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

October 28, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Oct-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 28 October 2004 Jeudi 28 octobre 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND ACQUISITION

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES

QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

LAND ACQUISITION

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES

QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

LAND ACQUISITION

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES

QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

JOHN SZOKE

VOLUNTEERS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

LOBBYISTS

ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED

ADULT EDUCATION

HEALTH CARE

EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREENBELT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

PLACES TO GROW ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LES ZONES DE CROISSANCE

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

(PUBLIC TRANSIT EXPENSE

TAX CREDIT), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

(CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT POUR DÉPENSES

DE TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN)

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GREENBELT

GROWTH PLANNING

GREENBELT

GROWTH PLANNING

GREENBELT

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

FUNDRAISING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HYDRO PROJECT

INSURANCE

GREENBELT

CIVIL MARRIAGES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

VISITOR

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

CARDIAC CARE

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HEALTH CARE

PROPERTY TAXATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HERITAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

HYDRO PROJECT

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND ACQUISITION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should establish a permanent land acquisition

program with long-term funding in order to ensure the continued acquisition of environmentally sensitive areas.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr Chudleigh, you have 10 minutes for your remarks.

Mr Chudleigh: Today I have tabled a motion calling on this Legislature to support a government initiative to create a program to extend

permanent funding for environmentally sensitive land and land purchases in Ontario. I'm calling on MPPs of every political stripe to support this motion, to reach out to the future and help assure

that environmentally sensitive and significant lands are purchased for public use by generations of Ontarians yet unborn. Our service to Ontarians will be judged by the legacy we leave them. Let us

leave them a commitment to environmental protection. Let us leave them public access to Ontario's finest and most beautiful open spaces.

Jean Williams, chair of Conservation Halton, one of seven conservation authorities that manage 70% of the parks along the Niagara Escarpment, agrees. She says,

"It will be difficult, if not impossible, to acquire new properties without the help of the province. Conservation Halton strongly supports Mr Chudleigh's motion that a land acquisition program be

introduced to ensure that these sensitive lands can be purchased to fulfill the objectives of the Niagara Escarpment plan."

In the last several years, there has been a patchwork of programs used to finance purchases of environmentally significant lands. These programs include the

natural areas protection program, the Ontario parks legacy program, the community conservancy program and the eastern habitat joint venture program.

The natural areas protection program focused on acquiring significant natural areas on the Niagara Escarpment, the Rouge Valley and the Lynde Marsh. The Ontario

parks legacy and the community conservation programs focused on the acquisition of key properties to help fill gaps in parks and the protected areas system. The eastern habitat joint venture

program focused on the acquisition and stewardship of important wetlands required to maintain wildlife habitat.

The current ecological land acquisition program was conceived as an enhancement to existing land acquisition programs in keeping with the goals of Ontario's

Living Legacy, a comprehensive natural heritage program announced in November 2000. Ontario's Living Legacy was announced by then-Premier Mike Harris in November 2000. It is the most comprehensive

natural heritage program in Ontario's history. It was the largest expansion of Ontario's parklands in Ontario's history. It added 378 new parks and protected areas, with a total of five million

acres, or 12% of the planning area.

In 1991, the Ministers of Natural Resources and parks and protected areas in Canada met and agreed that by the year 2000 they would try to preserve 12% of the

natural areas of Canada in order to preserve those lands for future generations. By November 2000, Ontario was the only province in Canada which attained the goal of preserving 12% of the planning

area for future generations.

The Ontario Living Legacy includes enhancement, protection, conservation and recovery efforts for species at risk in Ontario. It includes more funding for youth

programs and resource stewardship jobs for young people. There were enhancements to fish and wildlife protection and there was a huge increase in provincial park acreage, sites and plans, such as

the ecological land acquisition program, to acquire more natural areas that are currently under private ownership. The Ontario Living Legacy had a price tag of over $100 million. The ecological

land acquisition program obtained another 17,000 acres in order to fill in gaps in the conservation areas and provincial parks. Over its two-year mandate, it spent $10 million in order to do

that.

We should have a great concern that without any formal announcements, ELAP has been extended from its expected end date of March 31, 2004, only to cover current

projects underway in the Rouge River Valley and the Lynde Marsh. ELAP allowed the province to address the acquisition of privately held lands in areas of Ontario not covered by the Ministry of

Natural Resources land acquisition program. With that program coming to an end, it is time to address the issue and have the Legislature express its desire to have a permanent program in place.

After all, 100 years from now, or maybe 10 or 20 years from now, I don't believe we as a Legislature will be judged by the issues that are before this House

today. Indeed, we won't be judged by the issues that were before the House during our government or during the NDP government as well. This isn't a political issue. I believe we will be judged on

how we treated and protected the environment for future generations. As we look at the world biosphere areas, our stewardship will be judged by future generations. Many of the world biosphere

areas, such as the Everglades, the California coast, the Adirondacks in New York state and even the Serengeti, are biosphere reserves, as are the Niagara Escarpment and Turkey Point, under the UN

biosphere conservancy program. Almost all of those areas are involved in a recovery project. They are trying to recover what was once there.

We in Ontario have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to skip the degradation phase and put in place protection of our natural areas today that will preserve

those areas for future generations in their natural state. We won't have to come up with a recovery program 10, 15, 30 or 100 years from today; those areas that are most special to Ontarians will

be preserved as they are today, in their most special conditions.

The only way to do this is to purchase these lands and put them in public ownership. It can't be done in one year, it can't be done in five years; it has to be

done over a long period of time, when you slowly purchase these lands as they become available. In so doing, we will hold them in public hands and they will be protected forever under public

ownership.

Zoning public lands, although it's a good first step, has a habit of eroding away. As time goes by, zoning can change. Zoning is in the hands of too many people

who may not have the big picture in mind. So zoning land for public protection does not always accomplish those goals. Most of a large belt through Halton was zoned at one time to protect that

area. It was zoned back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and most of that zoning area today has been eroded away. It's under development. It's being held by speculators. Most zoning of those

lands has changed, and it has been eroded away so it no longer has the protection that it would have if it was under public ownership.

It's very important that if we're going to be serious about protecting our environment, protecting our most precious natural lands, it has to be done only under

public ownership. Zoning is a stop-gap, but it's not the end of the story. You can't expect to protect those lands for future generations if zoning is the only protection you're applying.

The goal of ELAP was to enhance public ownership and stewardship of natural areas across Ontario where acquisition priorities had been previously established.

They can be established within the context of approved provincial lands, such as the Niagara Escarpment, or within approved acquisition strategies such as the Lynde Marsh or under an acquisition

agreement such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada's eastern habitat venture in order to protect wildlife and sensitive lands.

The government of Ontario needs to demonstrate a commitment to public ownership of these lands by making these purchases through partner organizations. We can

ensure the land is managed properly, acquisition plans are in place for future purchases and the roles and responsibilities of those involved are clearly spelled out. While this program needs to be

made permanent, I fully expect it should be reviewed at various intervals on several levels, including funding, partnership arrangements and property acquisition plans and priorities.

This motion is not binding on the government. However, if it is passed by us today in this Ontario Legislature, it is a powerful suggestion that legislation

should be forthcoming to deal with the expressed wishes of the people of Ontario. It begins here today with all of us. It is time to vocally support environmental protection in Ontario. Please lend

your support to this motion. Your commitment to keep this issue in front of the government will be appreciated by generations to come.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's truly my pleasure to speak to this motion on behalf of the NDP caucus here at Queen's Park. As you would

imagine, we have a great deal of sympathy for this particular motion. We believe that now, although there are some tools in place, they certainly are not enough to achieve the kind of goal that Mr

Chudleigh has set out.

Quite frankly, we do have expropriation powers, as you know, in this province, and sections of acts such as the Ontario Water Resources Act have provisions for

land securement. We have agencies, like our conservation authorities, which have already been mentioned by the mover, which are funded by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Ontario Heritage

Foundation, an agency of the Ministry of Culture, owns and manages land for natural heritage purposes. It also holds lands in trust, including parts of the Bruce Trail and other areas that are

habitats of endangered species, sensitive features of the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment.

But we all know that there are missing pieces. The missing piece being addressed by this particular motion is that there is no dedicated funding source for land

securement in the province. The Living Legacy land trust that was established by the previous government is a fund that allocated some monies toward the acquisition of protected lands, and that

fund is now finished.

So in general, there is support from us with regard to this motion. There is certainly currency for this particular initiative among people of Ontario. We know

that many polls have been conducted and many pieces of research have been done around the opinions and concerns of people in Ontario in regard to environmental issues, particularly in regard to the

preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and the protection of these lands. A poll conducted by Environics found that Canadians are supportive of public funds being used to acquire more

parks; that was done in 2001. That same poll found that 80% of Canadians said they would be willing to add $1 a month to their municipal taxes to support natural park spaces in and around their

communities.

I know from my perspective, having worked in the city of Hamilton on municipal council for the last seven years or so, that certainly rang true in our community.

People really were quite supportive of parkland, of beautification, of keeping green spaces and not only active parks, but passive parks, places where people could enjoy the beauties of nature,

with the understanding that these were assets that would carry us through future generations and weren't just a matter of the present, but a matter of the future.

There are some things that are missing, and those are pieces around the ongoing viable government support in terms of funding for these kinds of projects. Again,

it's indicated that people are prepared to dedicate some public funding to these kinds of projects, but the reality is we need to make sure the mechanisms are in place for that funding to be

gathered and dedicated.

The public willingness that is there for that funding kind of stands in contrast to what governments have been able to achieve so far, and really the amount of

dedication to these kinds of funds has been in fact shrinking over the past decades, which is out of whack with where the public wants to go. So the role of securing environmentally sensitive land

on a consistent basis has fallen on the shoulders of underfunded conservation authorities and a select few land trusts across the province that are founded by the provincial government via one-time

funding. That's simply not good enough.

The Living Legacy trust established under the Tories, which included some funds for lands securement, was finished this year, as I've already mentioned, so

private foundations, universities and citizens' groups, all of those kinds of people, have been trying to fill the gaps that exist currently in our efforts as a collective group of people to deal

with these issues. In the end, the goals of meeting conservation targets and trying to find a strategy to restore and preserve and safeguard a healthy amount or reserve of these kinds of lands

cannot be left to this patchwork system. It cannot be left to fall on the shoulders of volunteers, citizens' groups and private foundations. It's really the elected representatives in government

who need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the stewarwardship of these areas.

The budget tabled here by the Liberals in 2004 contains a few measures geared toward land securement. There's a small commitment to the minor expansion of

conservation land through the property tax rebate program. There are unspecified portions for environmental land acquisition from about an $89-million fund falling under the heading "environmental

capital spending," but we know that the risk here is that funds for improvements to natural resources, management infrastructure, environmental cleanup projects, the upgrading of conservation

authority dams and other kinds of projects will all be drawing from the same fund, so the maintenance and management of existing parcels and existing resources in this area will be drawing on that

fund. With coming cuts in the next couple of years, with cuts to the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources, or the inability of those ministries to get even regular

annual increases for the normal business that takes place in regard to increasing costs, what we're going to see is these two ministries that are most involved in environmental stewardship not

being able to keep up, and certainly not being able to do anything new in regard to the environmentally sensitive areas.

So, although it would be in the best interests of everyone to introduce an initiative to meet the pledge toward biodiversity and water source protection, it's

certainly not the government that's doing that; it is Mr Chudleigh. Again, I'm very supportive of that initiative.

In concert with funds, though, there needs to be that political will to protect the lands being put into place, and really the government has it already in its

mandate, but what they've done, unfortunately, is succumb to the pressures. The mover of the motion indicated quite clearly that those pressures exist. I think he referred specifically to the

pressures around land zoning and those kinds of issues that occur at the municipal level. Those are the kinds of things that erode the commitments to protecting these lands. So even the government,

as we see it now, has backed off on some commitments, particularly around the Oak Ridges moraine and Castle Glen. The Liberals broke their promises to stop the construction on the moraine in

November, claiming that the expenses would be too high. But the legal opinions prepared by the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund found that the new government could have expropriated moraine land

and would have only been responsible for paying out-of-pocket expenses, according to the expropriation statutes. But there was no such action taken, and neither was such action taken to stop Castle

Glen, which will be the first urban area to be developed on the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO biosphere, again, as mentioned by the mover of this motion.

These are the kinds of concerns that exist and the kinds of initiatives that are missed. These are the kinds of opportunities missed by government unless there's

a real strong commitment to protecting these lands. Again, pressures of interest groups and developers oftentimes get the ear of governments, and we need to find ways to make sure that these lands

are purchased and protected for time immemorial. We were really hoping that maybe the greenbelt legislation could deal with some of these issues, but we'll have to see what happens as this

initiative unfolds.

What we really need to see is a real, serious dedication of resources. We need to see provincial governments dedicating selected revenue sources. It's similar to

things like the health tax. If we're going to be making commitments around these areas, we need to make sure that we identify sources of revenue that we can then flag and identify to be put into

these funds so they don't go into general revenue, that these particular sources of revenue that the provincial government obtains then immediately get put into this fund, so that they're able to

fund the purchase of these lands.

For example, one of those types of revenue sources could in fact be water-taking fees. That seems to be fairly logical. You have water-taking fees, you bring

those fees in for the water that's being removed from some of our natural areas and then you put those fees into a dedicated fund. As that fund builds, it's used to purchase these lands. We know

that conservation authorities are front and centre in helping to protect watersheds and ecosystems and to try to sustain them, and they express the funding shortfall that they are constantly

dealing with to meet the goals of protecting and conserving environmentally significant areas.

Many times, in the community that I come from, there has been quite a bit of controversy around the conservation authorities' lack of funding and their lack of

ability to continue to do the great job they do, without then turning around and increasing the fees on the users of their green spaces and the users of the natural areas that they are protecting.

Oftentimes, there's a struggle between wanting to do the right thing, wanting to maintain a great level of service and of stewardship that they do, and the growing pressure of financially being

able to keep that work going. Conservation authorities will be instrumental in the implementation of any pending source water protection plans, and the securement of watershed areas could be part

of protecting water at the source.

There's no word yet on how to fund source water protection, and they could face the same fate as the majority of Great Lakes remediation plans, which are great

on paper and look wonderful in terms of plans, but the problem becomes that the resources aren't available to put those plans into play. Source water protection should also integrate all the Great

Lakes protection plans. In fact, there have been proposals by Ms Churley, from my caucus, that funds from water-taking fees be directed specifically to source protection plans and the bodies

responsible for implementing them from source to tap. For example, conservation authorities and municipalities allocating these kinds of funds for specific purposes means long-term sustainable

funding for source water protection.

There are a couple of other specific details around what kinds of opportunities exist to take dedicated fees and funnel them into a fund, particularly for these

kinds of initiatives. However, we come to a bottom line in terms of an effective strategy, and what we really need to recognize is that there has to be a larger piece to the puzzle. Having a will

is excellent; having a debate about the necessity for this kind of initiative is essential. However, not designating funding for securing environmentally sensitive lands is not good enough. It

can't be left alone; the strategy can't be left alone unless we actually start to designate where these funds are coming from.

We have seen under the previous government that certain areas had been protected, but then the rest were left open for activities that damaged the watersheds and

tributaries, and the impact was significant. In fact, it weakened the environmental systems, and the environmental review processes over that time period were also eroded. We need to consider the

environmental implications of the development of various projects that are coming forward, various resource activities we are undertaking, and subsequent to that we need to have plans to mitigate.

We need to be centralized in the planning process in regard to these lands. It can't be just a matter of goodwill. We have to take a really serious and complex look at the picture. It can't be a

piecemeal review of the situation. It can't be a matter of talking the talk; it has to be a matter of walking the walk. That walk has to include not only the teeth in various pieces of legislation

to realize that goal, but also it needs the commitment to identifying the dedicated funds that can then be funnelled into a trust that can be used to obtain, for the future of our children and

grandchildren, land acquisitions that are going to keep our communities healthy and whole and celebrate our diversity and biology in a very full and appropriate way.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm very pleased to be debating this particular issue and I thank the member for Halton for bringing it

to the attention of the House this morning. Essentially, what my friend is asking for is that the government of Ontario establish a permanent land acquisition program with long-term funding in

order to ensure the continued acquisition of environmentally sensitive areas.

As the member would know, since 1985 we have had quite a number of land acquisition programs from the government of Ontario. We've had formal acquisition

programs that work in conjunction with public and private conservation partners for the purchase of environmentally sensitive land since 1985, including the Niagara Escarpment land acquisition and

stewardship program, which worked from 1985 to 1998; the eastern habitat joint venture, from 1986, and it's ongoing; the Ontario parks legacy program, 1996, and it's ongoing; the natural areas

protection program, which operated from 1998 to 2002; and presently, the ecological land acquisition program, which has been operating since 2002.

In this given year, we'll be expending about $8.9 million. One of the things that's important about that is to understand that it works with partnerships. We

have in Ontario, and with the Ministry of Natural Resources, approximately 20 partners who work with the government to acquire properties that are ecologically sensitive, natural heritage sites

that are important to the people of Ontario and obviously to the government, and there are many organizations that participate in that. I think this year we'll leverage 16 million to 18 million

additional dollars, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, acquiring a considerable amount of land that will be useful to the public.

I think Mr Chudleigh, in asking for a permanent fund, needs to also recognize -- and I think he would agree with me -- that there need to be provincial

priorities established for how it's spent. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, I come from a constituency that's the size of all of southern Ontario and it is probably 85% owned by the Queen. It

is crown land; it is parkland. As a matter of fact, and I know, again, my friend from Halton knows this very well -- it's the coastline that I represent, proudly known as the Great Lakes Heritage

Coast. Think about this: 43% of the Great Lakes Heritage Coast -- the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka is here and he represents a good, proud portion of that coast. I do, and my friends from

Thunder Bay-Superior North and Thunder Bay-Atikokan represent the remainder. There are really only four of us who represent 4,000 or 5,000 kilometres of coast. What's interesting about that coast

is that 43% of it is in park today, either a federal park or a provincial park. It might actually be a higher percentage. Another 20% of that is crown land. So we're talking about the coastline of

Lake Superior and northern Lake Huron that is more than two thirds in the hands of the public today. Yet, as the member from Algoma-Manitoulin, I know there are areas of private land that need to

be acquired.

I am particularly pleased that the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which has done a wonderful job across all of Ontario, is pursuing some projects in the Michael's

Bay area on the south shore of Manitoulin at the moment. Clearly, I want to wish them the best in that effort. The Blue Jay Creek is there, and many people will know that as one of the sites of one

of the province's fish hatcheries, an important part of our natural heritage. Some great work has been done, by both the agricultural community and others, in making sure that this particular

resource to the people of Ontario is protected well, and is being looked at for more public participation or ownership. That's a good thing. We had a lumber company, a timber company, that actually

donated land in that area over a decade ago.

It's important, and what the member is talking about is important. I want to point out that, of course, it's ongoing. The government has quite a number of

initiatives that go beyond this point of just purchasing land. As a northerner, but born and raised in southern Ontario, somebody who was just a couple of weeks ago in Port Franks at a meeting of a

group that's studying and promoting the values of the Carolinian forests, to come down into this huge clear-cut we call southern Ontario and to look at bringing some of its parks and protected

spaces and public spaces into the same kind of category of public ownership that we have on our coasts and in our protected areas -- not that we couldn't do more; I am not suggesting that. But,

frankly, the south has been quite the laggard on this, as the northerners look at it. We just want to encourage Mr Chudleigh to work with the community partnerships that he knows are out there. I

talked about the Nature Conservancy, but there are many local groups that would like to protect, enhance, purchase and acquire land that could maybe go to a conservation authority or possibly be

included in a provincial park. There are all kind of options. Certainly, we also want to encourage those kinds of partnerships.

Mr Chudleigh, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I think there might be, as an individual member speaking here, some opportunities to find a way to

encourage the public to donate into an acquisition fund that was permanent and ongoing.

I guess my time is just about expired. I just want to indicate to the member that I am happy to be supporting his resolution today.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Further to the concept of conservation incentives and the land acquisition discussed by the member

from Halton, the finance committee received a submission regarding the benefits of reinstating the community conservation lands category. This is part of the conservation land tax incentive

program. This came from Michael Bradstreet. He's the Ontario director of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the NCC. Bradstreet lauded these tax break programs as low-cost tools to encourage

landowners and land trusts like the NCC to protect and steward important habitats within the province of Ontario.

This approach, the NCC approach, MPP Chudleigh's approach and the ALUS approach -- the farmer-driven alternate land use services concept -- I feel is far

superior to the approach that we will hear this afternoon from the McGuinty government with the introduction of the greenbelt legislation, legislation that in my view essentially trashes property

rights and seizes the value of private land without compensation.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada, through partnership, has a different approach. They've been able to protect 70,000 acres of ecologically sensitive land in the

province of Ontario. They own 35,000 acres.

There is another approach as well, further to the issue of greenbelt legislation that we know will perhaps do nothing more than promote the leapfrogging of urban

sprawl over the designated greenbelt areas. This is an approach proposed by Earthroots and what's referred to as the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance asking Premier McGuinty and all parties to embrace

the NOAH concept. This is a comprehensive conservation biology plan to link the Niagara Escarpment to the Oak Ridges moraine, and to go further to link it with Algonquin Park and to go south to the

Adirondack State Park. This heritage system plan would be somewhat similar to the Yellowstone to Yukon, the Y2Y corridor in the Pacific northwest, and it reminds me of the panther preserve, a very

large area identified in Florida.

So I will wrap up. I fully support the Nature Conservancy of Canada. They presented to the finance committee a

section titled Untaxing Nature, where they

proposed the reinstatement of the community conservation lands category of the CLTIP program.

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): It's my pleasure to be able to stand in support of the member from Halton's motion. I think I'd like

to take it from a slightly different perspective than what others have proposed, and that is actually from the perspective of how we're dealing with our population growth.

Some 80% of Ontario's population is actually in the urban band around the Great Lakes and, of that, about 40% or half is in the Golden Horseshoe as we know it.

We have the highest population growth in Canada, and we're actually going to go from 4.2 million to 5.4 million or 5.6 million by the year 2016. So what possible difference could that have to do

with the issue of land acquisition for parks? It really comes down to the issue of how we deal with our greenhouse gas emissions.

Our environmental impact from even thermal space heating is significant in the residential sector, and we're going to increase that sector significantly in the

next number of years. Just from the residential sector, excluding the use of electricity, we have 14.1 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions that occur from space heating alone, 4.4 megatons from

water heating in the residential area, 10.9 megatons from space heating, 1.2 megatons from water heating, and 0.4 megatons from space heating or cooling in our residential buildings. When you

consider there are 4.4 million dwellings in Ontario now and our growth is approximately 85,000 houses a year, the majority of which grow in those huge areas, suddenly you look at the issue of

environmentally sensitive areas in a different light, from my perspective.

It's wonderful to say that 43% of our parks are in northern Ontario, and kudos to that, but the fact of the matter is, we need to look at our sensitive lands

environmentally in southern Ontario as well. The greenbelt legislation will, in fact, deal with some of that, but I think that people also have to recognize that a park can be anything from what

they call a parkette, which is a small piece of land, to hundreds and hundreds of acres, all of which can have a significant impact if you do something like plant a tree or two.

Toronto used to be called the city of trees and, until recently, when they put in the legislation municipally that forbid the taking down of trees unless there

was a reason -- and, typically, the reason was the tree was unhealthy -- we would hear stories of developers going in and virtually just tearing down. If I had an opportunity, I would say "build a

house, plant a tree" would be a mandatory requirement -- but not a little tree; a tree that would be sufficient to make a difference in that environment and that community.

That's one of the things that we look at that we haven't given a lot of emphasis to, and this is why Mr Chudleigh's motion is important, because he looks at

acquisition in sensitive areas so you can have ANSIs, they call them, areas of natural and scientific interest. They can be abutting a farm, they can be down at the bottom of a lakefront, they can

be in any number of areas, but once that area has been identified, unless it falls under the forest tax rebate system or whatever, how do you protect that? One of the ways you can do it is by

working in partnership.

Certainly, this motion doesn't say how it will be done, but that it should be done. I think "should" is an optimal word. It doesn't say it should be done without

this or that. I know Mr Chudleigh is a very fiscally responsible person. He recognizes that it has to be done in such a manner. If you don't have the money with which to do it, you can still do the

planning, the thinking or the investigating. All the motion says is that we should be open to all of those thoughts, investigating and thinking beyond what's traditionally been in place, and are

there other opportunities?

For me, I look at my own area down at the lakeshore in Etobicoke, because I'm the member from Etobicoke Centre, and you have to look at the development that has

occurred in that area and what they're doing in terms of landfill to produce parks because, in fact, we've taken away the land to put into development. There are a number of habitats for birds and

species of plants and such that need to be protected, and certainly you can do that through land acquisition.

The containing of urban sprawl and the management of growth is something that we put into our permanent sustainable legacy through the greenbelt legislation

that's being proposed. One of the things it happens to do is actually put the public interest first. I believe that's really what Mr Chudleigh's motion is all about. He is saying that we need to

look to the future in order to sustain the land; that is, actually looking at it in the context of its economy, its environment and its society. That's the whole concept to sustainability. That's

something we need to really incorporate into all of our thinking. It shouldn't be just programmed into environmental thinking or energy thinking. It should be in all of our thinking as we plan

policies, practices and procedures in this Legislature around the legacy we all wish to leave for the Ontarians we serve. Certainly, the Ontarians we serve are our children because they in fact, as

I've said many times, are our future.

What you're doing through a motion such as this is protecting the broader provincial interest, obviously, through policy, but I believe you're also protecting

the broader public interest through good planning. Good planning is part of what the leadership of a government should be doing when they look at the issue of land acquisition of parks, parkettes

and areas of natural and scientific interest, and balancing that through the issue of the economy and growth.

I'm not sure that I particularly like the words "urban sprawl." The connotation makes it sound like it's unacceptable or it's the wrong thing to do. In fact, you

need someplace for people to live. We're fortunate enough to live in a province that is virtually the size of western Europe, and yet we know that 80% of our growth is going to occur along our

Great Lakes. So if we know that, then it really is incumbent upon us to plan, and plan well. One of the things you do in planning is look at the use of that land. Some of it will go to development,

but some of it must be able to sustain that development, and sustaining that development means dealing with things such as greenhouse gas emissions and living with your environment in a friendly,

acceptable way that sustains and protects the environment for the future and, in fact, lives in some harmony with that environment. Maybe that's something we haven't done for a long time.

In my particular file, it's energy. We are energy hogs. I think it's time for us to look at how to do business differently. I welcome the motion because I

believe it gives us the freedom to do that.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I'm glad to stand here today and support Mr Chudleigh's resolution. It's a non-partisan resolution, and

I'm sure there won't be anybody voting against it because, as I say, it's non-partisan. It's something we should be doing in this House.

In the past and in the future -- our governments seem to make laws in this House that take away property rights. We can go back to what the Conservatives did

when they made the Niagara Escarpment Commission. They took away property rights. Now I understand this government today is bringing in the greenbelt legislation, which is going to trample property

rights. If we're going to do that for the good of Ontario, then we must compensate landowners, and this is one way of doing it. It's a good way. I understand, though, that this program's going to

be done in 2005. Mr Chudleigh says we should have a permanent one, and he's absolutely right.

Also, Mr Brown mentioned that we should co-operate with other groups out there that are buying privately owned land and making it public, giving it to

conservation authorities, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the conservancy.

We have one group out there, the Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy. It's led by Bob Barnett. I've met him and he's a good friend of mine. They used to fight

people with their money all the time to say they couldn't have this on their private land. They got themselves together and finally figured out that it's better to buy the land, give it to a

government agency and make it public, so that a lot of the sensitive land is preserved forever. We know about this in the Niagara Escarpment area, because our rights have been trampled up there by

all governments.

If this government would like to save money, the thing they should do is freeze the natural area of the escarpment -- just the natural area -- get rid of the

Niagara Escarpment Commission, save the $4 million or $5 million they blow on that, and put it into buying that land and saving that land forever.

I stand in support of this bill, and I am glad that Mr Chudleigh put it in.

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to join the debate on the motion being discussed here today, brought forward by the

member from Halton. I think it is important for everyone in the Legislature especially to be interested in what type of legacy we are leaving future generations. It doesn't matter which party you

belong to -- and this is the nice thing about Thursday mornings -- we all hope we'll be able to reach decisions in this place that will make for a more prosperous Ontario.

There's another legacy that's just as important. We have a responsibility in the House to do what we can to ensure that ecologically sensitive lands are

protected. Ontario is the most naturally diverse province in the country, with 3,000 native plant species, 450 species of birds and 130 species of native butterflies. It is also, however, home to

more endangered species than anywhere else in Canada. We need to work to protect their habitat. The important task has been underway for the past couple of years through the ecological land

acquisition program. The program is part of Ontario's Living Legacy, the most comprehensive natural heritage program in provincial history.

Under the land acquisition program, privately owned environmentally sensitive lands have been acquired and added to the protected areas system. This has been

especially important throughout southern Ontario, where land is predominantly under private ownership. I'm fortunate in my riding that we still have crown land available for public use. There are

many thousands of acres that have been protected for the enjoyment of Ontarians and the protection of our natural heritage.

Not every part of the province has land protected in this way. The land surrounding the Frost Centre, for example, includes 24,000 hectares of crown land. That

covers both my riding, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, and Norm Miller's in Parry Sound-Muskoka. I'm saddened that the present government has seen fit to close the Frost Centre and the important

educational and stewardship programs it offered. Since the closure of the Frost Centre, we've gathered close to 15,000 signatures for its reopening in some capacity. We especially appreciate the

member from Peterborough's leadership in forming a committee to help us determine the best outcome we can for the municipality and the province with the Frost Centre. So I hope with that, the

government, in the sudden closure of the Frost Centre, is recognizing the important goal of protecting the land and giving us a chance for further development of the Frost for future

generations.

I want to also hold them to their promise not to sell the surrounding lands, the 24,000 hectares that I mentioned. The Leslie M. Frost Centre was the recipient

of an Amethyst Award in 1998 in recognition of the quality and scope of their programs. UNESCO has just nominated part of Clear Lake, where there is an old hemlock forest, for recognition and

protection. So we need more places like the Frost Centre.

The amount of community support out there to help the government protect these lands and work with all of us is a statement of how we're all committed to our

future. We need to do more in terms of educating people about the importance of land stewardship, because as much as we are able to do in terms of acquiring land through programs such as the ELAP,

it will never be enough to protect all of the many species at risk.

We also need to make sure that private landowners treat their land with respect. The goal of the ELAP is to enhance public ownership and stewardship of natural

areas across Ontario where acquisition priorities have been established within the context of an approved provincial plan; for example, the Niagara Escarpment plan that was mentioned by my

colleague, an improved land acquisition strategy, for example the Lynde Marsh, or the acquisition agreement with the Nature Conservancy of Canada's eastern habitat venture.

The goal of protecting more land is laudable, but the program is in danger of fading away. The program, as stated by the member for Halton, was scheduled to

end in March 2004, but the government has confirmed that the program will continue until March 2005. This time extension is limited, in that it only covers the continuation of projects already

underway in the Rouge River Valley and Lynde Marsh.

The protection of ecologically sensitive lands should be able to continue. We all owe it to our children and their children to create a world where they would

be able to enjoy nature as we have been able to. The Frost Centre and all the momentum that has been created around the Frost Centre for it to continue is an example. I want to thank the

Perma-Frost group, who spearheaded all the notice to the province, the country and actually the world, and bringing groups to attention, like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the

World Wildlife Fund, for example, as well as individuals around the world.

So I encourage all members here today to support this motion -- it's very important -- and to remember that we need to continue on with our ecological

preservation and keep the Frost Centre and reopen it.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important resolution. I found out just this

moment that I was going to have the opportunity, and so it is something that I'm very pleased about.

Mr Chudleigh, the member for Halton, has moved a resolution that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should establish a permanent land

acquisition program with long-term funding in order to ensure the continued acquisition of environmentally sensitive areas.

First of all, I want to commend the member for Halton. I've enjoyed working with him over the last eight, nine years, since his election to the Legislature in

1995. He's played a very important role within our government and now within our opposition caucus. I know that, in his past tenure as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources,

he showed a great deal of interest in these kinds of issues, so it's not surprising that he would bring this forward today. I know that he has worked within his riding to develop support for this

proposal. He has worked with the Conservation Halton organization, and they're very supportive of this initiative.

Certainly, I would suggest that it's something that the government needs to consider and merits consideration. I'm aware that there are a significant number of

programs of this type administered throughout the province that encourage this kind of thing, but at the same time, there isn't proper funding set aside to assist in the actual acquisition of the

lands that need to be protected for future generations, as the member for Halton so eloquently pointed out. I expect that, in all likelihood, there will be unanimous support for this initiative

when the vote takes place. There are lots of nods around, but you don't know for sure until people come in and plan to vote. But it is something that I would hope doesn't just get passed here and

action isn't taken.

I know that the Minister of Natural Resources, if he were here, would want to express his opinion on this. I would hope that he would be supportive. I would

hope that there would be follow-up on the part of the government to make sure that the debate that takes place today isn't just a debate today, that there is follow-up and that very shortly the

provincial government would bring forward the kind of program that the member for Halton is asking about.

Is there anybody else who wants to speak to this, or can we take the extra time?

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: Well, I've said what I wanted to say. I know there's another member of our caucus who had wanted to be here as well -- the member

for Durham -- but I'm pleased to have had the chance to fill in briefly for him for a couple of minutes. I would give the remainder of the time to the member for Halton. Does that require unanimous

consent?

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: No. OK, he has a little extra time, then, to sum up. I ask all the members of the House to support this initiative.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, you have two minutes on the clock and then you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Chudleigh: I'd like to thank the members who spoke to this motion and are supporting it. I'd also like to thank the members. I think this

is the first hour of the past week that we've been through without ringing any bells, and I'd like to express my appreciation for the co-operation that the members have shown in the House today.

Hopefully, that will continue even into the next hour, Ms Di Cocco.

I'd like to thank the member for Hamilton East, who very eloquently spoke to the bill and pointed out the one key phrase in her dissertation, which was, "Do we

have the political will to do this?" Our future generations, of course, will judge us on whether or not we have that political will.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin talked about the leverage that government programs have, which gives us added abilities to buy more land. That's a very, very

important part of it -- and, of course, funding. Even though you get great leverage, government funding is the salt that starts it off, and that's extremely important.

I thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, who was supportive, and also the member for Etobicoke Centre, who talked about the development of our

population. Certainly we will be judged by future generations for the way we handle our development. If we do it well, we will be remembered with pride, and if we do it poorly, as has happened in

almost all other jurisdictions across North America which have had rapid development, that is something we will have to hold on our conscience.

The diversity of opinions that are expressed in the private members' business hour is always interesting, as the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound member talked about

property rights.

I'll conclude with my two-minute wrap-up. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. Member for Halton, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Chudleigh: The member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock spoke so eloquently about her experiences with a really truly beautiful piece of

property that should be held for Ontarians and future generations in the Frost building and its surrounding property. If you've ever had an opportunity to drive up through Dorset, particularly, I

would say, in the last week of September or the first week of October, that is truly one of the most beautiful drives in Ontario. The beauty of that drive actually rivals parts of Halton, if you

can imagine; it actually does.

I'd also like to thank the member for Waterloo-Wellington, who spoke so well about the issue and hit upon the issue of the need for funding. It isn't that this

funding has to be a huge amount of money. You're not going to get hundreds and two and three hundreds of millions of dollars. The idea is to start and to keep it going.

We did a tremendous amount of purchases with ELAP, the ecological land acquisition program, with $10 million. I think there were over 17,000 acres of land, and

very sensitive land. A lot of it was on the Niagara Escarpment. It was land that sat between conservation areas, land that had particular wildlife on it or that had some particular ANSI on it, an

area of natural or scientific interest. We were able to do a great deal of work with $10 million. Over 17,000 acres of land of a very sensitive nature were purchased.

I would like to thank the members of the House for their words this morning, their support for this bill. Hopefully, down the road, 10 or 20 years from now, we

will take great pride in what we have been able to accomplish in Ontario, not only from this point on, but really from years gone by. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin pointed out, these kinds of

programs have been in place in Ontario for years; they are a part of our heritage.

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES

QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

Ms Di Cocco moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 123,

An Act to require that meetings of provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies be open to the public / Projet de loi

123, Loi exigeant que les réunions des commissions et conseils provinciaux et municipaux et d'autres organismes publics soient ouvertes au public.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Each one of us comes to this House with different experiences. We are here because of many areas of

expertise as well as our own involvement in our communities.

Mine arose, if you want, because of the whole notion of public bodies and how they do business. It's important that we bring to this chamber some of those

experiences and, as we've heard from the private member's motion that preceded us, deal with issues that are very important to us as individuals but also that we believe are going to make this

province a better place. We're only here for a short time, as many of you know, so in the time that we're here I think each one of us tries to leave our imprint and to make this province a better

place.

This bill is about transparency in public matters. Currently in Ontario, there are some guidelines in various acts governing open meetings for public bodies,

but there are no penalties imposed or mechanisms for complaint when those guidelines are not complied with. Again, many states in the US, including Michigan, have open meetings acts, with penalties

placed on those who serve in public bodies who are found to have broken the rules.

What this bill does, what this bill hopes to do, is to put in a mechanism of complaints. So how do we do this? What the bill does is, it provides oversight

powers to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to address those complaints. What this bill provides is that it ensures public access and more transparency to meetings of these designated public

bodies. It also requests, when public bodies such as municipalities, school boards or hospital boards go in camera, that they provide the reason for going in camera. As you know, there are

exceptions for going in camera. Those exceptions are legal matters, personnel matters or contracts that have to be signed. But many times it's based on an honour system. Therefore, there have been

many, many times whereby that trust has been breached because no one knows when the in camera items are not in camera.

The public has a right to know. That is the premise of this bill. Public bodies, unlike private companies, are really doing public business. It is important,

in the whole system of decision-making we have, that that is done so that the public understands how that body has arrived at that decision. How do you do that? You can only do it when it is open

to the public.

I have had a great deal of support for this bill from many of the ministers in our government, as well as Dr Ann Cavoukian, the Information and Privacy

Commissioner of Ontario, the Canadian Newspaper Association, the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, the Ontario Press Council, Advocates in Defence

of Expression in the Media, Mr Ken Bosveld, who's with the Brabant Newspapers and the Flamborough Review, and I can go on -- there's a very long list -- Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch. Why?

Because we have probably the most informed citizenry we've ever had in our society. Therefore, there is a higher level of expectation today that we are able to apply the scrutiny to

decision-making.

I want to read something that I was really pleased to see. It was from a letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. She stated, "I believe that Bill

123 has the potential to transform Ontario into one of the leading jurisdictions in North America when it comes to open, transparent and accountable government." That's what this is about. It's

about moving forward in a way that decision-making is done so that we are able to ensure the utmost transparency in how these decisions are made.

I must say, as much as there are a lot of people who are supporting this, I also know there is in some quarters -- I think AMO's position on open meetings is a

little bit different from this. AMO I believe is looking to possibly suggesting that municipalities should have more leeway in conducting their meetings as they see fit. The view according to our

professional in this matter, Dr Cavoukian, is that their recommendation would actually create a patchwork of inconsistent open meeting rules and have the potential to seriously diminish openness,

transparency and accountability at the municipal level.

I know that AMO is agreeing to disagree with me, but I believe this bill, the notion that we now have to put another level of responsibility on board members

-- today, as you know, for instance, hospital boards do not have to conduct their meetings in the open unless they themselves choose to do so. When you think of the considerations, the decisions

that are made, whether it's hospital boards, school boards, municipalities, universities or colleges, if you think of the decisions they are making on behalf of the public and in the expenditure of

the public purse, it's important that we now move into what I call the 21st century and make sure that there is not just the honour system in opening the meetings, but that the system has in it

more checks and balances that apply this level of scrutiny.

The intent of this bill is that if someone believes that in camera meetings are held inappropriately, there is a mechanism whereby they can complain to the

Information and Privacy Commissioner, her office can investigate and she can then decide whether or not those rules have been breached.

There's a penalty of up to $2,500 for members of those boards if they do not hold their meetings in the open. What is it? It's an incentive. It's an incentive

to ensure that the public interest is maintained at all times. A system is never perfect, but I think for too long the honour system -- and there are many examples that have been used. Just

recently I was at a courthouse. There was a school that was closed in our riding and the parents took the school board before the court to see if they could change their mind, basically. The

justice did say, "Well, some of these decisions were done inappropriately behind closed doors," but there is no mechanism of penalty, so all they can say is, "Just don't do it again." There's a

case that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in regard to this. The case was won but, again, there's no penalty. Therefore, even though it was deemed inappropriate, there was no

mechanism except not doing it again.

I ask this House to support this bill because it is about better decision-making.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I want to begin by thanking our colleague the member from Sarnia-Lambton for bringing this bill forward

for debate today, a bill that will improve public access and provide more transparency in public meetings of public bodies, including local councils and a number of other agencies, boards and

commissions that are public.

The member from Sarnia-Lambton, Caroline Di Cocco, has been an ardent champion of open meetings for many years. It didn't start today, with this bill; she's

been championing this cause since she got here a number of years ago.

I'll share a short story with you. In my first experience in the city of Brampton, I had the pleasure of meeting her mayor, Mayor Bradley, a very good mayor

who has been there a number of years.

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Mike Bradley, one of the best.

Mr Duguid: Mike Bradley; a good guy. He wasn't all that great to me that day, mind you, because I came to meet with him in what was supposed

to be a private meeting, to talk about Toronto's waste going to Michigan through Sarnia, and he insisted that the meeting be public. Mind you, I sensed a bit of a set-up, because there were about

three or four cameras strewn all over the place, so I knew what I was walking into. So I said no, and we came to meet in private. But that was my first experience with the passion that the people

of Sarnia have for open meetings, and I think Mike Bradley probably learned a lot from Caroline Di Cocco and was probably following her lead that day; I just didn't realize it at the time.

I support this bill for a number of reasons. It's very broad in the number of bodies it covers: municipal councils, hospital boards, universities, colleges,

police services boards, school boards, library boards, among a number of others. I think it's important that we reach out to those organizations, to make sure there's a proper protocol and make

sure people have access to decision-making. Some of the decisions these boards and commissions make are very important, so I think it's terrific that it does reach out to all those

organizations.

That being said, the vast majority of those organizations all comply with proper protocol when it comes to private meetings, but there are always exceptions. I

think that's what this bill is all about: dealing with the exceptions.

In the short time I have left, I also want to talk about another reason I support this bill, which is that it gives teeth to the enforcement of this; it really

does. By giving the privacy commissioner the ability to nullify a decision -- trust me, as somebody who was on a local council, it would be extremely embarrassing for a commission, a council or a

board of education to have one of their decisions nullified for not going in camera or not going into a private meeting properly. So I think that helps a great deal. Then there are also the fines

that are within it for anybody who might want to mislead or misconstrue or try to get in the way of the investigations of the privacy commissioner.

That being said, I support this bill for a number of reasons. It's a good step forward and it's something that I welcome, something that I think may warrant

some further discussion with some of the stakeholders as we go to committee. But as that moves forward, I think all members of the House should lend their support to this.

Mr Leal: It is a pleasure for me to spend some time this morning to comment on the details of Bill 123. I certainly want to salute the member

from Sarnia-Lambton, Ms Di Cocco. Prior to coming here, I spent some 18 years in municipal politics in Peterborough, and it was well known throughout the province, throughout the Association of

Municipalities of Ontario, that Ms Di Cocco was indeed a champion of looking at the rules and regulations governing the conduct of public meetings at the municipal level in Ontario.

During my time on council, I did sit on the council proper of the city of Peterborough, and I was council's representative on the St Joseph's Hospital board,

the library board and many other agencies, boards and commissions in the city of Peterborough. One thing that struck me when it came to dealing with items to go in camera and meetings to be held in

camera was that there was enormous flexibility on the

interpretation of the rules and regulations that were in place, and often the chairperson of the day would interpret those regulations and

conditions from a very broad perspective. Often, as a member, from time to time, you would challenge the legitimacy of going in camera to discuss a specific issue.

One of the things I believe this bill helps to do is open up the public process. Certainly in 2004, one of the ways I believe we can address the issue of

cynicism that covers all politicians and the political body proper these days is the whole issue of closed meetings and how we can open up the process so people can get the information that's

really going on, that are not legitimate items that are discussed in in camera sessions.

There was a case in Peterborough just recently with the Peterborough Examiner. They had made a request of the municipality under freedom of information. The

issues that were denied them were very elementary issues dealing with a construction project in Peterborough.

This bill can go a long way to sharing a lot of details that were formerly held in camera, and I think this bill will advance the cause of making our meetings

much more open.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Could I have some water, please? I think I'm going to need it. It smells a little better in here today,

doesn't it? Were any of you here last night? I want to thank the staff for taking care of that. I am still feeling the impacts, actually. For those of you who weren't here last night, we had a bit

of smell coming from the new system that was put in. It smelled really bad in here -- an oily smell -- and some of us got sick.

I want to stand in support of this bill once again. I know I spoke in support of this bill or a similar bill, as I understand it, on October 1, 2001; in fact,

I have my notes from that. What I wanted to clarify with Ms Di Cocco -- and I just did briefly -- is the difference between this bill and that bill. I'm not really sure what's been added, and

perhaps one of your members, or you in the last two minutes, could clarify that for me because I'm tempted to say this should go back to committee for scrutiny of the details. I know it did before

under the previous government when you brought it forward. I very enthusiastically supported it and still do, but I think it's necessary for it to go back to committee -- I see you nodding your

head that you agree with that -- because there are some changes, to make sure we're able to scrutinize it because this is critical legislation. We really need it, but we have to make sure we get it

right.

Having said that, I want to stand and congratulate Ms Di Cocco once again for bringing this forward. The details and the history of this are very interesting.

I know some of you have heard Ms Di Cocco's story and understand why she's like a pit bull, dare I say, on this. It's probably not a good idea these days to tell anybody they're like a pit bull.

She's like a dog with a bone on this. That's a better way to put it.

Having heard her story, you understand why. She knows first-hand the personal implications of not being able to get information that should be in the public

domain. It's just a no-brainer. When you hear that story, you wonder how it could possibly happen. We shouldn't have to make legislation to prevent things like that from happening, but the fact it

does happen shows very clearly why we need such legislation.

Even though it is private members', I would say that all members of my caucus support this bill and support the principle of transparency and accountability.

Under the previous government we really saw that disappear in so many ways. When I spoke about this bill before, and Ms Di Cocco was in the Liberal opposition at the time, we told some stories

about how difficult it was under freedom of information, for instance, under the previous government. They raised the cost of getting the information. Quite frequently, we found that when outside

groups -- or when I, as critic for the environment -- were going forward and slapping down our big bucks, because they raised the cost so high to get information, we would literally hear about

minister intervention to tell the FOI commissioner, "Don't give her that information." We had evidence of that and it infuriated me.

All kinds of groups were coming forward telling me they were unable to either afford or get information that should have been in the public domain. I know

that's just one part of transparency and accountability. We're talking about the bigger picture here: all public bodies and municipal councils.

This bill deals with two areas, and those are open meetings and conflict of interest. I understand those are the essential elements of the bill. I find that

it's pretty clear; it's not convoluted like a lot of bills that you have to examine in close detail to figure out what they are talking about.

As we know, there are already Municipal Act provisions requiring open meetings of municipal councils and their boards, but as has been identified, we have seen

-- I saw it when I was on Toronto city council several years ago now, and we certainly hear stories from all over Ontario, where where it's pretty broad, very broad. You could drive a truck through

it --

Mr Leal: You're talking about that Mack truck?

Ms Churley: The Mack truck -- in terms of how some councils and some boards and commissions determine whether something should be in camera or

not. You hate to see it, but sometimes it's a pretty slippery slope and the issue that they pick out of a whole -- and that's not everybody; we need to be really clear here. As always, you need

broader legislation to deal with the bad apples in these kinds of situations. We all understand, and Ms Di Cocco's bill makes this clear as well, that of course there have to be exceptions. There

are certain matters that should not be discussed in a public domain, certain legal and personnel issues. That wouldn't be fair to the people involved. A city council or a particular body has to

protect the legal integrity of certain situations as well. But I believe as well that the bill is very clear on that.

What this really comes down to is that for most of these matters we're talking about, the bill does require a judgment about balancing the public interest in

openness with the same public interest in keeping the matter private. To me, that's a key point, that these things have to be balanced. I'm afraid, as I said earlier, that for all kinds of reasons

we have seen many examples of where the balance has very clearly tipped the wrong way, and we need to fix that.

I'm not sure about this particular bill before us today, but what I'm talking about is probably very similar. You can nod if I'm right. In the old bill,

section 4 imposed a fine of up to $1,000. Is that still in the bill? That's changed to $500 now?

Ms Di Cocco: It's $2,000.

Ms Churley: Oh, it's up. Thank you for updating me here. It's $2,000 now for each member of council or a board who is in attendance at a

meeting or part of a meeting that improperly excludes the public. I think that's really important. Again, it is balanced with exemptions for members who object on the record or who honestly believe

the exclusion was within the bounds of the act. I think Ms Di Cocco does go out of her way to make sure those kinds of concerns are taken into account.

The other thing, though, that I want to get into today is broader than this bill, and that is the need to have transparency in so many areas this bill doesn't

actually deal with. One of the promises the Liberals made was to bring in transparency on real-time disclosure of political donations. Now, I don't see --

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): We're working on it.

Ms Churley: They're working on it, they say. Is there a way we can include that in this bill? Maybe we can make an amendment to this bill to

bring in that promise by the Liberals in the election that they would bring in real-time disclosure of political donations. It hasn't happened yet, and of course I'm the democratic renewal critic

in our party, as well as a few other areas you hear me talk about from time to time --

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Now we'll see what Jack gave you.

Ms Churley: -- such as the environment. Yes, real-time.

The Liberals, as you may have noticed, over the past several months have been holding a lot of fundraisers, and some of them --

Mr McMeekin: Consultations.

Ms Churley: Consultations. You see? "Consultations." That's a good word you put in there, because these kinds of consultations mean people

have to pay big bucks for them. You have to have the money to get in for these private consultations. The fact is, I believe this actually was a very important, and is a very important, piece of

transparency and openness, and I understand why the Liberals, in opposition, did make that promise to make sure there's real-time disclosure of political donations. I know where it came from, and

we fully support it. When the Tories were in power -- and now it's the Liberals in power over there -- we saw an awful lot of huge fundraisers, where people were paying thousands of dollars to get

in to influence government decisions. These people often have a lot of influence over what governments decide to do with legislation. I will also say, to be fair, they don't always. Sometimes

people pay big bucks to get in just because they support a particular party or it's kind of nice to rub shoulders with the Premier and the cabinet ministers. Nonetheless, we all know that, under

this system, if people have an opportunity to spend big bucks to get an audience with the Premier or cabinet ministers when there's a particular piece of legislation coming through, they're going

to use that opportunity.

We saw recently the energy minister had a big fundraiser, where people who provide power paid big bucks to come into --

Mr McMeekin: It was a charity.

Ms Churley: He says it's a charity. You see, if we had real-time disclosure, transparency in donations, as promised by the leader, you

wouldn't have me up here complaining about this. Because I don't know who's coming to these fundraisers. I do know that a lot of developers, a lot of people with particular interests in certain

pieces of legislation, in energy policy, development policy and all kinds of other areas, do pay big bucks to get into these fundraisers.

I think, as with this bill -- and this is where the connection is -- the public has the right to know. The public has the right to know who's paying the big

bucks to go to fundraisers with cabinet ministers and the Premier. In fact, I know the Liberals agree with me, because they made that promise. Now so far, a year later, this is another broken

promise, because we haven't seen it yet.

We're talking today about a bill that is going to -- I expect it will be passed this time, because the members of Ms Di Cocco's government, I'm sure, will come

in and support her on this, and I know we will be supporting her as it goes through and is passed into law. That's a good thing. We are moving forward toward openness and transparency in government

and public bodies.

But I want to come back to other areas again where we need that transparency, and that is around real-time disclosure of political donations. I think it's

actually not only good for the people to know who's coming to these fundraisers, but it is actually good for the government to have that, and I believe that's why the Liberals promised it. It's not

only good for the people to know, as I think they have the right to know -- because we're all servants of the people; they vote us in here to represent their interests -- but it also actually helps

the government, whoever is in government, all of us, that they can stand up and say very clearly, "Yes, we had a fundraiser, and yes, these are the people who came." It's all open; it's an open

book. So I don't know why they haven't done that yet.

It would have been nice to see that -- I don't know if there's any way to fit that into your legislation today, I would ask Ms Di Cocco. Maybe we can make an

amendment at committee to move her government along in this promise they made for real-time disclosure.

I think that public disclosure is of paramount importance in every area where we as public servants influence public policy, and whatever happens out there in

our communities, they, the people, have the right to know. My position is that unless there is a darned good reason to not make it public, then it should be made public. That's what this bill will

do in certain circumstances. That would avoid a lot of the really awful things that have happened in the past, a real misuse of power going on behind closed doors that has had real adverse effects

on the public. Money misspent and all kind of things have happened, and the public has not been able to get to the bottom of it. We're seeing the MFP computer inquiry going on here in Toronto right

now and all of the revelations that are coming out of that. That's quite shocking.

A lot of these meetings were held in secret, behind closed doors, and some of them no doubt had to be held that way. But had many of them been more open and

transparent, perhaps we wouldn't have seen the terrible mess we have seen happen at Toronto city council over that.

So I support the bill and I hope it goes forward to committee. Thank you very much.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Before I speak to this bill, I want to compliment the member for Sarnia-Lambton. She has believed

in this with a passion, and it's because she's right. It is great to see this bill come forward.

The very premise of democracy is that it is a system that encourages, allows and needs the public to participate in every action and decision, maybe not

actively at a board table, but to participate in it. When people are excluded from decisions that are being made by elected bodies, it produces a reaction, "Well, my vote doesn't count. My opinion

doesn't make any difference. There's no point in my saying anything because they've already decided." That gradually erodes away our democracy and we're seeing that with the decreasing voter

turnout. People believe that others are making decisions that they have no control over.

There is a sense among some elected bodies that they own the assets they have been elected to manage. But the reality is that in many ways, in all ways,

they're trustees. The public owns the schools, municipalities and hospitals. Every asset in this province is in a system, thank goodness, where all of the public owns it, and the public needs to be

involved in that.

This bill identifies boards and organizations that will be subject to this bill. I look at some of them: board of directors and governors for universities, for

hospitals, for colleges of applied arts, for board of health. These are organizations that truly have a profound effect on the community. First of all, they spend a lot of public money. That alone,

to me, would be justification for saying that their meetings must be open. Even more than that, they affect the citizens in the community they serve.

A decision made by a hospital board has a profound effect on the community. What is happening at a community college or at a school board has a profound

influence on the community, and yet we're seeing more and more restrictions. Rather than being more open, we're seeing more closed actions.

I believe that the health of a democracy can be judged by the freedom that the media enjoys. When I say the public needs access to these meetings, I don't

necessarily mean that everyone in the community shows up and sits in on the meeting. But the media need to have full and open access to it so they can share with the community what decisions are

being contemplated. Sometimes we see decisions made behind closed doors, and then the board chair comes out and says, "We made a very tough decision." Some of these decisions are tough because

they're the wrong decisions. If a decision is a good decision, it would stand the scrutiny of daylight, with the public present and in on it.

Elected officials in many ways know only what they're told. So if a perspective is given to them behind closed doors, and they base that decision on it, they

have lost the advantage of all the expertise that exists in that community that could come forward to either support it or to say, "Have you thought about this?" or "Here's an alternate plan." So I

passionately believe that these bodies should hold open public meetings. In fact, in some cases for certain boards -- community college boards, hospitals -- I could make a case that these boards

could be publicly elected rather than a closed-door system, because they're public bodies.

The other thing that has to happen is that the public has to know ahead of time what's being planned. If a decision is being made to change something and it's

made at a public meeting, without the community knowing that it was coming, there is simply no possibility of their receiving the other side of the people coming out. That is happening at an

appalling rate for many of the organizations across.

I respect that certain decisions have to be made in private if you're dealing with a personnel matter, a property matter or a legal matter. But if a

municipality can do its budget in public session, then surely to goodness things like school boards and hospitals and community colleges can do it in public session.

There is nothing that is being done, outside of those areas, that should not be done in public. I do not believe an organization should make the decision

itself as to what is public and what is private. I applaud Caroline for saying there would be a definition that cannot be broken on what can be done in private.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to make a few comments on this piece of legislation, Bill 123,

An Act to require that meetings

of provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies be open to the public.

First of all, I want to say to the member that I congratulate you for bringing forth this bill again. I have questions about it and I'm very concerned about

it. But anybody that has Mike Weir as a constituent has to be not too bad a person because I believe that Mike Weir, as one of our primary golfers in this country and in the world, has brought a

lot of recognition to our country. The economic spinoff for the golfing industry as a result of Mike Weir and Lorie Kane and these people has been incredible, for our province and our country. I

thank them for that, and that's great.

Anyhow, it gets us around to Bill 123. I guess my initial thought is that it can be very bureaucratic, and that's my worry, that we're just adding -- as the

citizens of the province get involved with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, I worry how far down that path we can go. I have to tell the member that in rural Ontario, in the county of

Simcoe, I have sat on a number of these boards you talk about today: small library boards, community centre boards, hospital boards, the community college association, foundations and boards. I've

got to tell you that I have sat with literally hundreds of people over the last 23 or 24 years who have been absolutely phenomenal and have not tried to hide anything.

By far, most of these people are volunteers in their communities and they have the best -- for example, a library board. In the communities I've been involved

with, we've had a hard time or difficult time finding people to even sit on these boards. I don't want to restrict people. That's my main concern with this piece of legislation, that there may be

some restrictions in that area. In her concluding remarks, she may want to address that.

As well, I have to say some nice things about the boards. Our hospital board in Orillia, Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, the North Simcoe Hospital Alliance,

Huronia District Hospital and the Penetanguishene General Hospital: Absolutely phenomenal people are on these committees. They work hard either on the foundation, raising funding, funds for special

projects or the day-to-day operation of the hospital. Most of those folks don't receive a penny for anything. They just work hard and do the best they can for their hospitals. I don't want to say

anything to those folks that would restrict them or take away their desire to be a part of that board.

It's the same thing with our community college system, Georgian College in Simcoe county, with the headquarters in the city of Barrie. We have satellite

campuses throughout the county. In my particular riding we have Midland and Orillia campuses. Again, it's a volunteer board of directors that does an absolutely fantastic job.

As far as I know, their procedural manual calls for public meetings. You can go to a meeting whenever you want and get a deputation, the same as at the

hospital board and the school board. I know our school board -- I've been on many boards and sat in the audience. Certainly you're restricted in the amount of time you can speak or whatever. For

example, in our Simcoe county board of education, I think you are allowed to bring up a topic one time in a deputation so that they don't have people coming back month after month trying to address

certain issues like transportation or a funding issue that a parent may have. The board would have to deal with 55,000 students in a school board like Simcoe. We would want to make sure the board

has some movement that way.

Overall, I'm very satisfied. The member has probably come across this issue and is very concerned about the fact that there may be some boards or public bodies

across the province that are not doing that, but I have to tell you that I'm not hearing that in my riding. I certainly don't hear it from my municipalities, and they all have library boards and

community centre boards. Very seldom do I have a problem. I have a few problems with people who claim the mayors and councils sometimes have certain issues and don't want to allow too much time for

debate or for deputations, but overall I think they do a fairly good job. I'm really sorry that when I came here -- I was late getting here to make my comments because I was at a House leaders'

meeting, and that's not the best kind of meeting to be at these days. When I leave here -- I have to go back -- Mr Miller is coming in to wrap up for us. I have to tell you --

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Everybody else has spoken.

Mr Dunlop: Everybody else has spoken? I guess I'm going to stay until Mr Miller arrives.

The bottom line is that, overall, the volunteers who make up the vast majority of the boards -- here's my friend from London-Fanshawe; we just gave out

volunteer award recognitions up in Barrie and Orillia. He did a great job, by the way. I believe there were something like 250 people at each of those events that the ministry held. Almost all of

them were volunteers and contribute to their communities on library boards and, some of them, on hospital boards and foundations. I have a real problem trying to put through legislation that would

hinder their desire to continue in the role they play in their communities. I'm not saying for a moment there is not a need in some other communities or some other organizations across our

province, but I can tell you that from my perspective, I have a concern.

Now, let's talk about the government for a while -- this just came to mind a few minutes ago when I was talking -- the role of government and why this piece of

legislation. I think of the government itself, and what I'm really concerned about is that last year you ran in an election. The Liberals had a platform, and if I had the time I would have brought

it down. I think it's 147 pages of information on different topics, and a number of promises and what Mr McGuinty and his team would do if they were elected in this province. I found there were a

number of promises made. At the time, during the election last fall, there was a lot of debate around what these promises would cost provincial taxpayers.

The one piece of information that came out rather quickly -- and here's my buddy coming -- was the previous auditor's report, that purple manual. He came out

and claimed that the government had a deficit of $5.8 billion. We argued about that until we had a confirmation later on this year. However, the document you didn't release was the document that

was made up by the folks in the Cabinet Office projecting the cost, previous to the election, of each party's election platform. I understand that your party did everything possible, until we

finally got it through the freedom of information act -- we finally got it just a few weeks ago. You did everything possible to stop our party from receiving this document, which, of course,

allocated something like $18 billion a year -- that's what we were told in the end -- and that the ministers had to address this --

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): Yours was 30, though.

Mr Dunlop: Yes, but the problem is, to the member from Northumberland, you're the government now and you're bringing in this legislation. You

can say whatever you want --

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member to direct his comments through the Chair, please.

Mr Dunlop: I'm sorry.

Mr Leal: What about your platform: $30 billion?

Mr Dunlop: There you go again. You see, everything you do, you look at a previous government. All I'm asking today is, why didn't you release

that document? You were quick to release the purple document from the Auditor General. They were quick to release that document, but they were not quick to release their own Cabinet Office document

which called for billions of dollars. Of course, right to this day, 13 months after the election of October 2, you're still trying to blame the previous government for everything that's

happening.

Sometime you have to take control of the situation. You have to remember that you're no longer in opposition. You actually have to govern over there, and it's

about time you started to govern.

Mr Leal: We are.

Mr Dunlop: Well, you know what? I can see how you're governing. I've been listening to question period, and we've got a lot of problems in

this province today. A lot of it has been created in the last 13 months by some of your legislation. You know the one I'm talking about in particular. That's the health premium. It was called the

health premium --

The Deputy Speaker: We do have a private member's bill before us, so I would ask the speaker to please --

Mr Dunlop: I'm going to wrap up right now, but what I'm trying to point out here is the secrecy of this government. It's the secrecy that

you've held back. Now you're trying to come through with a piece of legislation, a private member's bill, that's going to pick on some little library board. That's what you're going to do with this

piece of legislation: send some member of the library board to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. So it is difficult for me to support this.

However, I have used up a lot of the time of my colleague Mr Miller. I know that he would like to make a few comments on this piece of legislation. Mr Miller,

if it is OK with you, I'll turn it over to you now.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, we'll just check. Further debate? The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate in private members' time on Bill 123,

An Act to require that

meetings of provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies be open to the public. Certainly, I would say that the goal stated on the cover of the bill is one that I don't

think any of us are going to argue with. We all want to see business conducted in as open a manner as possible.

I know the member from Simcoe North, who was just speaking, has a lot of municipal experience; he was 18½ years on council. Councils do most of their

business in an open manner, but there are some types of business that they don't, like labour relations, litigation or potential litigation, employee negotiations, and acquisition or de-acquisition

of land.

In my riding we have 26 municipalities, so I would be concerned about how this legislation might affect those municipalities as well as other boards. I'm

concerned that this may be quite bureaucratic in creating a lot of red tape and complications for those municipalities. Some of them are pretty small. Some are municipalities that only have 500

people in them.

I would also ask, is this just complicating things? We had a situation in the municipality of Magnetawan, where people in the community were concerned with how

business was being conducted and had questions about it. They raised those questions. They delivered a petition to me, which I forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On a

fairly speedy basis, the ministry looked into and actually did an audit on the municipality and looked at the way they were conducting their business. I'm pleased to say the result was that

Magnetawan was seen to be doing their business according to the rules. The point of that is that there were questions about how they were doing their business. The process worked very well in

dealing with that.

I've also had situations where parents are frustrated with school boards and want to get more information and are having difficulty getting the information.

That's an example of how we do, in some cases, need more open methods of dealing with business in some of these public agencies.

But I am concerned about some of the measures of the bill. There are certainly some, I would call them draconian, measures that are given to the commissioner,

who is given the power to look into things. I'll just note, especially,

section 14(1)(c), giving the commissioner power of entry and search, even when "the commissioner does not have reasonable

grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence."

I only have 50 seconds, so I'm not going to be able to go through all of the points that I wanted to be able to make on this bill. The type and nature of the

power given to the commissioner or person or employee of the commissioner will allow him or her to operate in a world that is a little scary: no restrictions, no concern for rules of evidence,

testimony by people who may be recounting pure gossip. The attacks will be coming against members of boards and commissions, mayors and other elected officials, many of whom are community

volunteers or part-timers. On top of all that, the act grants immunity to the commissioner.

So the problem I have with the bill is that it's far too bureaucratic, and I'm concerned with some of the powers that are given to the commissioner.

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm happy to join in the discussion today, with regard to my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton, to ensure

transparency in government, agencies, boards, commissions and other publicly funded bodies.

There are far too few guidelines governing open meetings for public business in Ontario. There is far too much public money that's being spent but it's not

open to public scrutiny. There are far too many penalties when you don't comply. The current rules governing openness of public meetings, in my opinion, are like a toothless tiger.

We've already heard that across the border in the US, in Michigan, they have an Open Meetings Act, with penalties placed personally on those who serve public

bodies and who have been found to have broken rules. So the time has definitely come for us here in Ontario to adopt similar legislation. This position was supported by the Information and Privacy

Commissioner in her letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs just three days ago.

I'm also proud to indicate that in my riding of Niagara Falls the local newspaper, the Niagara Falls Review, under the banner of the headline, "No Good Reason

to Keep Boards' Business Private," wrote, "Many of these public agencies are made up of elected representatives and government appointees. Except for the Niagara Parks Commission, most of these

agencies are spending public money. In many cases, government appoints the boards of governors.

"It makes sense that their meetings should be open to the public they serve and through which they are funded."

During my campaign, when I was running, I heard loud and clear from the people in my riding that they wanted more transparency in government at all levels.

Since I've been in office, I've been hearing the same message over and over. Bodies like our hospital boards, colleges, universities -- this will apply to them when this bill is passed.

I want to indicate that I'm also a supporter of other agencies that don't fall under this bill yet, and I hope to have that amended to be included, such as the

CCAC in my riding, which did not renew the contract of our VON and lost a valuable service, or the Niagara Parks Commission, which brought in the idea of a gondola and created a huge uproar in our

community, without having public input before this decision was made. Only after it came to the public did they participate, and the cry came out loud and clear that they did not want the falls

themselves to become a tourist amusement centre with this concept.

The purpose of the bill is to provide more public access and transparency to the public and to make these boards accountable. Under this legislation,

organizations will have to provide public notice, including minutes. In essence, they're going to have to become accountable.

I'm extremely pleased to have an opportunity to express my opinion and that of my riding and show our support for this bill. I also want, on a personal level,

to congratulate Caroline Di Cocco for her leadership in bringing this bill forward. I was glad to have the opportunity to partner with her in bringing it forward on behalf of my community, who

loudly and clearly have told me they have concerns about two of our agencies that they feel have not been accountable to the people in the Niagara region.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: If we can just keep the conversations to a minimum, it would be appreciated. We have two minutes now to hear from Ms Di

Cocco in her reply.

Ms Di Cocco: I want to thank my colleagues and all those who have spoken to the bill and those who support it. There's a clear connection, by

the way, to the government's transparency agenda. I'm pleased to say that, if this passes, we're more than willing to go to committee so that it can be tweaked and addressed and we can look at ways

to make it better.

I was a little bit disappointed with the remarks coming from the opposition. I'm quite surprised at their

interpretation of the bill, because it is about

better governance. It has nothing to do with being utterly bureaucratic, as has been stated. There is the right of the public to know. This has the support, as I said, of many different sectors:

the dailies, the Ontario Community Newspaper Association, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, Democracy Watch. Many organizations across this province have been looking for some checks and

balances in public bodies.

I also want to thank in particular the member from Toronto-Danforth, because it is about our experiences that we bring to this chamber, an idea that would make

the whole system better. That's the intent of this bill. And I want to thank the member from Scarborough Centre, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for his

support, and the members from Peterborough, Niagara Falls, Prince Edward-Hastings and others, and I ask you to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank the members for their co-operation this morning. The time for private members' public business has expired.

LAND ACQUISITION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item 35, which is private members' notice of motion 24. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll deal with this after ballot item 36.

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES

QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item 36. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All of those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members for a vote. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

LAND ACQUISITION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 35, private members' notice of motion number 24, standing in

the name of Mr Chudleigh, which reads:

"That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should establish a permanent land acquisition program with long-term funding in order to ensure

the continued acquisition of environmentally sensitive areas."

All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand.

Nays

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

Smitherman, George

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 3.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds before the next vote.

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES

QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 36, standing in the name of Ms Di Cocco: second reading of

Bill 123,

An Act to require that meetings of provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies be open to the public.

All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand.

Nays

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Murdoch, Bill

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53; the nays are 3.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96 -- Ms Di Cocco?

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Yes, I would like the bill to be sent to finance and economic affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be sent to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs?

All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

A majority is in favour. It will be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

All matters relating to private members' public business having now been dealt with, I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30 of the

clock.

The House recessed from 1215 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My statement is directed to the Minister of Culture, and it concerns the Banting homestead in my hometown of

Alliston.

Canadians will know Sir Frederick Banting as the man who discovered insulin and was Canada's first Nobel Prize recipient for medicine in 1923. He was a noble

man who did not seek to profit from his discovery. Instead of applying for a patent for his life-saving serum, he sold the rights to the University of Toronto for one dollar to ensure that insulin

would be affordable for the millions of people across the world who suffer from diabetes. His contributions to medicine were so significant that viewers and listeners of the CBC recently recognized

him as one of our top 10 greatest Canadians.

The home and buildings on the farm where Sir Frederick Banting was born on November 14, 1891, are deteriorating and in danger of destruction because of the

inaction of the Ontario Historical Society. Edward Banting, the last owner of the homestead, bequeathed the property to the society in 1999 so that they could preserve and maintain it for the

benefit of all Canadians.

The town of New Tecumseth, under the leadership of Mayor Mike MacEachern and former Mayor Larry Keogh, has tried to reach an agreement with the Ontario

Historical Society to use parts of the land to educate the public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting. Unfortunately, the historical society has been unreceptive

to the town's bid and residents of my riding are worried that the land may be sold for development.

I'm calling upon the Minister of Culture and the Liberal government to step in and ensure that this important piece of Canadian history is preserved for

generations to come.

JOHN SZOKE

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Thank you for the opportunity to inform the House about a special award presented to a resident of my riding

of Niagara Falls. I was present when Mr John Szoke was presented with the Knight Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary from the Hungarian ambassador, Dénes Tomaj.

John was born in Transylvania in 1937, settled in Hungary in 1957 and moved to Niagara Falls subsequently. He was instrumental in the building of the first

cultural centre dedicated to Hungarian-Canadian residents of the Niagara area. After being elected as president in 1983, he has been re-elected for 21 years, something I think we all wish we could

do.

John has been leader of many fundraising events to support the Hungarian community, which include conducting a weekly bingo for the past 20 years. Over the

years, he has dedicated his time and efforts to raise money for Hungarian groups and causes in our community. He's currently president of the North American Hungarian National Association.

I'm sure this House will join me in congratulating John in recognition of this award and thanking him for his continued effort to ensure that all who now call

Canada their home are able to continue to enjoy the customs and traditions of their native country, and ensuring aid to the less than fortunate citizens of Hungary and Transylvania.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the close to 100 community volunteers in Durham riding who were honoured

on October 26 with community volunteer service awards.

These awards went to outstanding community volunteers such as Doris Hills and Elaine Baker of the Solina Women's Institute, who were each honoured with more

than 50 years of service. Also recognized for more than 50 years was Ann Evans, of the Orono Horticultural Society. A couple, Isabelle and Orville Challice, of the Orono Horticultural Society, were

honoured for 40 years of service to their community and together. Pat Best and Jean Taylor, of the Solina Women's Institute, were honoured for 40 years of service.

Other long-service volunteers are Erich Poehlmann and Michael Rausch of the Donauschwaben Park in Blackstock. They were recognized for 30 years' service to the

community. Thirty-year volunteers also included Esther Allin, Beatrice Higgins and William Tamblyn of the Durham Central Agricultural Society; Cor Mostert and Dini Schoenmaker of the Orono

Horticultural Society; and Eileen Down of the Marnwood Lifecare Centre.

Unfortunately, time limits do not permit me to name all the volunteer service award recipients from my riding. I thank them. Whether they have volunteered for

a year or 50 years, every volunteer brings unique gifts to their work and help in the community. I'm pleased to thank and pay tribute to the 2004 Volunteer Service Award recipients of Durham and to

the volunteers everywhere who make Ontario a great place to live, work and raise your family

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): The most important issue in any community is safety. When a community is not safe, when residents

are afraid to walk to the corner store after dark, when quiet streets inspire fear, not comfort, every other issue is secondary in importance. This could not be more true than it is for the

residents in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who have unfortunately, as of late, suffered from a rash of violence in our community.

I have been working hard to make my community safer. As a long-time supporter of community policing, I have continuously advocated for the installation of a

community storefront police station on the Lakeshore. I have attended community meetings where crime and safety are topics of discussion. I have met with our local superintendent, with local police

officers and articulated my concerns to the chief of police on a number of occasions.

I've also worked in partnership with the municipal councillors in my riding to get more police on the streets, because if you ask residents, police officers

are the best way to reduce the amount of crime and make people feel safer. Their response is always the same: Put more cops on the beat. That will mean safer streets.

That's why I've recently conducted my second Etobicoke-Lakeshore safety audit in conjunction with LAMP and the Etobicoke Take Back the Night committee. That's

why I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to and is delivering 1,000 new police officers in Ontario.

I want to applaud the residents of my community who continue to work on this issue, and to let them know that I will not let them down.

LOBBYISTS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): We learned yesterday that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been bought and sold by an anti-farming

lobbyist. The minister needs to know that if he turns his back on one group of farmers, he turns his back on all farmers.

Here is what Dwayne VanBesien, a tobacco farmer from my riding, had to say about this:

"Farmers of Ontario have to rely on their Minister of Agriculture in good times and in bad -- that's why he is there, for all farmers, including tobacco

farmers. With the latest announcement that Agriculture Minister Peters will be the guest of honour at an event hosted by an anti-tobacco lobbyist, in my opinion confirms that he is turning his back

on us. It feels like he's conspiring to put us completely out of business in Ontario, and that's appalling since he's supposed to be representing us as farmers."

Yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague Toby Barrett, the minister refused to defend the fact that an anti-farmer lobbyist was organizing a

$300-a-head fundraiser on his behalf. I wonder how, in good conscience, he can continue as Minister of Agriculture while so arrogantly ignoring the needs of his stakeholders. Obviously, for our

Minister of Agriculture, lobbyists come first and farmers come last.

ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): An e-mail from a Niagara Falls resident: "I was going to purchase a new van to transport disabled son to his

daily activities. He's 26 years old and gets around in an electric wheelchair. I learned that the government no longer rebates the PST on these vehicles (hidden in the last budget). I am 66 years

old and on a small pension, which makes it difficult to take care of my son in our home without this additional expense. Any help you can give me and others like me would be greatly

appreciated.

"So much for no tax increases."

That's why the Niagara Amputee Association, based in St Catharines down in Niagara region, is circulating a petition. The petition says that the government is

going to "eliminate a key program offered," known as the PST sales tax rebate, "for vehicles purchased to transport persons with permanent physical disabilities.

"This program is non-means tested, and for middle-average income families has represented virtually the only assistance offered by the province.

"We feel that such action by a Liberal government that was elected on the promise that it would be a kinder, gentler government is reprehensible. This proposal

is another example of bad faith and voter betrayal."

I'm inviting people -- and thousands already have signed this petition. New Democrats insist that the legislation, which hasn't even been presented to this

House yet, which repeals this modest level of support for persons with disabilities, be brought forward so that it can be defeated by this House, by any fair-minded member of any political party

who has any sense of compassion and regard for the struggle that persons with disabilities have imposed on them, still today in 2004 on a daily basis, in this province of Ontario.

ADULT EDUCATION

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): Kathleen Wynne, member for Don Valley West, was given the task of seeking public input into adult education

in Ontario. On her mission, she visited one of the St Charles Adult Education Centres in the wonderful riding of Hamilton West. It gives me great pleasure today to recognize the St Charles Adult

Education Centres under the auspices of the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board. I also want to thank Jack Maga, principal of continuing education and staff, as well as the 50

students of the centre for taking the initiative to come to Queen's Park and visit with us today.

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of speaking to an adult ESL class at St Charles. Not only was I able to provide these people with a bit of insight into

the community, but I also taught them a little bit about the role of an MPP for Hamilton West. But I was the one who learned more than I shared, for I learned a great deal that day from the

students themselves: their lives before coming to Canada and how each and every one of them are working toward establishing themselves in the new community of Hamilton. I was humbled by that

experience and went away thinking about the courage each and every one of them exhibited in coming to Canada.

St Charles centres not only welcome new immigrants, they also serve Hamiltonians looking to upgrade their education and improve their career opportunities. I

am proud that the Liberal government is committed to providing Ontarians with access to an adult education and training system that addresses current and anticipated economic and social

challenges.

HEALTH CARE

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I'd like to take this time to talk about what health care looks like in the province of Ontario these

days. Once a system that experienced cuts and more cuts, and a system that was attacked by the former government, it is now a system that is being rebuilt to the standards that Ontario was once

known for --

Interjections.

Mr Wilkinson: -- despite the protestations of the members to the right of me.

We're working to reduce wait times by allocating resources to purchase equipment such as MRIs for our hospitals. We're creating 2,400 full-time nursing

positions so there is actual staff to use that equipment. We're ensuring those nurses are safe when they are on the job by buying new patient lifts that were desperately needed.

The health care system doesn't just mean hospitals. The health care system also includes home care. We understand the importance of home care, and that is why

we've made investments to provide 21,000 more Ontarians with home care this year alone.

Most importantly, we set a new tone in affirming that we believe in universal health care, and that is why we introduced and passed the commitment to health

care act. Personally, the fact that we are inoculating children in this province against preventable diseases -- against pneumonia, against chickenpox, against meningitis -- is the forward thinking

that our government brings to this. It's far better to keep children safe than allow them to be sick and then care for them, I'm sure we would all agree.

We believe that Ontarians deserve a health care system that is second to none, that gives them the care they need, when they need it, with an OHIP card, not a

credit card. That is what we are delivering.

EDUCATION

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to talk about Ontario's education system. Just over a year ago, we took office and, when we

did, we pulled up our sleeves and got to work.

One of our first priorities was Ontario's children and their education. I'm proud to stand here and say that we're making real, positive changes with regard to

how children learn in this province. Not only do we have reduced class sizes so that every child can get the attention they need, but we also hired new teachers, including lead teachers, who can

help those children who need it most. In addition to the lead teachers, we've also launched a literacy and numeracy strategy.

For eight years, Ontario students had to deal with cuts to education and bigger class sizes. They sat on radiators when there weren't enough chairs. They

shared books because there weren't enough resources. Our children spent their time in schools that were crumbling. The education system under the Tories was unacceptable, and every day we're taking

steps to correct it. The resources are being put back into education to ensure that our children go to schools that are well maintained, properly staffed and provide an enjoyable learning

environment.

We're really making a difference when it comes to education. I can tell you that I've been to the schools myself. My own son goes to school in our system. Each

and every day I go to schools and talk to principals and teachers, they're saying that this government has been a breath of fresh air when it comes to education in the province of Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREENBELT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Mr Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to establish a greenbelt area and to make consequential amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Oak Ridges

Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 and the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 135