to bring greater openness and accountability to the broader

public sector. This openness and accountability for tax dollars is something this government has supported since its election. These are dollars not spent by the government, but which are paid for

by tax dollars. There is a real need for transfer agencies to account for the money they spend, just as there is a need for government to account for it. This was the purpose of the sunshine bill

passed just a few years ago by this House.

The bill the member has introduced today I believe is much better than the one introduced by the member in the previous session. Bill 104 would have been very

difficult to support, as it would have created a bloated bureaucracy with another layer of reporting. However, I do have some concerns about the details of this bill and hope the member will listen

to them and give them some consideration.

I am also concerned about the possible implications this bill could have on the settlement of severance packages. People are dismissed from positions for a

number of reasons. I'm not going to get into the specifics of speculation, but there could be a number of cases where a severance package that seems large is actually quite reasonable. That's a

little bit of a problem with the $100,000 capping. I understand it's nice to have some kind of figure, but in some cases it may be inappropriate. Granted, these are people who are being paid by

public sector employers and therefore tax dollars, but the people in question have the same right to expect they will be give appropriate notice or compensation.

I'm not sure about the cases that the member opposite raises, but I think there is likely much more information to that than we are aware of, information that

may help explain why a payment is reasonable.

What also concerns me is that this could add a dynamic to the settlement of severance packages that are usually settled in private, often with the assistance

of arbitrators or labour relations boards. Traditionally, these are settled in private and the proceedings are confidential. In the case of, say, an arbitrator, the findings are binding. In this

case, the settlement is really not the employer's decision, and it would be unfair to the employer to then have to defend a decision that is not theirs but that they also cannot talk about to give

any context to. This is the kind of very complicated labour law that I do not have expertise in, but I am not satisfied that this is entirely consistent with other long-standing legal

traditions.

Still, I think the purpose of the legislation is valid, but I am very concerned that it is missing some detail about the secondary impacts such a bill might

have with some specific cases.

Based on that, I will be supporting the bill and I compliment the member for bringing it forward today.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm certainly pleased today to join the debate and to, first of all, congratulate my colleague and friend

from Hamilton Mountain, Marie Bountrogianni, for a bill that is long overdue.

I really find it hard to understand why anybody would see this as being complicated or somehow different from what we're now doing under the public disclosure

act. It's very simple. Now the law of Ontario says that for any public servant, anyone who basically relies on tax dollars for an income, who has a salary of over $100,000, the corporation, the

board, has to submit the name. It is published once a year under the sunshine law, the disclosure act passed, I believe, in 1995 or 1996 by this government.

This is a really commonsense extension of that. I congratulate my colleague for the work she has put into this, and I find it astonishing that we are sitting

here in October 2001 and talking about an issue that we sat here and talked about in this Legislature in October 1996.

Let me read you something. Hamilton Spectator, October 17, 1996: "`I don't care if it's a hospital board, a school board, or a local municipality, these people

are representatives of their community,' ... `They are responsible...to their constituents and I think it is incumbent upon them to come clean, if you will, to the public at large.'" That's Ernie

Eves, Treasurer of Ontario at that time.

At that time, Mr Eves said he'd like to see changes but didn't know whether it was best to make an amendment to the act or to give the auditor more authority

to look at financial records.

I remember dealing with this issue in 1996 regarding an $850,000 severance package being given to the CEO of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp after the

individual had been on the job for one year. There was absolute outrage in the community. What has changed six years later? Absolutely nothing. We continue to have outrageous settlements; we

continue to have backroom deals; we continue to have a lack of accountability for taxpayers' dollars. I don't know who this government is trying to protect, or why. I don't know why they haven't

moved in six years. I don't know why they are somehow getting caught up in the details of this bill. It isn't that complicated, folks. If you believe in public, open accountability, then you simply

say that what applies under the sunshine law applies under this legislation.

Most of these deals are negotiated between the board, if it's a hospital board, and its hospital CEO, or between the city council and its CEO. First of all, I

think someone had an issue with the amount of the severance. That's an issue aside from this that has to be dealt with: should there be a cap? Is it acceptable for someone who has been on the job a

year or two years to walk away with a severance package that may be twice the size of their salary during that period? That being said, the majority of those deals today are negotiated ahead of

time. They should be disclosed as part of the package that's negotiated, and they should be disclosed when it comes to the individual and their severance package kicking in.

So I'm sitting here, and I remember at that time that Jim Wilson, the Minister of Health, wrote to the chair saying, "[A]s a taxpayer-funded organization, they

should use common sense and allocate dollars wisely.... This is ... important since their decisions involve public funds, money paid by the taxpayers of the province." Hospitals, he said, must be

fair, but also must remember that "the public interest is paramount in any decision."

Again, the former Minister of Health and the former Minister of Finance seemed to be on board. I think it's unfortunate that we're still sitting here six years

later arguing over this.

The list provided by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain outlines some of the obscene packages, but what makes it even more obscene is that these packages

often do not see the light of day. It is unacceptable; it is wrong; it is not accountability to the taxpayers of Ontario. The government should not be running, as much as they want to, hospital

boards or school boards or city councils, but they should require accountability from the people who make those decisions. This government is big on accountability. We talk about accountability for

hospitals. We talk about how, if you don't have balanced budgets, we're going to fine the CEO or we're going to fine the chair of the board. They talk about accountability in every aspect. This is

nothing more than a question of public accountability.

Someone on that side of the House should explain to me why the public interest would not be served by passing the bill from my colleague today, bringing it to

committee and getting it through the Legislature very quickly. It's a farce. I cannot understand it. I wish someone would explain to me why there would be an objection to this. Can someone here

explain to me why you haven't moved in the last six years?

I hope today -- and we're getting an indication by some government members that they may support this -- that you don't get cute with this bill, that you don't

pull off the usual stunt of supporting a bill to make it look like you do and then, when it has to go off to committee and we can really do something about it, you bury it. We're making it clear

that we're going to hold you accountable for that. It's not going to be good enough to simply stand up today and give token support to this bill and then not take it to the next step, not take it

to the right committee.

It doesn't need a lot of change. It's a couple of minor changes, if those are necessary. If you want to take credit for the bill, go for it; I'm sure my

colleague won't mind, because, frankly, it gets what we want done. If you want to simply amend the sunshine law and you don't want to give the opposition the pleasure of passing a bill, as you tend

not to, then take it and run with it, but fix it. It's that simple. Just fix it.

My colleague has done the work here. I believe she'll be given the credit, if not by you then by the public. Please do the right thing today: support this

bill, send it to committee and change it.

Mr Wettlaufer: Where were you when I said I would?

Mr Agostino: I appreciate the member from Kitchener supporting this. I hope he supports its going to committee to get it changed and brought

back before Christmas. I know he supported this in the past, and I think it's important. But again I'm urging the leadership on the government side of the House to ensure that this bill gets quick

passage to committee and gets back into the Legislature. Let's do the right thing. Let's finally shine light on some of these obscene severance packages so that boards, councils and commissions

that make the decisions are held accountable. It is taxpayers' dollars. The taxpayers are owed nothing but openness and accountability, and this bill does that.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on Bill 53 and to compliment the member for bringing this

forward.

It's unfortunate. Some of these private members' bills are ideal. They arise from a problem in the individual's riding or in Ontario in general, and to get

them all the way through -- they can be stopped by an individual, because of course we need unanimous consent to get them through. I really think we need a new way of getting third reading through,

because here's a bill that should go all the way.

I think back to the bill I had on people riding in the backs of trucks and getting thrown out and being killed. It went through second reading, we went to

committee, the committee agreed with it and came up with some really good ideas and some ideas from the ministry. We adjusted it accordingly. The Minister of Transportation enthusiastically

supports it, but it can be stopped by one individual. In a democratic society -- the operation of this Legislature being democratic -- we need another way of recognizing third readings. I empathize

with the member, because I expect this one will end up getting to third reading and not getting any further. I think that's very unfortunate.

This particular legislation is consistent with what the government has been bringing forward. One we brought forward was on public salaries when they exceed

$100,000 -- salaries paid from the public purse, whether direct or indirect. The second one was on union salaries. The member from Scarborough East first brought it forward, and I remember it was

completed as a government bill -- again, union leaders making $100,000 or more per year.

I'm not questioning whether people deserve this salary level or severance level. It's certainly something the public has great concern about, and I think its

being brought forward by the member is excellent. If we can get this through, it's going to provide the opportunity for the employee -- whether it's a CEO for a hospital, a municipality or whatever

-- to establish at the time they're hired what the severance package is going to be, depending on what the contract is and when the severance occurs as it relates to the end of the contract. At the

same time, the employer is going to be prepared to put out documentation to explain why this particular severance amount was agreed to. Whether it's $500,000 or $120,000, at least they'll be

putting it out and it won't be rumoured on the street, or it won't be put out because of obtaining it through freedom of information.

We had a situation of a CEO severance package for a hospital in my riding I believe in the winter-spring of 1998. The rumour was that he got a half-million

dollars. As soon as that appeared in the press, the phones in my office lit up like a Christmas tree. People were phoning, and they were angry. Like the member suggested, people had donated to this

hospital, and they were seeing a half-million dollars going out in a severance package.

Was it fair or not? You'd have to go back to the contract and examine it and see what this individual was losing. But it was also rumoured that this individual

left on a Friday night and on Monday morning was working in another hospital. At a different hospital in my riding, the CEO left and the amount never did surface, but it was certainly discussed on

the street. I think that's wrong. What's right is to release that information, and at the same time the employer can explain why that level is there.

I enthusiastically support the member's legislation, Bill 53, that's being put forward this morning.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mrs Bountrogianni: I'd like to thank all the members on all sides of the House -- Hamilton West, Sarnia-Lambton, Hamilton East, Kitchener

Centre, Beaches-East York, Simcoe North and Northumberland -- for their feedback, their support and their constructive criticism. I will take head of their advice. Hopefully it'll get to the

committee before Christmas and we can actually do that.

I would agree with my colleague from Hamilton East, and I said this publicly to the media last year, that if the government wants to take this idea and just

extend their sunshine law -- it was basically an extension of their idea -- I would be quite happy with that. This isn't about me bringing in a bill; this is about bringing accountability to

communities across Ontario.

With respect to the amounts of severance packages, I have a slight disagreement with my friend from Hamilton West. I see your point, and I think people do

deserve good salaries and good severance packages. But there were times when people got severances they didn't deserve in their wildest dreams because it was just easier to give them that much

money. It was easier for them to get out the door because no one would know. All I'm saying in here is, let's keep it open. Once it's open, we will be a little more careful about what we pay out.

That's all.

I agree that my original bill was too technical, too bureaucratic. I agree with you. I modelled it after a bill in British Columbia, and that did set limits.

This one doesn't. I think this bill does sort of address the concerns I heard in the last attempt at this.

I look forward to the committee. I will, in a few minutes, refer it to the standing committee on public accounts for more feedback.

Another issue is fundraising. When we did have one obscene severance package in Hamilton a few years ago, people were actually calling and asking for their

cheques back. This does affect the trust communities have in us.

Thank you for your support. All I'm asking for is that for anyone who makes $100,000 or more in severance, let the public know.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I notice that in private members' public business there are generally not a lot of people here.

But I'd like to point out that a class from Sacred Heart school is here today.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. As you know, that is not a point of order.

We welcome you.

That completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 30.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE MARIAGE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now deal with ballot item number 29. Mr Murdoch has moved second reading of Bill 74. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I would like to see this bill sent to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed?

All in favour, please stand. You may be seated.

All opposed, please stand.

A majority is in favour.

This bill will be referred to the justice committee.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' SEVERANCE PAY

DISCLOSURE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA DIVULGATION DES INDEMNITÉS

DE CESSATION D'EMPLOI

DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I'll now deal with ballot item number 30. Mrs Bountrogianni has moved second reading of Bill 53. Is

it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to refer this bill to the public accounts committee, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

All matters before us this morning in private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I was interested to see yesterday the government essentially saying that things are just fine, that

there isn't any significant problem in Ontario and it's just sort of steady as she goes. I hope they're right, but I suggest there is considerable evidence that that's not the case. I'm afraid the

government may be, for whatever reason, understating the challenge.

Ontario in the last four months has lost 26,000 jobs. The rest of Canada, by the way, has gained 9,000 jobs. It was just a few months ago that the budget was

presented saying Ontario would add 150,000 jobs, and it looks like actually by the end of the year we'll be down some jobs.

When Premier Harris became the Premier, the debt was roughly $90 billion. It's over $110 billion now. The government has said, "Listen, we're going to cut

corporate taxes to 25% below the US, but we're going to have a better health care system than the US." In my opinion, there's only one taxpayer; there's only one way that we will be able to

adequately fund our health care system.

It's increasingly clear that Premier Harris saw these numbers, made his decision and now has left the challenge to the rest of us to solve.

NEWMARKET CELEBRATIONS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): This year, the town of Newmarket in my riding of York North is celebrating its 200th birthday.

The last weekend in September this year, Main Street was crowded with partygoers who all tried to cast their minds back to imagine what the town must have

looked like 200 years ago. Most of the land within the present-day boundaries of Newmarket was nothing but bush, trees and rock. There were some old Indian trails and a wilderness road called Yonge

Street.

It was along this road that a Vermont Quaker named Timothy Rogers, ancestor of Ted Rogers, came. He was looking for arable land to settle a number of families

of the Society of Friends who had become troubled by life in the newly independent United States. In May 1801, he brought 40 Quaker families. They settled on Yonge Street near the Rouge Trail in

the village of Armitage. The area eventually became known as the town of Newmarket. The spirit of this town was well established by its Quaker founders.

Among the many activities of this year-long celebration have been two important visits. In the spring, the Lieutenant Governor visited Newmarket, and in

October it was my pleasure to welcome our Premier, Mike Harris, to Newmarket, where among other activities he planted a tree from the province to commemorate the 200th anniversary.

My congratulations to the many community volunteers who worked so hard to ensure the success of the 200th-anniversary celebrations.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): This morning, I was at a press conference for an announcement by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs announcing a comprehensive plan for the preservation of the Oak Ridges Moraine. This announcement is welcome news not only in the area of York region but right around the province of

Ontario. Although we will not see the details until later on this afternoon, we welcome consideration of this bill.

This announcement represents the culmination of 20 years and more of work by environmental groups and individuals who have told us in this place for years that

we must preserve and protect this critical piece of geography in southern Ontario. I want to pay special tribute to people like Charles Sauriol, Dorothy Izzard, Debbe Crandall, who I see is in the

members' gallery, STORM, and particularly Mike Colle, our member, who has fought this battle so hard very recently.

I want to say in this House that there is yet another environmental issue to address urgently in my riding, and that is the closure of the Keele Valley

landfill site. Now, the Minister of the Environment wants one day to be Premier. If she is actually serious about leadership, she will urgently create a task force to determine what we in this

province are going to do about landfill sites and waste management for the greater Toronto area. I invite her to that task today.

COUNTERTERRORISM MEASURES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): The events of September 11 were devastating tragedies, and the people of Simcoe North have responded

generously, lending heartfelt support to those suffering sorrow and pain. To everyone who reached out with condolences, who donated blood, who gave money or food or who found other ways to help

victims and families of these terrorist activities, a special thank you.

These events served as a wakeup call to levels of government throughout our nation. It was a reminder that we cannot take cherished freedoms and security for

granted, that we must keep working to protect the peaceful and tolerant society we have created.

To this end, the provincial government has taken measures to help combat terrorism in our province. Some of these measures include:

The establishment of a special police unit to assist federal officers in tracking down people in Ontario illegally, and aggressively seeking deportation of

criminal offenders;

The appointment of former RCMP Commissioner Norman Inkster and Major General Lewis MacKenzie as new provincial security advisers reviewing emergency response

plans;

Improved security for obtaining vital statistics documents to protect Ontario citizens' birth certificates and other important documents;

Calling for establishing a North America-wide security perimeter which will protect our access to the United States' market and protect our nation from the

threat of terrorists;

The expansion of the hate crimes and extremism unit to respond to an expected increase of hate crime incidents;

Ensuring that first responders are properly equipped to respond to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks;

Establishing a provincial emergency response team that will be specially trained and equipped to combat terrorist threats. Their mandate is to provide

protection and specialized response to critical infrastructure.

As well, I would like to thank our Premier for his leadership throughout this very difficult time in the history of our province.

BLUEPRINT

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This is a public service for the 50 or so leadership candidates across the aisle: it is not nice to

fool the citizens in Ontario. You put out a Blueprint on what you were going to do this term. Evidently, there is an ulterior-motive, hidden-agenda proposal that is not given to the public.

You took and privatized school funding; it's not in the book. You introduced private cancer care; it's not in the book. You cut home care services; you didn't

put that in this book. You amalgamated municipalities against their wishes; it's not in the book. You have put our water supply at risk; you didn't mention that in the book. You privatized our

universities; not in the book. We need the other version, the real one that you're following.

You cut textbook funding in half this year; you didn't mention it in the book. You reduced public access to physiotherapists, audiologists; you didn't mention

that in 1999. You increased the cost of the cabinet support offices by 116%; I didn't find that as one of your promises in 1999. You are consistently blocking freedom-of-information requests; you

didn't mention that in the book.

Privatizing water systems, increasing the Premier's office staff salaries by 40%: list that next time so the citizens of Ontario know what you really want to

do.

It is a disgrace. Please give the other version to the public.

ADDICTION SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Minister of Health must deal with the serious funding issues facing the Northern Regional Recovery

Continuum in Sudbury. This agency helps women 16 and over who want to overcome a drug or alcohol addiction.

A 21-day structured residential or day treatment program provides individual and group therapy, life skills training, relapse prevention, native traditional

teachings, and Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. After-care programs help women after treatment is ended.

Last fiscal year, 187 women were admitted for treatment, and at present there is a six- to eight-month waiting list for counselling and after care because the

agency can only afford to pay two staff to respond to these needs.

This agency hasn't had a base funding increase in 10 years. They've just been told that the 2% increase received last year by all agencies dealing with

addictions was one-time money only. This was news, since the former Minister of Health, who had made the announcement at the Addictions 2000 conference last November, led people to believe this

money would be added to base budgets. At the same time, she also announced $5 million in new money for addictions. It has been revealed that this is one-time money too, so it can't be used to

support existing addiction programs which desperately need funds.

The Northern Regional Recovery Continuum is dealing with proxy pay equity payments, increased ministry requirements, a problem to recruit and retain qualified

staff, and a waiting list for needed services. This government brags about wanting to help people with addictions, but there has been no increase in base budgets for addiction services. This

government had over $2 billion for corporate tax cuts. Where's the money to help women with addictions in Sudbury?

BICYCLE EXHIBIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to recognize the opening of a unique exhibit of historic bicycles at the Bowmanville Museum.

This is an account of Bowmanville's history on two wheels.

The display includes a large-wheeled, penny farthing bicycle that was originally ridden from Bowmanville to Rochester, New York, in 1880. Another famous

bicycle is an unusual chainless model that belonged to former postmaster Carl Kent. But the star of the show is a rare Massey-Harris bike with wooden rims and fenders made at the Dominion Organ and

Piano Co in Bowmanville.

The text for the display is by the famous local historian from Bowmanville, Bill Humber, who is the author of a new book, Freewheeling, the Story of Bicycling

in Canada.

I'm proud to represent a riding that takes such an interest in its history, through its museums in Bowmanville, Kirby, Scugog and Oshawa. A bicycle exhibit

offers a fascinating window into the people, places and industries from Bowmanville's past.

I'd like at this time also to pay tribute to the Bowmanville Museum board and to curator Charles Taws, who by the way is leaving his post for a new

opportunity. I'm sure the community would like to thank him for his hard work and dedication in preserving, promoting and interpreting our local history. We all wish him well.

I would also like to encourage members to look to their history by visiting their local museum frequently.

MINISTER'S REMARKS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): The events of September 11 have affected all of us to a great degree. They have forced us to look not

only at the very elements of our security within our borders but our relationship with our great neighbour to the south, the United States of America.

There have been deep, tough issues that governments at all levels have to face in order to respond to the new reality, the reality of our desire to increase

security but at the same time maintain that important flow of goods and services across our borders. No community has felt that more than our community.

The Ontario Liberal Party, Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty and all of us on this side of the House were astounded at the Minister of Economic Development and

Trade's tirade against the federal government yesterday in this House. At the very time when governments at all levels -- municipal, provincial, federal -- should be working together, this minister

chose to use this House for what essentially was a cockeyed political statement that paid no heed to the fact that we in this chamber are all Canadians.

Tomorrow, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs will be in Windsor to meet with border officials. I invite the minister to do that and start working

together as Canadians to ensure that our economy doesn't continue to pay a high price.

CANADIAN DOLLAR

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Our dollar has fallen to 62.88 cents US -- an all-time low and a great concern for

Canadians. The dollar has fallen in good times and in bad times, but only under the Chrétien Liberals has it hit the 62-cent mark.

The Liberals embarrass our entire country when they pretend that a low dollar is part of a scheme to boost exports. They are wrong, wrong and wrong. Every time

our dollar drops to a new low, the Liberals are weakening our standard of living. They are forcing more Canadian professors and doctors to move south to seek a stable standard of living.

The dropping dollar is a vote of non-confidence by the global market in Mr Chrétien. When the dollar drops to zero, how will he boost exports?

Immediately before Y2K, Time Magazine Canada stated that Canadians should make this New Year's resolution to stop asking whether prices are referred to in US

dollars or Canadian dollars.

On behalf of Ontarians, I call on Mr Chrétien to defend our retirement savings, our children's education funds and our standard of living. Until the

Liberals change their disastrous policies or are routed from office in Ottawa, every Canadian parent should call their MP and show their discontent.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I beg leave to present the first report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Marland: No, thank you. I will not take the temptation or the invitation.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present the report on the forest management program from the standing committee

on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion Carry? Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(APPROPRIATE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

IN SCHOOLS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(UTILISATION APPROPRIÉE

DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

DANS LES ÉCOLES)

Mr Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 121,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide for the appropriate use of communications technology in schools by requiring boards to establish

policies and guidelines governing the use of wireless communications devices by pupils on school premises / Projet de loi 121, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation afin de prévoir

l'utilisation appropriée de la technologie de communication dans les écoles en exigeant que les conseils établissent des politiques et des lignes directrices régissant

l'utilisation par les élèves de dispositifs de communication sans fil dans les lieux scolaires.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): My bill was created in response to the many parents and educators who have real concerns about the use of

wireless technology in our schools. Whether it's ringing cellphones, beeping pagers or instant messaging between students, I believe we need to ensure that all boards have rules governing their

use. This bill, if passed, amends the Education Act to require boards of education to establish policies and guidelines governing the use of cellphones, pagers and similar devices by pupils on

school premises and will ensure that these polices and guidelines provide for disciplinary consequences for non-compliance.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CONSERVATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA CONSERVATION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act to conserve the Oak Ridges Moraine by providing for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à conserver

la moraine d'Oak Ridges en prévoyant l'établissement du Plan de conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges.

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

The member for a short statement?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Later.

EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA

AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA

SEMAINE DE SENSIBILISATION

À L'ÉPIDERMOLYSE BULLEUSE

Mr Kennedy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 123,

An Act proclaiming Epidermolysis Bullosa Awareness Week / Projet de loi 123, Loi proclamant la Semaine de sensibilisation à l'épidermolyse

bulleuse.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I