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

May 4, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-04 (PDF)

L053 - Thu 4 May 2000 / Jeu 4 mai 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES EN MATIÈRE DE JUSTICE

TARTAN ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE TARTAN

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YOUTH ASSISTING YOUTH

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CAMPBELLFORD DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR JAZZ ENSEMBLE

SHAW HOUSE

CESAR CHAVEZ BLACK EAGLE AWARDS

BOWMANVILLE MAPLE FEST

COMMUNITY MUSEUMS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO POLICE MEMORIAL TO FALLEN OFFICERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPUTER VIRUS

RAVES

HOMELESSNESS

TAX REFUND

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LANDFILL

SULPHUR IN GASOLINE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PUBLIC SAFETY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PROVINCIAL PARKS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

VISITOR

PETITIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PESTICIDES

LORD'S PRAYER

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

KARLA HOMOLKA

HIGHWAY SAFETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LORD'S PRAYER

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

KARLA HOMOLKA

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2000 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES EN MATIÈRE DE JUSTICE

Ms Mushinski moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to make Ontario judges more accountable and to provide for recommendations from the Legislative Assembly for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes des juges de l'Ontario et prévoyant que l'Assemblée législative fasse des recommandations de nominations à la Cour suprême du Canada.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I move second reading of Bill 66.

I would first like to thank the members for Cambridge, Etobicoke North, Guelph-Wellington and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who will also be speaking on this bill this morning.

It is my pleasure today to rise in the House to ask my colleagues on both sides of the House for their support for my private member's bill, the Judicial Accountability Act. There is no question that issues of crime and justice are important to the people of Ontario. North or south, urban or rural, Conservative or Liberal, crime concerns all of our constituents. Throughout the first term of this government, and now in the second, improving safety in our communities has been a priority for the Mike Harris government. We have said before that we must ensure that law-abiding Ontarians feel safe in their neighbourhoods, on their streets and in their own homes.

Our government has taken many steps and introduced many new initiatives designed to strengthen our justice system. However, our constituents are still fearful. They still have many concerns with a justice system that they feel is failing to protect them. My colleagues and I heard the issues during the election, ranging from the Young Offenders Act and the parole system, to a court system that has completely failed law-abiding citizens. I heard it personally at a town hall meeting less than a month ago: Our courts are too lenient. No one in the room disagreed.

Our law enforcement officers have been vocal critics of a soft court system. Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino has been actively pursuing the concepts of truth in sentencing and of placing policy-making powers back in the hands of elected representatives.

When I was reading the newspaper yesterday, I came across yet another illustration of what Chief Fantino has been talking about. Sam Calladine was convicted of manslaughter in the stabbing death of his wife. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Despite the fact that he had previous assault charges, jail escapes and weapons offence charges, Calladine's sentence was reduced to 10 years on appeal. Despite his criminal history and the fact that he took the life of another human being, he was released on parole after serving two thirds of his sentence.

Since his release earlier this year, he has already fled a halfway house, stolen a pickup truck and two rifles and is on the run from authorities. This is the type of preventable crime from which we expect our justice system to protect us. When the court system fails to protect the interests of victims and law-abiding citizens, the public loses faith.

Our court system has not only failed to use stiff sentencing as a tool for protecting law-abiding citizens and punishing criminals, it has also created an environment that makes it difficult for our police officers to perform their duties effectively. Supreme Court decisions have thrown obstacle after obstacle in front of our hard-working law enforcement agencies. The most minor violation of court-created criminal rights can result in a guilty person walking away from drug trafficking, sexual assault or even murder without having to face justice.

An inspector with a police division here in Toronto recently shared this anecdote with me to illustrate the absurdity of some of these court decisions. Officers were responding to a "shots fired" report. When they arrived on the scene, they began searching the street. Very near the shooting site, they found a car on the street. Through the car window the officers could see the handle of a semi-automatic handgun sitting on the back seat of the car. It took officers over six hours to follow the court-created procedures necessary to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle.

Stories like this have created public distrust in the court system. There is a widespread feeling that courts are no longer a place for justice. Instead, their purpose is to ensure that the rights of criminals are protected above all else.

The Judicial Accountability Act begins to address some of these concerns. Bill 66 will create a public registry of sentences handed down in serious criminal cases. This is not unlike existing sunshine laws such as the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. The registry will encompass each criminal case that goes to trial for a crime that carries a maximum sentence of five years or more in prison. The registry will be detailed with the name of the judge, the maximum sentence for the crime, the actual sentence the judge handed out and any reasons the judge gave for handing out a sentence less than the maximum.

Cases that have been plea bargained will be exempt from the registry, because judges have little if any influence over the length of sentence handed out in many of those cases. It would be unfair to hold judges accountable for those sentences. In addition, a provision has been included in the bill to allow judges to explain why they gave out a sentence less than the maximum. This acknowledges the fact that the circumstances of each case are different and therefore the sentences will be different.

The bill also allows the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recommend the appointment of future Supreme Court justices. Hopefully, this will force Jean Chrétien to abandon his policy of appointing interventionist judges. The values of the Supreme Court must reflect those of average Canadians.

The bill will provide us with empirical evidence in the debate over sentencing. Instead of speculation, we will once and for all be able to know whether sentences in Ontario are too lenient. The information gathered in the registry would be available in the future should the people of Ontario demand that their government introduce performance reviews for judges. In some instances, the registry will result in public pressure being placed on judges. Public pressure has already proven successful in certain cases. The newspapers attribute to public outcry the refusal of a judge to grant Karla Homolka prison passes.

I was pleased to have played a small role in that with my petition on behalf of Scarborough residents. However, judges who sentence reasonably and responsibly need not worry. They can continue their practices.

This bill has received a great deal of attention. Of course, organizations representing defence attorneys are vehemently opposed to any legislation that could result in longer sentences for criminals. However, the overwhelming majority of attention has been positive. I have had countless constituents contact my office to express their support for the bill and their appreciation for my efforts.

Law enforcement agencies and officials are delighted. Edie Newton, executive director of Against Drunk Driving, had this to say: "The Judicial Accountability Act will be very instrumental in gauging how judges weigh criminal cases as serious as impaired drivers. For some time now my colleagues and I have had grave concerns with the apparent disregard for the victims and their families when it comes to punitive sanctions handed down by our provincial court justice system. You may count on our support for a very courageous and timely bill."

In conclusion, our courts are public institutions. They were created by the will of the people to serve the people. Their proceedings are open to the public. Results of those proceedings are public knowledge. It is time to make that information available for the public. I encourage all members to support the Judicial Accountability Act for the protection of law-abiding Ontarians.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I rise today to speak on this bill on behalf of the official opposition. We do not support this bill. This bill is an abomination. This bill is unprecedented in its attempt to bully the judiciary into rendering judgments in a manner that is not offensive to the neo-conservative ideology of the government of the day. This bill is offensive to our system of parliamentary democracy, although I suspect that this characteristic makes it a virtue in the eyes of its supporters.

In the first century AD, a Byzantine emperor, Justinian I, established what we now refer to as Roman law in the Justinian tradition. Roman law system in the Justinian tradition worked pretty well for civil actions and for ordinary criminal cases, but its downfall came with respect to the judiciary.

According to the legal scholar Norman Cantor, the judges' "excessive ambition" was "to climb higher in state or church by making decisions that would please those in authority, eroding the quality of the system." He goes on to say that "the flaw in the Roman law system was the lack of independence of the judiciary, which became very evident when the defendant in a criminal action ... was in disfavour with the government for ideological or other reasons.... A Roman law court could easily become an engine of royal policy."

And so it is here, 2,000 years later in the province of Ontario, or so the supporters of this bill, who seek to turn our courts into the engine of their political revolution, would have it. The Common Sense Revolution would thus produce common-sense judges, as dictated by the emperor from North Bay and rendered by common-sense judges who dare not displease the emperor from North Bay. Those unwilling to bend to the emperor's rule presumably wouldn't advance through the ranks of the judiciary.

They would find themselves subject to the scorn of the public and the rants of their political opponents in the Legislature until such time as they too bent to avoid disfavour from the emperor of North Bay.

Hyperbole? I wish it were so. I wish it were. It has long been established in our jurisprudence that our Constitution demands an independent judiciary. Not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done. If Ontarians believe that judges are in any way influenced or motivated by what the government is doing, then there's no independent judiciary.

I will be reading letters from the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the president of the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario and retired judges and lawyers, and they all say that this bill violates judicial independence. So there is a reasonable apprehension. But we don't even need to get into the abstract debate as to whether there is interference with judicial independence here, because the very intention of this act is colourable. The member for Scarborough Centre has already blurted out the purpose behind the bill.

These are her words: "To motivate lenient judges to give out tougher sentences." Well, that's that. She calls a spade a spade, the emperor has no clothes, the overlord is cheerfully exposed and the judiciary is sought to be an engine of the emperor from North Bay's royal policy. This is contrary to every principle of fundamental justice known to every commonwealth nation, particularly this nation and this province.

Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Lippé decision that the principle of judicial independence has traditionally required that the courts be independent of government. This principle is established under two grounds.

First, under the constitutional convention of the separation of powers, each branch of the state must be independent from the others. Don't believe me, believe the Supreme Court of Canada, Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board. They said what we all learned in high school and we all know is true. In their words, "There is in Canada a separation of powers among the three branches of government-the Legislature," here, "the executive," the front benches there, "and the judiciary," the courts far away from Queen's Park.

"In broad terms," the Supreme Court of Canada said, "the role of judiciary is ... to interpret and apply the law; the role of the Legislature is to decide upon and enunciate policy; the role of the executive is to administer and implement that policy."

So if you don't like the sentences that judges are handing out, you pass legislation which changes the sentences, and the courts interpret those laws. If you cry foul because you say you don't have any jurisdiction to do so, then you presumably, politically, talk to your federal cousins, talk to Tom Long, whom you long to be prime minister, or you run for federal office. With all due respect, there is business in this Legislature which we have jurisdiction over and that we wish to do.

But if this is your raison d'être, I say to the member of Scarborough and other members who support this bill, I encourage you to run federally. If you want to be the official opposition critic for the Canadian Alliance, then please go and do so. But here in this Legislature, we have provincial laws to pass, not abominations that interfere with the judiciary as this does.

The second ground of constitutional protection is under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 11(

d) of the Charter provides for the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal. Again, the appearance of judicial independence is as sacrosanct as its operation. Public confidence is critical. They need to know that their judiciary isn't being bullied by anybody, any government, into handing down a decision it would not otherwise hand down. That makes our principle of judicial independence even more "integral and important in our constitutional system," says the Supreme Court of Canada, in Beauregard, "than it is in the United Kingdom," from which the constitutional convention I spoke of earlier derived.

Either way, on its face, this bill has an unseemly, despotic connotation to the effect that the province is engaging in explicit or benign interference in the judicial branch.

Interjection.

Mr Bryant: The explicit interference? By their own admission, they're trying to motivate judges. By their own admission, they're trying to pressure judges into handing out longer sentences. That's explicit interference.

Benign interference is where you lump judges together with another branch of the state, and the member for Scarborough Centre admitted as much in her speech. She said that public servants are subject to "performance reviews," therefore judges should be subject to performance reviews. The problem is, public servants are accountable to ministers, who are accountable to this Legislature.

Interjection: Notionally.

Mr Bryant: Notionally. Judges are not democratically accountable, because they are a separate branch of the state.

So, by their own admission, there is both explicit and benign interference, and a more blatant case of interference I cannot imagine.

But we know this already. A similar bill was introduced by the member from Oshawa under the previous administration. It was referred to by then Attorney General Charles Harnick as unconstitutional, and it died on the order paper.

So there's no excuse for the position taken by the Attorney General, the Honourable Mr Flaherty, in this case. He said in the National Post and other newspapers on April 20 that "releasing such a list might not" even "require passing a new law, and his staff is looking into ways it could be done under current legislation"-so not only forget about judicial independence but forget about democracy. You don't even need to pass the law. He then said in his words, "I think it addresses a need which people have to get some kind of accurate reading on what sentences are done."

This is an infamous occasion in the history of this critical and sui generis ministry. After all, the Attorney General has special legal and constitutional duties. On his own Web site, the minister says he "has unique responsibilities to the crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. ... the office has a constitutional and traditional responsibility beyond that of a political minister," in his Web site's own words.

He's vested under the Ministry of the Attorney General Act with special responsibilities to safeguard judicial independence.

Section 5 of that act says that he must "superintend" the administration of justice, that he must "superintend" the operation of the judiciary. Well, some superintendent, this Attorney General-more like an absentee landlord, although that may give absentee landlords a bad name.

We all know that the Attorney General is in flagrant violation of his duties under the act and under the constitution. He's the one who's supposed to stand up in cabinet and say: "I stand aside from cabinet on this point. This act is in violation of the constitution." Mr Harnick had the courage to do that, and I can assure you that the Honourable Chief Justice of Ontario Mr McMurtry would have done that, Ian Scott would have done that, Ms Boyd would have done that-but Mr Flaherty did not do that.

I will also remind-and it gives me no pleasure to do this. Mr Flaherty has an obligation as a member of the bar, as do all, not to judge-bash, under rule 11 of the rules of professional conduct, and we are walking up to that precipice with this bill. The path you are clearing, Attorney General, is not an honourable path, and I urge you to return to the path, cleared by your predecessors, of wisdom and justice.

Look, don't take my word for it. There's a letter of May 2, 2000, to the Attorney General from the president of the Canadian Bar Association-Ontario: "By requiring judges to forward to the government their reasons to justify why a lower sentence may have been given would seriously erode judicial independence.... We are completely opposed to this proposed legislation. As chief legal officer of the crown, we respectfully ask that you reconsider your support for Bill 66"-Susan McGrath, the president of CBA-O.

The treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada also wrote the Attorney General, and it's dated May 3, 2000. If I have time I'll read the whole letter.

"Any suggestion that the Legislative Assembly might provide for some form of review of the judges of the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice raises the spectre of unwarranted interference with the independence of the judiciary.

"We hope that you and your colleagues on all sides of the Legislature will be able to persuade the sponsor of the bill, Ms Marilyn Mushinski, to withdraw it from the legislative agenda."

It's signed Robert P. Armstrong, QC, treasurer of the law society.

The Ottawa Citizen can hardly be accused of being liberal, with all due respect. An editorial states: "That Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty reacted positively to this is shocking. No government should single out certain judges for public pressure tactics."

Retired judge John Osler: "The response of Ontario's Attorney General to some of the latest outbursts has been to state his intention to establish a system for scoring judges with respect to their sentencing practice. The proudest act of the government he supports in recent times has been to make it easier for the police to punish squeegee kids, a proportion of the population so small as to be almost unmeasurable."

David Scott writes to the Globe and Mail, "I don't know Ms Mushinski or whence she came, but the identification of the Attorney General of Ontario with this sort of attitude is alarming."

I urge the Attorney General and the members on the other side of this House not to support this bill and head down the path of despotism. It's time to stop blaming everybody, including judges, for what's going on in Ontario. Stop blaming other politicians. Stop blaming those unable to defend themselves, as all the counsel here in this chamber know cannot in public, and start being accountable for your own administration.

Yet even as the emperor from North Bay plays the political game of friends and enemies, mindlessly stealing the pages from Thatcher and Gingrich, it is this attack upon judicial independence that takes this debate out of the realm of ideology and into the realm of despotism. If I overstate that, then this is without a doubt the most unsubtle attempt to interfere with the judiciary ever visited upon this Legislature.

Have you ever seen that statue of Justice? There is one of the goddess of Justice, Justicia, outside the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General would have seen it on the way into the court the other month. The kids may have seen it in Judge Dredd. There is a statue of justice, holding the scales of justice. Can you look in her eyes? No, you can't; she's blindfolded. Justicia cannot see race or creed or colour or class. She's supposed to be blindfolded. This act attempts to rip off the blindfold and expose the judiciary to the glare of public opinion and accountability. I urge all members of this House, as we do, to not support this bill.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My first response to this was to dismiss it as just a wacky backbench private member's bill. Lord knows private members' business on Thursday mornings has seen its share of good bills, mediocre bills and outright wacky ones. My first response was that this is not going to have any sort of substantial support here. There'll be 15 minutes of Warholian fame for its sponsor and the matter will be over and done with.

But then the Attorney General, Mr Flaherty, endorses this proposition. That moves it beyond just another wacky backbench private member's bill during private members' business on Thursday morning. Then it became something that wasn't just wacky but downright scary. I beg to differ with the comment made earlier that this is unprecedented. I think you'll find this sort of standard, this sort of approach in any number of tinpot dictatorships in Third World countries and totalitarian regimes where there is a direct relationship between the regime in power and their so-called judiciary.

My God, Speaker, we are the envy-have been-of the world for some of the very basic democratic principles that guide the division of powers, that give rise to this observation of the independence of the judiciary. Here we've got a bill that would not just erode but quite frankly directly attack the independence of the judiciary. The motivation is to exploit and carry on this so-called "Get tough on crime." I don't think this government is serious about getting tough on crime.

This government, as has been noted, wants to blame Ottawa. Heck, I'll join them in blaming the feds. I have no qualms about bashing federal Liberals. I've no qualms about bashing provincial Liberals. I'm in a unique position. As a New Democrat I can criticize both the Conservatives and the Liberals and I do so readily. From time to time I criticize my own party or my own leaderhip. God bless.

We've got a judiciary in this province, in this country that, I put to you, is acknowledged internationally as being outstanding in terms of its skill and its competence and that is heralded for the clear independence they have from political power, from government, from the state. That's as it should be.

We hear anecdotes from the sponsor of this bill. When did we hear any hard data? We hear her expressing what she says is the concern of, as she will put it, "oh, so many people" about what she calls light sentences. Well, I suppose. I read papers too and I see any number of reports. From time to time I see a sentence and I say, "My goodness, that seems a particularly light sentence." At the same time, I've read the papers and looked at reports of any number of judicial proceedings and I've said, "That's interesting; it seems like a pretty heavy sentence, a pretty heavy hit, a pretty heavy whack" for what I read.

The author of this bill, the sponsor, would want this Legislature to have some sort of supervisory power over judges and their sentences. She doesn't understand. I don't think she understands that judges' decisions are carefully scrutinized by courts of appeal at both the provincial level and at the Supreme Court of Canada up in Ottawa. The federal government has criminal law jurisdiction-I think that's what lawyers would tell you-and the federal government has the power to set the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code, and they do.

So I had to pay some attention to the comments made with respect to this member, the author of this bill, that maybe she should be running for federal Parliament if she wants to write federal law. If she wants to write Criminal Code amendments, maybe she should be running federally. There's a federal election coming up very shortly. I have no doubt about that. I expect then to see her hat thrown into the ring.

The judges I have observed, have watched and know, and I believe they're representative of judges across this province at all levels, are extremely well trained, extremely hard-working-Mr Ouellette, please.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): What?

Mr Kormos: I can read your body language: Yeah, "What?"

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): The member will know that you refer to members in the House by their riding, not by their name.

Mr Kormos: I apologize. The problem is, I can't remember the name of his riding since the Fewer Politicians-

Ms Mushinski: Oshawa.

Mr Kormos: Oshawa. Is that your riding, Mr Ouellette? OK. Mr Ouellette grimaces.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Wait a minute. Mr Ouellette, the member from Oshawa, grimaces when I talk about the judges of this province being hard-working, well trained and extremely competent. I suggest to him then that he should stand in rotation and name some judges who in his opinion are not well trained, not competent or not hard-working. Name some judges, if you're of that view, who don't take their responsibilities extremely seriously and who don't have regard for appellate decisions which guide their sentencing decisions. If Ms Mushinski, the author of this bill-where is Ms Mushinski from?

Mr Bryant: Scarborough Centre.

Mr Kormos: If the member from Scarborough Centre, who sponsors this bill, wants to talk about judges who in her opinion are incompetent or less than hard-working or less than committed or less than professional, then let's hear who they are. Let her report them to the judicial council if she can identify these judges. I beg to differ. I am not aware of judges in this province who meet anything less than the highest standards.

Do I, like any other member of the public when we read the reports and when we observe these things from a distance, agree? Of course not. Am I in possession of all the facts? Similarly, of course not. Do I have confidence in our appellate courts to overturn faulty decisions? Yes, I do. Do I have confidence in our appellate courts to set sentencing guidelines? Yes, I do.

We've seen some of the greatest minds, at our provincial appellate and at the Supreme Court of Canada levels, in terms of appointments. Justice Louise Arbour comes to mind most recently, as a new appointment. I don't think there's a single Canadian who has anything less than the highest regard for her capacity, for her judgment, for her legal acumen, for her skill. I shouldn't start naming names, but I could go on to appellate judges, present as well as past.

The author of this bill wants to talk about rights of victims. We've been trying to talk about them and we've been trying to tell this government that their Victims' Bill of Rights was deemed an absolute failure. This government had its own lawyers in court arguing that their Victims' Bill of Rights didn't provide any rights. Justice Day of the Ontario Court, when called upon to examine the Victims' Bill of Rights-this government was warned when it was passed, was warned during second reading, was warned during third reading, that this Victims' Bill of Rights was but a piece of paper.

It took victims to take this government to court trying to seek redress or relief under that Victims' Bill of Rights to establish or prove or demonstrate to this government that their Victims' Bill of Rights amounted to a big zero.

Is there something hypocritical about a government member standing up and bemoaning the lack of rights for victims when this government's own Victims' Bill of Rights doesn't provide any rights and provides no relief or redress for victims, when this government's Victims' Bill of Rights is not worth the paper it's written on?

This bill attacks some very fundamental democratic principles. I suppose I shouldn't be astonished any more at anything this government does. I suppose I shouldn't be astonished at the disdain this government shows for democracy in terms of what I've seen since 1995 coming from this government in any number of bills and policy directions. This government talks about law and order, but with this bill they're posing a direct attack on the rule of law. They want judges to be subjected to political scrutiny so that politicians can pass judgment on whether judges were doing their jobs properly or not.

Clearly the bill is designed to try to intimidate judges. Clearly the bill is designed to erode and attack the independence of judges.

Are any of us pleased when we see an acquittal or a not guilty verdict based, rather than on the facts, as these guys have put it, but on perhaps some sort of technicality? Probably not. But let's understand that the rights the author of this bill condemns are the rights all of us share. I'm damned grateful to be living in a country where we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because I enjoy those rights and freedoms as well. Do I have to share them with people who commit crimes? Yes. I have no hesitation in acknowledging that.

But is it worth that to ensure that there are some basic and fundamental constitutional rights for every person in this country? You bet your boots it is. We've got people from all over the world risking their lives and any number of things to come here to share in those rights which are part of the very foundation of a democratic society, a democratic country.

I think you've got the message that we're not going to be supporting this bill. I think you've got the message that we're awfully disappointed in a person who holds himself out as Attorney General who would condone this kind of legislation. I've got to tell you that I'm awfully disappointed in anybody in this Legislature who, for instance, may be a lawyer, who would not stand up and defend our judiciary and, more importantly, the independence of the judiciary, and understand, as members of this Legislature, that if you want to change the law, you go to Parliament in Ottawa.

You get elected there and you influence changes that will effect changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. That's the way it's done. You don't lean on judges; you don't try to blackmail them; you don't try to coerce them.

I know where some of this stuff comes from. This is oh, so American. This is oh, so George W. Bush in its character and in its quality. That's not the sort of thing Canadians believe in. It's not the sort of thing Ontarians believe in. It doesn't work in the United States. It doesn't create justice there. I'll be damned if we're going to let it come here. We're going to protect the independence of the judiciary in this province and this country.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm privileged to speak on this bill today as parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General and provide the position of the Attorney General on two very important legislative initiatives.

I appreciate my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre's interest in obtaining more information about criminal sentences in Ontario. Private members' business is an important part of our legislative process and I look forward to further debate on this matter.

This bill calls for statistical information to be compiled concerning criminal offences for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more. This bill requires an annual report to be tabled in the Legislature each year for all cases in which the maximum punishment is five years or more and for which a sentence of less than the maximum is imposed.

Some of this information is already publicly available. It may be possible to achieve the same result without passing a new law. Throughout the legislative process we will be looking seriously at this bill to make this determination.

The Attorney General has had the opportunity to appeal every criminal sentence that may not be appropriate in the public interest. This has been and remains a key accountability mechanism in the criminal justice system.

We cannot underestimate the effect sentencing practices have on Canadian society as whole. That is why the Attorney General recently issued sentencing directives to crown attorneys which emphasize that conditional sentences are not appropriate for serious crimes and crimes of violence or attempted violence. This directive was issued in response to the federal Liberal inaction to amend the Criminal Code so that conditional sentences can never be handed out for serious and violent crimes.

Introduced by the federal Liberals in 1996, conditional sentences permit offenders who would otherwise be imprisoned for up to two years to serve their time in the community. The Supreme Court of Canada found earlier this year that because of the wording of the federal government's addition to the Criminal Code, conditional sentences could not be ruled out even in cases of serious violent offences. As a result of this decision, the Attorney General wrote the federal Minister of Justice almost three months ago urging her to make the necessary changes. To date, there has been no legislative action by the federal Liberal government.

The people of Ontario will not tolerate responding to offenders who should be in jail by allowing them to serve their sentences in the community. Public safety is too important. We believe that the public should be made aware of the type of sentences that are being handed down. Ontario's court system belongs to the public and the people of Ontario have a right to know.

The bill calls for the Legislature to make resolutions to the Governor in Council of Canada, nominating people for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. Ontario is responsible for the administration of justice as set out in the Constitution. However, the province has no input in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court.

Fundamental issues have been raised with the advent of the charter. We believe it is important for the province to have input into who will be making these important decisions that affect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Consequently, we support this initiative to provide the province of Ontario with meaningful input into the process.

I know the concern that underlines my colleague's bill is also public safety. The legislative process will permit members on both sides of the House to have their input to ensure that the best interests of Ontarians remain at the forefront and public safety is paramount. This bill will benefit from input and refinements, and we look forward to further discussions.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): Thank you very much for allowing me to present my views and support the member from Scarborough-Ellesmere in today's debate on judicial accountability.

It is absolutely fascinating and bizarre to listen to the criticisms across the way on this particular bill. If you introduce the concept of change into the courts, automatically the folks across the way go on pilot and construe it as an attack on somebody. Does that suggest then that we're probably dealing here with a group of people who think the status quo is perfectly acceptable? If that's their case, it would be interesting to hear what-some of the judges, provincial or federal, should come and have a look, visit, go with the police, whatever they want to do, and see what is happening in terms of violent crime on our streets.

In my own riding, we just had two murders in the last three weeks. That's nothing to be proud about. But what do we hear from the member for St Paul's? He construes it that if you'd presented

an act that would have banned toy guns, we wouldn't have had those murders. If you take the Rock Liberal approach, the gun registry law would have prevented that. So I ask people, why is it that we still have murders in Toronto? We have Statistics Canada reporting that crimes are going down, but in point of fact, if you look at the actual reality, violent crime isn't going down in the city of Toronto, much as the folks across the way want to display a sort of, "Oh, everything is OK," as they have in unreal Ottawa.

I would suggest that these folks across the way, the courts and the clerks, everybody get out into the streets and see for themselves, as some of us have gone to the courts to see what is happening in the way of sentencing, how we deal with violent offenders. Why do you think we've established support for victims who have to be subjected, after 15 years, to the "faint hope" clause? It sure isn't much faint hope for the victims who had members of their families murdered, but over there that's great. What are we into in terms of society? We need a turnaround.

This is not any attack on judicial independence. If separation of powers under the great strict constitutionalist argument presented by the member for St Paul's is so effective, why does he tolerate, accept, as the member for Niagara Centres does, interference in how legislatures across this country deal with social policy issues? We see the Supreme Court always being an activist there. But that seems to be OK, enjoining separation of powers, but you can't have legislatures ever talking about what happens with the judiciary. Everything is just okey-dokey fine.

I support the member's intent. I think it's a good first step.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate of this private member's bill brought by the member from Scarborough.

I just want to talk about our track record with respect to safe communities. During our first term, our government created strict discipline facilities for young offenders, introduced the Victims' Bill of Rights, provided funding for over 1,000 new police officers, toughened parole standards so that fewer than 50% of applicants are now receiving early release, expanded Ontario's DNA crime lab and increased the number of applications to have criminals declared dangerous offenders.

Since our election in June, our government has-and in my former role as Chair of the justice committee, I was there for the passing of the Sergeant Rick McDonald Memorial Act, which dramatically increased sentences for drivers who flee police officers, the passage of the Safe Streets Act that outlaws aggressive panhandling and other behaviour, and the introduction of Christopher's Law, the first sex offender registry in Canada, and there have been numerous other measures that have been taken.

Let's focus on what the member is trying to accomplish here. The bill will create a registry of sentences handed out for serious crimes. It will list the judge's name, sentence given, maximum sentence and any reason the judge gave for handing out a sentence less than the maximum. This will give the public, law enforcement agencies and politicians better access to information. The bill also allows the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make recommendations on Supreme Court appointments through resolution of the House. This is important. The courts are public, so we should not be denied access to the information.

A registry of sentences will help us determine whether our court system is sentencing leniently or whether it is merely a perception created by the media. This transparency is needed.

I do not understand why the opposition parties are not in favour of this. They're basically just paying lip service. They're really not getting at the substance of this. Quite frankly, you've got to question whether they're in favour of safe communities and trying to make sure our public is protected and victims are given fair treatment.

The federal government refuses to get tough on crime. They will not act on a number of measures. There's the faint hope clause that lets criminals out after serving only 15 years of a life sentence. In the past 20 years, over 25 convicted killers have reoffended while out on parole. They have not acted on the discount law that allows criminals to receive parole after serving only two thirds of their sentence. They will not act on Corrections Canada's plans to release 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets every year. They will not act on the Young Offenders Act.

Changes to the Young Offenders Act still do not recognize crimes like aggravated assault, sexual assault and drug trafficking in the definition of serious crimes.

I support the member's intent. I know that what she's trying to accomplish here is to bring transparency and accountability to the public with respect to the crimes she's dealing with, so I support it.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to rise this morning to speak in support of this bill, and I'll read the title again:

An Act to make Ontario judges more accountable and to provide for recommendations from the Legislative Assembly for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I found it interesting to listen to the comments of the opposition across the way, who are essentially attacking this bill as somehow interfering in the judicial process. My riding of Guelph-Wellington is, for the most part, a very safe and very lovely community. We're not plagued, as some of my colleagues are here in Toronto and surrounds, with crimes of great import, and murders are not headlines frequently in our newspaper. As a consequence, I don't get a lot of letters in my constituency office or calls from constituents specifically concerned about crime and safety issues.

What I have received, though, is a great number of letters from time to time, usually in response to certain newspaper articles or certain actions in other jurisdictions, where constituents are concerned about sentencing.

The thrust of this bill is very clear. It's essentially contained in subsection 1(2), "The local registrar or clerk of a court shall keep a record with respect to all sentences imposed at the court when," and it goes on to give the details of sentencing. This is about keeping a record.

In my riding, the constituents I represent want fairness. They want separation between political roles and judiciary roles. They're very clear about that. What they do want is fairness in sentencing and they want accountability. What I hear from my constituents is that there is a concern, there is an uneasiness that the sentences given out by judges for very serious crimes are in fact not appropriate.

I, like so many others, share their concerns. What I see this bill doing is making a very clear opportunity for a record to be kept, to be reviewed. I think that in so doing we will have an opportunity, as legislators, as citizens, as law enforcement officers, to see if there is a problem. And if there is a problem with sentencing, if their sentences are too light, if they are uneven, if it happens to be one particular judge or another, we will then be very clearly aware of that and appropriate steps can be taken.

This bill before us today is very clear. It's about getting information on which further decisions or opportunities could be made for change. I am proud to stand in this House and say that this is a bill that my constituents, for the most part, would support because they do want to have confidence in their judges, they want to have confidence in the justice system, and right now, quite honestly, that confidence is disturbed.

I would like to compliment my colleague from Scarborough Centre, Ms Mushinski, who has brought this bill forward. It is a bill worthy of consideration for this House. I will be very pleased to speak and to vote in favour of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Two-minute reply, the member for Scarborough Centre.

Ms Mushinski: The debate certainly has been very spirited this morning. I want to first of all thank my colleagues for their words of support.

I would say to the member for St Paul's, who I know is a lawyer and a very eloquent defender of the judicial system, that my bill really deals with the defence of truth in sentencing. It was interesting, I heard a 10-minute speech on the defence of that judicial system, but most certainly I didn't hear a lot about the defence of victims.

As for the member for Niagara Centre, who is always very eloquent, he gave me what I considered to be a somewhat patronizing pat on the head about my lack of understanding of the judicial system. But I can assure the member that I have a great understanding of democracy, and my

interpretation of democracy is always of the people, by the people, for the people, which is why I'm speaking in defence of my bill today.

Crime is a great concern to all of us. It reaches beyond our duties as politicians. It can and does touch our daily personal lives and the lives of those we care about. I know the Judicial Accountability Act doesn't solve all of the problems of the justice system. As provincial representatives, we don't have direct control over many of the system's major aspects; however, we must do what we can and we must have the courage to be innovative.

Once again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to stand in support of the Judicial Accountability Act. Together we must create a province where law-abiding citizens feel safe in their neighbourhoods, on their streets and in their homes.

TARTAN ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE TARTAN

Mr Murdoch moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario / Projet de loi 49, Loi visant à adopter un tartan officiel pour l'Ontario.

Applause.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): Thank you for the applause from both sides of the House and I'm sure all sides of the House will certainly support this act.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I will even though I'm a Celt.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, all right. That's good.

I see one of your members over there even has a tartan tie on, which is nice to see today. I don't know whether that's his tartan or not, but maybe we'll find out later.

It's with great pleasure that I open the debate in the House on my private member's bill, Bill 49,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario. This proposed bill will, if passed, establish an official tartan design or pattern as one of Ontario's provincial symbols, similar to the trillium or the amethyst, which we adopted a few years ago.

Symbols are an important part of our public as well as our private lives. Symbols represent our identity and how we represent ourselves and our values, both now and in history. The tartan is one of those symbols.

Just to give you a bit of history, the tartan is an ancient form of dress used by the Scottish Highlanders. A tartan is made up of repeated patterns of threads. It was, and still is, worn by members of Scottish clans for the purposes of identification of both the clan and the clan's territory.

Tartans were first recorded in history by Julius Caesar in France, where he first observed Celtic tribes. The tartan "kilt" is a play on the word "Celt." While looking like a type of skirt, it is actually a descendant from the early battle garb that was worn by Roman soldiers. I know Mr Palladini will be interested in that.

The tartan can also be worn in the form of a dress, a sash, a scarf or a tie. The tie itself was once just a large bandage that crusaders wore around their necks in the event that they were wounded.

There are also many different forms of tartans. There's a mourning tartan, a hunting tartan, a clan tartan and a district tartan.

This tartan that we hope to adopt for the province is in fact a district tartan. A district tartan is one that identifies a person's residence in a certain district, whether that person is a member of the dominant clan or not. So anyone can adopt a district tartan. This tartan would identify someone as being from the province of Ontario.

There are many unofficial tartans for Ontario and also many tartans worn by groups in this province. The Ontario Provincial Police have their own tartan which they have worn since 1968 for the pipes and drums band. That tartan is a clan tartan. It identifies members of that group. The RCMP have their own clan tartan, as well as do hundreds of families whose ancestral roots can be traced back to Scotland. I personally have my own tartan, which is the MacPherson tartan. The Murdochs were accepted to the MacPherson clan, so we adopted the MacPherson tartan which I have on today.

But some may ask, why does Ontario need to adopt a Scottish symbol to represent the province? How can the tartan, the ultimate Scottish symbol, be relevant in this multicultural province?

The answer to these questions is that an official tartan pays tribute to many of the varied contributions of Canadians of Scottish ancestry to both Ontario and Canada. Scottish leaders have made many significant contributions in history, culture, law and government. As a matter of fact, many communities in Ontario have been named after Scottish leaders, communities such as Fergus, Wallaceburg, Glengarry county and Cambridge, just to name a few.

We have had many leaders of Scottish background in education. The University of Toronto, formerly King's College, was established by a Scot, as was the Agricultural College of Ontario in Guelph, by Sir Fergus.

Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, was a Scot. Colonel John McCrae, the author of In Flanders Fields, was a Scot. Many of our political leaders, including the first Premier of this province, were Scots. It is on the tartan of this first Premier, Sir John Sandfield Macdonald, that this proposed Ontario tartan is based.

I would like to take a minute to tell you about what I propose to be Ontario's official tartan. It will be comprised of four colours: blue, green, white and red. The tartan represents what we love about our great province and it's also a reflection of our history. The tartan reflects the diversity of our province. In the tartan the shades of green represent the forest and agriculture of Ontario. The red represents the First Nations of Ontario. The shades of blue represent the waters of Ontario. The white represents the sky over Ontario.

I have a sample of our tartan. I will pass it around so people can have a look at it. If this is adopted, this would be our official tartan in Ontario. We were pleased to have that sent to us today.

This tartan was designed by Mr James MacNeil of Toronto, in conjunction with the chair of Scottish studies at the University of Guelph. The colours of this proposed tartan truly reflect the spirit of natural harmony of our marvellous history and geography, as a district tartan should. As I explained before, we have clan tartans and district tartans, and this will give anyone in Ontario who is proud of our Scottish heritage, or proud just to be an Ontarian, a tartan to wear.

Ontarians, if this bill is passed, can wear a tartan wherein all colours and stripes combine to create an atmosphere of harmony and prosperity, a tartan designed with a phrase in mind that is well known to Ontarians: "Keep it Beautiful."

In 1991, by way of resolution, I introduced Tartan Day in Ontario. On April 6 of each year we proudly wear our tartan to honour the contributions of Scottish settlers in the province, and I wear it to honour our settlers in Grey and Bruce counties. The resolution was passed unanimously in the Legislature with the support and approval of all three parties. April 6 was chosen, by the way, because it marks the anniversary of the declaration of Scottish independence in Arbroath Abbey in 1320.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): They need independence too.

Mr Murdoch: They have St Paddy's Day. As one member said, St Patrick's Day is celebrated all over the world, and I'm proud to wear green on that day also. This year on St Patrick's Day I was in Havana, Cuba. They have independence days down there, but out of the whole crowd there was one little fellow with a green hat on, drinking green beer, in Havana, Cuba.

Mr Kormos: Smoking a green cigar.

Mr Murdoch: He didn't have a green cigar, but he was right from Ireland and he was supporting it and showing the Cubans how to drink green beer. That was a great day we had in Havana.

Mr Kormos: Cerveza.

Mr Murdoch: Cerveza, right.

Mr Kormos: Cuba si, Florida no.

Mr Murdoch: Well, we won't get into that one today, Peter.

The resolution had support of all three parties. An official tartan for Ontario also shared the same support when it was first introduced into this House by my former colleague Lillian Ross in 1997. Her bill went through two readings and the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, the 36th House finished sitting before third reading. Lillian Ross worked hard on that bill. It went through here and, as I say, it was really unfortunate it didn't come back and wasn't done. So I'm doing this on behalf of Lillian Ross also, because she's not here now. She's from Hamilton.

I'm sure she'll be proud to see this bill go through, so I hope all three parties can work with us on that.

During second reading, Mrs Ross's bill had an unusual effect on members of the House. I would like to read a quote for you from the Ottawa Citizen about that day: "What was notable when second reading debate occurred was the tone of this normally testy place." I can't see where they'd get that idea. "Stories got personal. Members tried to explain something of themselves and their parts of the province to colleagues from elsewhere. The search for what they had in common replaced the focus on what divides."

So when this went through last time we had a nice House and hopefully today it will stay that way. Maybe even later on; I'm not sure. I think that is what an official tartan can do for this province. If adopted, the symbol of the tartan could bring us all together in this province. It will bring us a community of interest that we all share as Ontarians.

Passing this bill is simply not enough, however. The tartan does not become official until it is registered with the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Scotland.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Further debate.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'll be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

I'd like to congratulate the member for Bruce-Grey for his initiative. I think it's very important that we do what we can to reflect the cultural diversity of this province, and this initiative is most important. My own ancestry is not Scottish. I'm Ukrainian and very proud of my heritage. The member made reference to the tartan I'm wearing today. It's the Bruce tartan. I'm proud to wear the Bruce tartan, which originated with the Bruce clan in the name of Sir Robert de Brus, a Norman knight who escorted William the Conqueror to England in 1066.

The folk legend and hero of Scotland was Robert's son and was entitled Robert, seventh Lord of Annandale and second Earl of Carrick, and was popularly know as Robert the Bruce. Robert the Bruce was born in 1274 and fought to victory in the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 and won the independence of Scotland after a fierce struggle with England in 1328. The Earls of Elgin are descended from the Bruces of Clackmannan.

This past weekend Lord Elgin, the 11th Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, was visiting my riding in Elgin county. I had the opportunity to visit with Lord and Lady Elgin as they celebrated their 41st wedding anniversary here in Canada. It's important to also recognize that the county of Elgin, named after a descendent of Lord Elgin's, has adopted the Bruce tartan as the official tie of the county of Elgin. It was from the county of Elgin that this tie was presented to me.

I also want to recognize the 31st combat engineer regiment, the Elgins. The Bruce tartan is also the official colours of the Elgin regiment. It was great to have Lord Elgin visiting the 31st combat engineers this past week.

I'd like to speak a little bit about some of the Scottish heritage that exists within my own county. In Elgin county, the Scots were known as the Highlanders. Between 1816 and 1818, Scottish settlers came to what was known as the Talbot Settlement. Colonel Thomas Talbot arrived in 1803 on the north shore of Lake Erie and opened up vast tracts of land for settlement, hence the name the Talbot Settlement. The early Scots who arrived, the Highlanders, came to settle in the townships of Aldborough and Dunwhich in Elgin county. Some of these early settlers had come directly from Scotland, although many had come from New York state, where they tried to establish themselves but were unsuccessful.

Some of the other early Scottish settlers who arrived in our area came from the Canadian west. They originally had gone to the Red River and had travelled thousands of miles to the Selkirk Settlement only to find that they had been misled and deluded as to the nature of the land and the climate that existed there.

The first settlers arrived in May of 1816. These families, the Gillies, the Forbes and the Haggards, were all Highland Scots. It's interesting to reflect back and look at the hardships of those individuals, those early pioneers who gave us what we have in Ontario today. Their first homes were constructed places of shelter of bark, which were subsequently displaced by log structures with roofs of bark and chinks of clay filling the logs. Firearms were of antiquated type, and what they had in the way of ammunition was very limited. Times were tough, but the Scots persevered and settled, and their families have continued to live on in Elgin county today.

One of these families in particular has a story of great interest, the McKillop family, who arrived in 1816 from Quebec. They came from Scotland and travelled to the Talbot Settlement along with the McNabb, McKellar and McDougall families. The McKillops, like their neighbours in that area, had been farmers and fishermen in Argyleshire. When Duncan McKillop first settled the land, he owned one cow. In order to survive, he had to go to work and find a job to help pay for the needs of the family.

His wife, Mrs McKillop, also had to find a job, for which she was paid $1 a week and given a cow as a bonus at the end of her winter's labour. By the next season, the hard-working pair was able to raise enough corn, potatoes and oats to ease their needs, but it took several years before their farm was able to supply a good supply of wheat. These were not only difficult harvest times but the settlement suffered from disease, which killed and crippled many of the early settlers.

Scottish settlers had brought blankets, clothing and utensils with them. Otherwise, though, they were very poor in these early times. Money was scarce, and it was difficult to sell anything but labour. Only a great deal of spirit and co-operation helped make them successful in these early times. In this respect, the Scottish had few equals.

As I said earlier, I think we need to be proud of the heritage and the contributions that individuals have made to our country. One of the individuals I'd like to speak of today is a gentleman who is renowned across the United States and across the world. He had a distinguished career as a Harvard professor, an ambassador and a public servant. That individual is John Kenneth Galbraith. John Kenneth Galbraith was born in my riding, outside the village of Iona Station.

After Professor Galbraith spent time at the Ontario Agricultural College, he distinguished himself with a remarkable career, a career that we should all be very proud of. I had the opportunity this past February to meet Professor Galbraith at his home in Boston. It was a wonderful day to spend a couple of hours with Professor Galbraith. I had to apologize to the Premier that day because I stood the Premier up on a visit to St Thomas, because I felt it was important to spend that time with Professor Galbraith.

One of the publications Professor Galbraith is well known for is a book he published in 1964. It's known as The Scotch. It tells what it was like for him growing up in west Elgin and what the early lives of the Scotch were like. I wanted to read an excerpt from this wonderful publication, a publication that I would recommend anybody read.

" ... on the first of July of 1914 or 1915 when I was approaching the age of either six or seven. We had gone to Dutton to celebrate Dominion Day, the Canadian Fourth of July, and to attend the Caledonian games. There had been running and broad-jumping, and throwing of weights for distance and height, and a great deal of sword dancing and piping. Some of the dancing we found tedious but the rest was wholly fascinating. My father, one of the officials of the West Elgin Caledonian Society, had looked very grand in a modified kilt of the McDonald tartan-not many of the clansmen owned a complete kilt so they made do with what they had."

To the member for Bruce-Grey, congratulations on your initiative. You have my full support, sir.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Kormos: I insisted on being the only caucus member to engage in this debate. I wanted all of the 15 minutes. After much arm-twisting, I convinced caucus that none of them could have any time in this debate, that I was going to have all 15 minutes.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): No fights?

Mr Kormos: There were fights. You bet your boots there were fights. There was weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair. There were people in caucus far more influential than I am, far more powerful than I am, the heavyweights in the caucus, who are close to the centre of power, but I prevailed. It doesn't happen often, but for once I got my way in caucus. It has been many, many years since I've had my way in caucus and it'll be many years before I'll have it again.

I say to Bill Murdoch, the member for Bruce-Grey, up in Owen Sound territory, our man in Havana, as we've discovered-he speaks about the Irish patriot wearing the green on St Patrick's Day in Havana. I trust that we can rely upon the member for Bruce-Grey to wear the tartan in Havana next time he visits there. Especially once you get into March and April, where it starts getting incredibly warm and humid, I suspect it might be a relief.

We're supporting this legislation, as we did the legislation by Mr Murdoch's colleague from the last government. Ms Boyd spoke at length to it. She spoke at length about her own Scottish roots. I don't have any Scottish roots. I'm a Slovak-Canadian. My family is from Slovakia, from a very small peasant village, which is still there and very much like it was 50, 100 years ago-200 years ago. The people are incredible, and I'm incredibly proud of my personal cultural heritage.

But I'm equally proud of the cultural diversity and the ethnic diversity that exist throughout this province. I caution Mr Peters not to dismiss this too readily. I believe there is sufficient blue in this tartan that any Ukrainian could identify with it.

I have no qualms about anything, as we indicated a couple of weeks ago when we spoke to yet another part of our cultural mosaic, the German community. I have no qualms. As a matter of fact, I'm enthusiastic about supporting any initiative which helps to celebrate the cultural history of this province, of this country, and the incredible diversity. While I am not blessed with any personal Scottish lineage, I know that a large number of my constituents are and would applaud the existence of this district tartan-Mr Murdoch, had you had a tie made, I might have worn it today-which entitles anybody from the province of Ontario to wear it.

Having said that, let me tell this Legislature the great concerns I have that I spoke about a couple of weeks ago and that I want to address again, because we have this rich cultural heritage. It's huge and it's a growing diversity. Every time new Canadians come to this country, come to this province, we see that diversity expanding and growing.

One of the means by which so many of those groups of people celebrate and maintain their culture within any given community, like communities in Niagara, like communities across this province, is in their cultural halls-down in Welland, Thorold, Pelham, St Catharines, across Niagara-be it the Casa Dante, be it the Polish hall, be it the Ukrainian hall, be it the Slovak Hall, be it the Hungarian Hall, be it the Club Social for the francophone community, just on and on. These halls have been maintained for decades and generations by members of those ethnic Canadian communities and are true non-profit organizations.

They survive on volunteer work. In many of them, the people engaged in that volunteer work are aging and becoming fewer in number.

What happened two years ago, as a result of a policy statement issued by the government, was that these halls were denied their non-profit status across Ontario. What that meant was that they've all been reclassified as commercial for the purposes of tax assessment. We've seen the property taxes of these non-profit halls double and triple to unconscionable levels and, quite frankly, unsustainable levels of property taxation. It isn't a result of a change in legislation; it's a result of an interpretive memo that was sent out by the government to the assessment offices.

It's highly discriminatory against these cultural groups. It endangers the survival of their homes, be it the Croatian National Home or any other. These homes are critical to the survival of these communities in a real way and critical to the function of them sharing their unique cultures with people of other cultural backgrounds here in Ontario and across Canada.

I wanted to use this opportunity, as I join in celebrating the Scottish heritage of this province, to ask government members to please join with me-Jim Bradley, from St Catharines, and I have been working quite a bit on this issue, but we need the support of other members because these cultural halls are at risk and those communities are going to suffer and all of us are going to suffer.

So, Mr Murdoch, I'm telling you that I applaud your celebration and the entrenchment of that by way of legislation in the creation of an official tartan, a district tartan for the province of Ontario.

I'm asking you to join with me in persuading your Minister of Finance to readdress the issue, the policy statement that came from the government which has caused assessment offices across this province to reclassify these non-profit cultural halls. Sadly, the memo specifically identifies cultural halls as being exempted from the non-profit status. It says Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs etc, and of course they are. I don't quarrel with the fact that those groups maintain their non-profit status, hence residential assessment. But it's happened across the province.

Why it hasn't impacted as much some other parts of the province as it has in Niagara is because the tax increases have been subjected to the 10-5-5 capping. They really haven't seen the whack yet. What happened in Niagara is that they weren't reclassified until the threshold for the 10-5-5 capping became effective. They weren't the beneficiaries of the 10-5-5 capping, so they got the whack this year. Trust me, it's going to happen across the province. Again, Polish halls, the Italian community halls, the whole gamut is going to enjoy, if I dare say it that way, these 100%, 200% and 300% increases in property taxes.

We've got to talk to the Minister of Finance and persuade him. It doesn't require legislation. It's an interpretive memo that came from the ministry to assessment offices telling them that cultural halls, even if they're non-profit, are still exempted or removed from the non-profit status-very unfair, very discriminatory, very prejudicial to the well-being of these halls and to the great contribution they make to our communities.

Like I've told the folks down in Niagara, these halls are not just places to celebrate culture. They also serve the community, and if we don't have these volunteer-based, non-profit cultural halls serving the community for people's weddings, for celebrations of all types, and we rely totally on the commercial sector, people are going to get whacked when it comes time for one of your kids to have their wedding reception, any number of things, when you start paying commercial rates instead of the very generous rates that you pay for excellent services at these cultural halls.

I say to you, again on behalf of any number of them-and if I start naming them I'm going to get in trouble because I'm going to omit some, but be it Club Rheingold, be it Club Social, be it the Slovak Hall, be it the Hungarian Hall, be it the Croation National Home, the Croation hall, the Polish hall, on and on and on-we've got to move quickly or else these places are simply going to be shut down, boarded up, and we'll have lost a great part.

Here we are. We're trying to say something about recognizing and preserving part of our cultural heritage-and again I support this. The NDP caucus supports this. Of course we do. Ms Boyd supported it enthusiastically when Ms Ross had her bill before the House. But let's put this in the broader picture.

I hope, Mr Murdoch, you don't think it's unfair that I use this opportunity to raise that issue, but it's an issue that's a source of a whole lot of anxiety for me, I know for Mr Bradley, and I know for any number of ethnic cultural groups across the province who have seen their property-that's not fair, is it, for these non-profit halls to be classified commercial for the purpose of assessment so that their property taxes double and triple? Is that fair, Mr Murdoch? Of course it isn't.

I want you to join me with the same enthusiasm you have for this district Ontario tartan, to join Mr Bradley and me in fighting to keep these ethnic cultural halls alive and vital.

Mr Ruprecht: And me too.

Mr Kormos: Mr Ruprecht's on side too. You bet your boots he is. Mr Ruprecht's going to be speaking in just a few minutes. So folks who are interested, don't change that channel. I know we've got competition. Rosie's on, or Oprah-Oprah's not on in the morning. I don't know whether she's on in the morning.

Interjection: Regis.

Mr Kormos: Regis is on. Regis and Kathie Lee, I guess, yes.

Mr Ruprecht: This is more exciting, isn't it?

Mr Kormos: We're trying to make it more exciting, Mr Ruprecht, but sometimes we falter. I can just see those people reaching for their clickers now. It's only the prospect of Mr Ruprecht speaking in short order that's keeping people tuned in. You know Mr Ruprecht, don't you, folks?

I want you to join me in saving those cultural halls. I join you and I applaud you. You've a person that's very cleverly, very uniquely-again, I can identify a little bit of Ukrainian in here. I can't find the Slovak in here yet.

I've got to tell you, I'll spend some time reflecting on it. I'll talk to folks. Maybe John and Margaret Hudak down in Welland can help me with the Slovak content, or Bruno Galat and his wife, Gita. I don't know. I'll search for some Slovak content in here and I'll encourage my Hungarian colleagues and my Ukrainian colleagues and my Polish colleagues, all those great people in Niagara, from this diverse background, this incredibly rich background.

We don't enjoy often enough and celebrate often enough the diversity of our community. I'm not talking about tolerance. I don't accept tolerance as the standard. We shouldn't just be tolerating diversity; we should be celebrating it and sharing it. We should be enjoying the fact that in this democratic country and province, in this free country and province, in a country and province where one hopes things like the independence of the judiciary remain a paramount hallmark or foundation stone for that democracy, we can share and celebrate these diverse things.

I would ask Mr Murdoch, is there a protocol? You had a colleague once who wore outrageous tartan jackets into the House. I suppose, in your response-

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Please. You had a former colleague who brightened the place up, who was luminescent when he arrived sporting the tartan, in his jacket. Is a discreet pocket hanky sufficient, or does one have to sort of go all out and let `er rip and be decked from head to toe in the brightest? Now, I don't know if there are going to be other speakers here. He might-I anticipate he's going to speak because he seems dressed for the occasion, or at least sweatered for the occasion-consider how this is a somewhat more sober and less alarming tartan than the one he sports today. At the very least, sir, it's far more conservative than what you happen to be wearing this morning.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I like fiery things.

I'm pleased to speak on Mr Murdoch's bill, the member from Grey-Bruce's bill,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario. As I stand before you I am proud to wear the Irish Royal Stewart tartan to emphasize the importance of this bill.

Many of us who represent areas in the province with a heritage that is connected to a country or an organization that has a tartan are fiercely proud. In my case, my heritage originates in county Monaghan in Ireland, from whence the Stewarts immigrated to this great province back in 1826. In fact, my six grandkids are the seventh generation to live in this great province.

We will continue to retain that heritage and those traditions. We will continue to remember and honour the traditions of the past, but there comes a time when we must pursue the new. We must establish new traditions that represent Ontario's history, culture and traditions.

Ontario is one of the few provinces in Canada that does not have an official provincial tartan. The Ontario tartan could be worn by all Ontarians, no matter what their heritage may be. I believe it will help all Ontarians come closer together. The selected tartan represents the diversity of our great province. It represents our environment and it represents our aboriginal communities.

An Ontario tartan will contribute to provincial culture and pride. It could be a symbol of a province that has established its importance in a very changing world.

Ontario athletes of all ages, in competitions outside or inside the province, could proudly wear the tartan to identify their province. This tartan will provide distinctive marketing opportunities for tourism. It will contribute to products such as special gifts, souvenirs and keepsakes. It will identify visually our name, the great name of Ontario, globally. The tartan will establish a marketing tool for Ontario that will be known around the world.

I hope that all members of this House will support this new and important initiative.

Mr Ruprecht: I am delighted to join in to support Bill 49,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario as a provincial symbol. Symbols are important in both our public as well as our private lives. Symbols represent our identity and how we understand ourselves and our values. As such, they're not simply a point of reminding us of our past, but they're more dynamic ideas that can inspire our imagination with pride and guide us on how we continue to face the challenges of the present and, indeed, the challenges of the future.

Why a tartan as a symbol for Ontario? A tartan, as we know, is an expression of Scottish culture-a symbol for all Ontarians, when we think about the multicultural nature and context of our culture in our nation and especially here in Ontario. Today I'm wearing this tartan, which was given to me by Mr Murdoch, and the multicultural colours of Ontario. Are they exclusive? No, both the tartan and the multicultural symbols are inclusive. It is those symbols of inclusivity that we're trying to embrace even though we're Conservatives or NDP or, in our case here, Liberals.

Yet when we look at the symbols of the tartan, this specific one, and the multicultural items which I'm wearing we know we speak distinctly about inclusivity.

That also means that as politicians we have to look after people who are sick, those who are weak and those who need our help. That is just as important when we are thinking about the tartan today as questions of, who do we include, who do we think about, who do we serve as politicians in Ontario? The whole idea of tartan inclusivity, multicultural inclusivity, is very special and must be looked on, especially today, as a symbol of caring for all of us. I'm delighted to be in support of the official tartan.

Second, and just as important, I also remind you of the great contribution of the symbol of the tartan, of the symbol of the Scottish nation in a way, that Scots have made not just to Ontario and Canada. We know their impact in Nova Scotia when they first settled in the 18th century, in fact in the 17th century, but I also remind you of the great impact they've had right here in Toronto.

While it is true that the co-founder of Toronto came from a German background, it is just as true that the symbols and the very foundation, the very block of the growth of Toronto, comes from the Scottish heritage.

I am reminded-and I will quote from a book called Toronto's Many Faces, which many of you-

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Who is the author of the book?

Mr Ruprecht: The author is Tony Ruprecht; that's me. I thought the members received copies of it. If you didn't receive a copy, please let me know.

Mr Murdoch: I don't have a copy.

Mr Ruprecht: You didn't get a copy? I will certainly provide you with one.

There is a very important

chapter in here about the Scottish contribution to Toronto.

"A strong Scottish legacy has shaped Toronto's cultural, religious, political, and economic history. Toronto's oldest church, Little Trinity Church on King Street East, was built in 1842 under the patronage of" none other than "Scotsman John Strachan, the first Anglican bishop of Toronto and founder of King's College. On the lawns of Queen's Park"-right here-"sits a bronze bust of the city's first mayor, Scotsman William Lyon Mackenzie ... along with a statue of George Brown ... founder of the Globe"-the Globe and Mail-"newspaper.

And at Queen and Yonge streets a plaque at the former Simpson's building (now The Bay) is a reminder of the achievements of Robert Simpson," for the first high-rise department store.

"The Scots have been in Toronto," and first of course in Canada, "since 1621, when the Kingdom of Scotland established one of its earliest colonies-New Scotland ... men from Orkney who arrived here in 1720, recruited by the Hudson's Bay Co.

"In the late 1700s, Scottish merchants-many of them United Empire Loyalists-settled in Quebec," and then of course they came to Toronto.

"Scotsman Sir John A. Macdonald was Canada's first Prime Minister, and Toronto's first mayor, William Lyon Mackenzie, began the Colonial Advocate newspaper ... and led the Rebellion of 1837 against the city's oligarchic government. His grandson, William Lyon Mackenzie King, served as Prime Minister of Canada for 27 years."

Then, of course, we had 80,000 Scots coming here in 1871 to 1901, and 240,000 more arrived before the First World War, followed by another 200,000 after 1919. So now today we have about a half a million Scots living in Ontario. The community's cultural activities in Toronto have centred around the St Andrew's Society, the Caledonia Society and the large number of clan societies connected with a worldwide organization.

These societies are very famous. They bring in people from all over the world. As all of us know, when we turn on our television, sometimes we see the Highland Games and we are proud as Canadians of their contribution to this country, and especially, I'm reminded, the contribution that Scots have made to Toronto.

So I'm delighted to support Bill 49 in the name of Mr Murdoch, MPP from Bruce-Grey. I'm also reminded that we will most likely have unanimous agreement because of the importance of the tartan becoming a symbol of Ontario.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate on the private member's bill by the member from Owen Sound,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario.

Obviously what we're doing here today is celebrating Ontario's Scottish heritage. I want to reflect on that somewhat. It was during the reign of the famous High King of Scots, Robert the Bruce, that the Scottish people announced to the world their ancestral identity and national independence in the Declaration of Arbroath.

Since that time, April 6 has been an important date for all Scots. In the 17th century King Charles I passed on his own Scottish heritage to what was to become the royal province of Nova Scotia, especially through its coat of arms. April 6 is a provincial day in Nova Scotia, otherwise known as Tartan Day.

The intent of this bill is to have a tartan for the province of Ontario. Most provinces in Canada have an official tartan in this way, except for the province of Ontario. Ontario has about seven unofficial tartans which have been used over the last 150 years, including the Red Ensign tartan. Bill's proposed private member's law would put an end to this confusing variety and establish one official Ontario tartan for all time.

A similar bill to establish an Ontario tartan was previously debated in the Ontario Legislature, with former Hamilton MPP Lillian Ross leading the charge. At that time I was chairman of the Legislative Assembly committee and I was fortunate enough to be in that role when we debated that in committee. It came out of that committee, but it did not proceed forth from there, obviously.

During that debate members of all three parties stepped forward, many wearing their family tartans, to give their unanimous support for the Ontario tartan. Beside me here today, and who spoke earlier, is the member for Peterborough, Mr Gary Stewart, who is appropriately dressed for the occasion. I would say as chairman that it was very important for us at that time to have recognized the significance of the bill.

Certainly we have our traditions also in this country. As you know, we have an oath of citizenship. Every immigrant must say the pledge aloud as the final step in becoming a Canadian citizen. The oath was created by the government of Pierre Trudeau in 1976 and became a fixture in citizenship courts a year later.

I'll just quote the oath for the record: "I affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen." That oath of citizenship, which every immigrant must say and pledge aloud before becoming a Canadian citizen, is part of our Scottish heritage.

I'm very pleased to join the debate today and I look forward to this bill going into committee for debate and back to the House. I commend the member from Owen Sound for his work.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise this morning and participate in this important debate on Bill 49,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario, standing in the name of Mr Murdoch, the member for Bruce-Grey. I still think of it as Grey-Owen Sound. He was the member for Grey-Owen Sound for almost 10 years.

I also want to pay tribute to my former colleague the member for Hamilton West, Lillian Ross, who brought forward Bill 132 in 1997, which I believe was a similar bill to this which was passed by the House but unfortunately didn't pass into law. It was not ordered for third reading, which was its final status.

I'm very proud to be wearing my kilt in this House today for the very first time. My wife gave me this kilt for a Christmas present this past year. I must say that for a boy from Arthur to walk down Wellesley Street this morning wearing this kilt took some nerve. I elicited quite a number of looks and stares, a few smiles but no whistles, I'm afraid to report. I am very proud as well of my Scottish heritage. My name, Arnott, of course, is a Scottish name. My ancestor Henry Arnott came to Ontario from Crieff, Scotland, around 1880. I've had the privilege to visit Crieff.

There's a whole slew of Arnotts still living there. It's quite a thing to visit your ancestral homeland, and it's something I was really pleased to do. We Scots are known for our frugality and our stubbornness, and Bill and I are known for those qualities. The Premier's office knows about that, so we don't have to remind them.

I'm also very privileged to be a resident of the town of Fergus, now the township of Centre Wellington. My family moved to Fergus after redistribution took place. The village of Arthur in my old riding of Wellington was cut out of the riding, so we moved to Fergus. Fergus hosts the annual Highland Games and Scottish Festival, the biggest Highland Games in Ontario, held every year in the month of August. We're very proud of our Scottish heritage there.

This bill will adopt an official tartan for the province of Ontario and bring forward another symbol to the people of Ontario, similar to the amethyst and the trillium, which were adopted a few year ago. The Tartan Act recognizes Scottish heritage in this province and the leaders who brought significant contributions in history, culture, law and government. As a matter of fact, many communities in Ontario have been named after Scottish leaders.

It hasn't been said, but this member has already brought forward a bill to recognize Scottish heritage in Ontario by bringing forward a private member's bill, which was passed into law, designating Tartan Day for April 6. As we know, we have important debates in private members' time, but quite often the bills unfortunately do not pass into law. But this member has had the honour and privilege of bringing forward a bill that was passed into law.

In the time I have, I want to talk about our Scottish heritage. Just to give you a bit of history, tartans have been an ancient form of dress used by Scottish Highlanders. There are many different forms of tartans. There are mourning tartans, hunting tartans, clan tartans and district tartans. The tartan Mr Murdoch hopes the province will adopt is in fact a district tartan, used to identify a person's residence in a certain district, whether or not that person is a member of a dominant clan. Anyone can adopt a district tartan, and that's what this tartan is.

There are quite a few tartans associated with Ontario, currently as many as eight, and the Ontario Provincial Police have their own tartan, as do the RCMP. If this bill is passed, this tartan does not become an official tartan of the province until it is registered in Scotland, and we certainly hope that will take place.

This tartan consists of four colours-I know it has been passed around-green to represent the forests in the province, blue for the province's water, red to acknowledge the aboriginal communities in Ontario and white for the sky above us, although the sky is blue most days, so I'm not sure what that means.

The tartan is a reflection of the province we live in, and is not based on any particular group or country. If this bill is passed, Ontarians may proudly wear a tartan wherein all colours and stripes combine to create an atmosphere of harmony and prosperity.

In the time I have remaining, I want to talk to some degree about the contribution the member for Bruce-Grey has made in this Legislature. As I said earlier, I have served with him in this House for almost 10 years. I am now his seatmate, and we're both wearing the same garb today. Bill has been a great friend to me and a terrific member of this House over the 10 years he has served.

Mr Kormos: Outspoken.

Mr Arnott: He's been outspoken. He tells it like it is.

Mr Kormos: Brave.

Mr Arnott: He's been brave. He tells it like it is. We need members who tell it like it is and who have the courage to bring forward the views of their constituents, even if on occasion it varies from the official line our party may hold at any given time.

Bill has fought for the extension of Highway 410, which was recently announced, along with the extension of Highway 10 to four lanes north to Orangeville.

In terms of the OMAFRA offices that were threatened with closure, due to Bill there will be an OMAFRA presence in Walkerton in the future. This office was previously slated for closure, but due to Bill's efforts there will still be a presence, as well as continued OMAFRA presence in Markdale and Owen Sound.

Bill had some problems with Bill 25, a municipal affairs bill, which was brought forward in the Legislature last fall. Bill fought against the provision in the bill that if a petition with 75 residents was submitted to the minister a commission might be ordered, and he received a commitment from the minister that that would be deleted from the legislation as soon as possible. In fact, Bill 62, which is presently before this Legislature, having passed second reading, actually deletes that provision from the Municipal Act, which was a commitment the Minister of Municipal Affairs made to Mr Murdoch.

Bill lobbied for more than $100,000 for fish and wildlife improvements in his riding last year alone. Due to Bill's lobbying, funding for most fall fairs across the province will probably remain intact. That is something that has certainly benefited my riding, and something on which I have been pleased to support his efforts.

It is my understanding that, largely due to Bill's efforts, a new courthouse is going to be built in Owen Sound. I understand there have been some problems in recent months, but he has brought forward the views of his constituents in a very effective way, and that is now back on track.

We have a tremendous water conservation issue that we have to attend to, and certainly there has been a problem in Grey county. Bill has lobbied the Minister of the Environment to bring in a moratorium on further water-taking permits until further study can be conducted.

So Bill has been very active representing his constituents in this House and has done a superb job. I'm certainly proud to be one of his colleagues in the House and proud to call him a friend. I want to congratulate him on bringing this forward, and I encourage all members of this House to support it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Mr Murdoch has two minutes for reply.

Mr Murdoch: I want to thank all the members who spoke in favour of this bill. The member for Elgin-Middlesex-London has a Bruce tartan tie on today. I'm sure the people in Bruce will be happy to hear that. As you know, part of my riding now is Bruce. The member for Niagara Centre had some good ideas and some solutions he wants us to look at, and I'm sure he'll send me a memo on what we can do about that. He also mentioned that he would wear a tie if I got him one made of this tartan, which I will do in the future. I will see that he gets a tie made in this tartan.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): You have to give it to him.

Mr Murdoch: I will certainly give it to him. I'll do that here in the House.

The member for Davenport has a multicultural ribbon on his lapel, and that's excellent. Multiculturalism is what this is about and a symbol we need, so I certainly appreciate that.

The member for Peterborough is outstanding today. The former member from Simcoe East, Al McLean, a former Speaker, used to come in here quite dressed up, and maybe Gary is taking his place.

The member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has the name Joe Tascona but has Scottish heritage and spoke well of this bill.

I also have to congratulate my friend Ted Arnott, from Waterloo-Wellington, who sits beside me and who talked about different things I have done. I'm certainly proud of those things and will keep fighting in this House to make sure we get fair and equitable treatment for my citizens.

I'd also like to thank my staff-one of whom is still sitting here-Melissa Elder and Tony Ambrogio, who helped me research this and get things ready for me. I certainly appreciate their help.

If everyone can support this, we'll have a tartan in Ontario. Thank you.

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES EN MATIÈRE DE JUSTICE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mrs Mushinski has moved second reading of Bill 66,

An Act to make Ontario judges more accountable and to provide for recommendations from the Legislative Assembly for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The division will take place after we deal with the next item on the ballot this morning.

TARTAN ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE TARTAN

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mr Murdoch has moved second reading of Bill 49,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario.

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

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): Mr Speaker, I would like all-party consent to put this bill on the order paper for third reading, as it has already gone through committee. It's exactly the same bill that Lillian Ross had in here, and I'd like to see that happen.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill be moved to third reading? Agreed. The bill will be ordered for third reading.

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

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES EN MATIÈRE DE JUSTICE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Ms Mushinski has moved second reading of Bill 66.

All those in favour will please rise.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Brad

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Hastings, John

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Guzzo, Garry J.

Kormos, Peter

McLeod, Lyn

Peters, Steve

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 18; the nays are 12.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Ms Mushinski: Mr Speaker, I'd like to move that it be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy, please.

The Acting Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy?

All those in favour please stand.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

A majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

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

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YOUTH ASSISTING YOUTH

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I'm proud to have, in the riding of St Paul's, Youth Assisting Youth. It's a community-based program that matches youth volunteers aged 16 to 24, and up to age 30 for males, in a one-to-one relationship with children who are experiencing social, emotional, behavioural and/or cultural problems. It serves the entire GTA, and they're working on expansion sites in Windsor and Vancouver.

The goal of the organization is to provide for positive role models and peer mentors. Potential problem kids are referred from social agencies, schools and otherwise. Since 1976, Youth Assisting Youth has helped more than 8,900 children and youth. They have a 98% success rate at keeping at-risk children in school and out of trouble with the law.

But 350 kids are on the waiting list for this program and their pre-match program had to be cancelled. Here is a perfect opportunity for this government to not just talk about crime but to also invest in the causes of crime. This is a prevention program that this side of the House and I, in particular, and the Ontario Liberals support. We need to start preventing crime and stop talking about crime. Here's a constructive way for this government to engage in that activity; that is, by supporting and providing appropriate investments in programs such as Youth Assisting Youth.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise in the House today to inform my colleagues that the festival season in Stratford has begun. Yesterday the Stratford Festival opened with its pre-season performances for the 48th year and began with Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet is being played by Paul Gross, the Mountie from the popular TV show Due South. This year's playbill also includes plays such as The Three Musketeers and Fiddler on the Roof.

The Stratford Festival is a cultural icon in Canada, and I'm very proud to have the festival in my riding of Perth-Middlesex. I'm also pleased to be a member of a government that recognizes and understands the significant role the festival plays in terms of our culture and our economy. According to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, the festival in 1999 created 6,000 jobs, gen erated $64 million in taxes for the government and had an industry output of $350 million.

I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Finance who recently announced that the Avon Theatre, which is part of the Stratford Festival, would receive $2 million from the SuperBuild Corp to help the theatre with its restoration project.

I look forward to joining many of my colleagues in Stratford for the gala opening on Monday, May 29. I encourage all members of the House to visit Stratford and take

part in the festival experience.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The government has introduced legislation that will amend the Mental Health Act to allow for the mentally ill to be treated through community treatment orders. The problem is, there are not enough resources in the community to provide the treatment and support that's needed, and this week's budget does nothing to change that reality. There is nothing there for mental health. The budget does not give mental health a single mention, even in the background paper devoted to health care.

It's hard to believe that the government could have completed two consultations on mental health, leading to a significant piece of legislation that they want to pass this spring, and yet not put anything in the budget to back up that legislation.

Every person who has knowledge of the needs in mental health, whether a supporter of community treatment orders or not, agrees that there must be more money for community treatment. The government will say they've funded assertive community treatment teams or ACTT teams, and these are a good thing, but Dr Ian Musgrave, the government's own director of the ACTT program, told the minister in April of this year that there would have to be three times the number of ACTT teams in place before community treatment orders could be effective.

The government's only clear direction for mental health is to close six of nine psychiatric hospitals. The minister has said there will be no closure until the community support is in place, but the legislation is coming first, well before the community supports are in place, and the plans for closure are progressing much faster than the funding for community programs.

There's only one place left where the government can get money for community mental health, and that's from the closure of 1,133 psychiatric beds. That's chaos.

CAMPBELLFORD DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR JAZZ ENSEMBLE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize a group of students from a small rural Ontario high school in my riding who are hoping to play at the Montreal International Jazz Festival later this month. Although it was only formed five years ago, the Campbellford District High School Senior Jazz Ensemble has won gold and high praise at every festival it has entered in the last three years. They've enjoyed success at the Musicfest Canada national competition, southern Ontario regional festivals, and several others. Because of their highly polished performances, one adjudicator actually begged for an encore performance.

The CDHS jazz ensemble has been featured on numerous radio and television programs, including an appearance on TVOntario last year and again on Studio 2 later this month.

Individual members have been selected to the Musicfest Canada All-Star Jazz Ensemble for the past two years and are well positioned to succeed as music teachers and musicians in the future.

All of this success can be directed to their high school teacher and music program director, Dave Noble. He has made the high school band a cool thing to be part of, and for his efforts he was awarded the 1999 TVOntario Teachers' Award as high school teacher of the year.

For your listening pleasure, they are now completing their second compact disk.

Congratulations to their teacher, Dave Noble, and to the students of the CDHS jazz ensemble.

SHAW HOUSE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Today in the town of Blue Mountains in Grey county, my mother is celebrating her birthday and watching on TV. Hi, Mom. Happy Birthday.

Last weekend, several mainlanders from my riding joined a dedicated volunteer crew of Toronto Island community residents in the construction of new housing units for senior citizens. New life has been brought to the Shaw House, situated on the Ward's Island lakeshore. Vacant for more than 20 years, the Shaw House was built in the 1930s, and most recently served as the home of the island park superintendent.

Now, with youth project support from the federal government, materials donated by supportive businesses and a huge injection of labour from dedicated volunteers, six independent living units with common areas are taking form. The units will provide housing for seniors who are currently living on the island. Many of these seniors are unable to afford to purchase their lease, or perhaps living alone has become impractical.

Architects Ian Trites and Martin Liefhebber have incorporated exciting environmental features, with new ways of reducing carbon dioxide and serious pollutants into the city atmosphere.

My Community Action Team-Wendy and Dave Ground, Joyce Grigg, Kevin Machida, Roxanne Clarke, Tara Smalley, Andrew Hood, Kevin McGuire, Pam Westoby and I-literally worked in the trenches, mixing and pouring the foundations for the new Shaw House.

I congratulate this ambitious initiative, undertaken by the Toronto Island community. They are a very special part of the Toronto Centre-Rosedale constituency. We look forward to returning to assist Graham Mudge and his team to help complete the Shaw House project.

CESAR CHAVEZ BLACK EAGLE AWARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I'm pleased to advise the House that this evening former Canadian Labour Congress President Bob White will be hosting a dinner, the first annual Cesar Chavez Black Eagle Awards, at the United Steelworkers Hall on Cecil Street here in Toronto. The guest of honour this evening is Richard Chavez-

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: I notice heckling coming from the other benches. That's part and parcel of why we've got to take this government to the Supreme Court of Canada to give the farm workers in Ontario the rights they deserve.

Cesar Chavez, of course, is well known as the leader of the farm workers throughout the United States. His brother, Richard, will be here this evening, as I've already stated. His brother in 1966 gave up the security of his carpentry job and joined his brother, Cesar, as a full-time volunteer with the United Farm Workers, organizing and fighting for farm workers' civil rights.

I was proud to join the UFCW and Stan Rapper from the United Farm Workers earlier this week as they held a news conference on May Day reminding this government of the rights they retroactively took away from the farm workers in Ontario, having already been given those rights by the NDP government a number of years before.

The fight here in Ontario is just as desperate and just as important as the one going on throughout the United States. Tonight is a chance to celebrate those involved in that struggle.

BOWMANVILLE MAPLE FEST

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): This past week we heard Minister Eves announce brighter futures with a balanced budget.

There's more good news. As I walk down the street I see the green leaves are starting to bud on the trees; around here at Queen's Park it's the same. This weekend in Bowmanville we have the Maple Fest, which everyone should plan on attending. It's on May 6, and the downtown will be alive with people and music and, of course, maple syrup.

I would like to congratulate all the members of the festival promotion committee, including Edgar Lucas, Lori Allin, Brian Purdy, Monica Scott, Kevin Anyan, Deanna Knight, Garth Gilpin and Ron Hooper.

This event will include a 16-by-28-foot working model railway, courtesy of the Soper Valley Model Railroad Club, and other displays, including woodworking, birdhouse building, antique dealers and many others.

This year's festival will be a bit different because they're going to introduce jazz on the main street. Different groups will be performing throughout the day, including Herb Knox's Dixieland band and Bruce Gorrie's Evidence.

Of course, the Maple Fest wouldn't be complete without maple syrup. Mr and Mrs John Moore, who are local producers of maple syrup, will provide demonstrations of the sugaring off process assisted by many of the churches in the community. The Moores will offer children a treat with free samples of toffee, while Archibald Orchards and Estate Winery will provide treats for the adults with samples of their new award-winning apple wine.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to join me in Bowmanville this weekend for our annual Maple Fest.

COMMUNITY MUSEUMS

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I have received a letter from Minister Johns declaring May 2000 as Museum Month. She writes: "Community museums contribute significantly to Ontario's diverse culture and enviable quality of life. They also attract visitors from across Canada and around the world, giving a major boost to the province's economy and providing employment and volunteer opportunities to many Ontarians."

Great words, but unfortunately the minister and her government, as usual, have contradicted themselves by saying one thing and then doing another. A bright future for museums? Not from this budget.

The Ministry of Culture has been cut yet again, and after struggling with a 40% cut, 27 community museums were removed from the 1999 operating grant program. The museums' level of excellence was not in question and some had even been assured by the Ministry of Culture that their grants would be forthcoming. Yet the minister still pulled the rug from under them.

The Hutchison House Museum in Peterborough, Ontario, is one example of how Minister Johns is slowly but steadily bleeding to death community museums in this province.

Brighter futures for museums? Not under this government. Brighter futures for culture and heritage? The sector has been reduced to an endangered species in this province.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise today to recognize a very successful National Mental Health Week, which began on Monday and ends this Sunday, May 7.

Since the 1960s, care for the mentally ill has moved from institutions to the community, and since 1995, our government has successfully continued this trend. In fact, the ratio of government funding for hospital and community mental health care has also changed from a 75-25 split in 1994-95 to a ratio now of 60% hospital and 40% community care.

These changes are possible because of an increase of more than $150 million in community mental health care services since 1995. These increases include over $7.3 million in mental health funding for south-central Ontario, which includes my riding. Ontario is now spending $466 million every year to provide community-based mental health services.

Much of the work on mental health began with Dan Newman's consultations on our mental health strategy and has continued with the recent introduction of Brian's Law, which will help people with serious mental illness who pose a danger to themselves or others to get the help they need.

I am very pleased to say during this National Mental Health Week that Ontario is building the most modern, up-to-date mental health system in the country, a system that will meet the needs of patients and keep our communities safe and healthy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO POLICE MEMORIAL TO FALLEN OFFICERS

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): This Sunday, May 7, is an important day for the people of Ontario. This is the day we will see the official dedication of the Ontario police memorial to fallen officers. This memorial is another example of our government's ongoing commitment to public safety and to Ontario's police officers. We will be acknowledging our heroes, officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

Too often we take for granted the bravery of our men and our women who each day help to keep our communities safe. We forget that at the end of the day these people have families to go home to: parents, spouses, children who rely upon them. When a life is lost in the line of duty, these people are left behind to deal with their grief. Their lives have been changed forever. This memorial will not only serve as a recognition of our fallen officers but will also honour their families. I might add that we expect hundreds of family members to be in attendance on Sunday, as well as many officers, thousands, from across Canada and the northern United States.

When the policing community approached our government about the possibility of a memorial for our fallen officers, we responded positively and quickly. This was the right thing to do. The police and community set up a special memorial committee, and we agreed to invest in this very important tribute. We provided a site adjacent to the Whitney Block where two bronze statues and a wall of honour now stand. That wall contains the names of 200 fallen officers who served in the province of Ontario.

For the past year, these committee members have been working diligently to ensure that Sunday's event will be special for all the police, family and community members who attend. I would like to thank the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Senior Officers Association, the Toronto Police Association and the Ontario Police Memorial Foundation for working with our government to make this memorial a reality.

I was in my portfolio as Solicitor General for only a little more than a month when I attended my first police funeral. I say "first" because unfortunately there have been a few since then. It was impossible not to be touched by the anguish expressed by the entire community as they said goodbye to one of their own. That officer was Sergeant Rick McDonald of Sudbury. Since that time, I've worked closely with his family and his fellow officers.

As you know, we have named a bill after Sergeant Rick McDonald, a bill that brings in tougher penalties for criminals who take flight from the police. I will never forget the sense of loss suffered by this family. But I was also struck by their bravery. They have since become advocates for justice. Despite their pain, they're willing to continue to believe and hope for a better future, and they will fight that fight to make things better.

I invite the members here and the general public to participate in the memorial dedication on Sunday at Queen's Park. Let us remember those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. But let us also salute the officers who continue to risk their lives each day to make Ontario one of the safest places to live, work and raise a family.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's a great honour for me to stand on behalf of the Liberal Party and our parliamentary caucus in response to the statement by the Solicitor General today and to compliment him on his statement and on the move toward the dedication this Sunday of the Ontario police memorial. Indeed, there are many statues and memorials that adorn this building situated in my own riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale and few hold as much significance as this one that will be dedicated this Sunday.

It's clearly something that is overdue and something that we are very proud to support. I know that many members of our caucus will be there alongside members from all parties at this dedication this Sunday. The recognition that some 200 officers will be named on that memorial gives rise for all of us to think long and hard about where the ultimate sacrifice lies in public service. We all work hard and recognize the phrase "public service is a higher calling." But the ultimate sacrifice is the one that has been made by people who have given their lives in the name of public service.

As someone who is relatively young and comes from a post-war generation and time, this occurs less often in our society than it did for some of the older members of the Legislature, and the number 200 is a very strong reminder of the extent to which people who have provided so much important service have fallen in the line of duty. I know that all members will join in hoping that new additions to this monument are awfully rare-non-existent, we hope.

But reality and history point to the fact that the risk is inherent in providing the kind of community service that police do and that the likelihood that others will fall is still there.

I think this Legislature has gone some way-and I compliment the Solicitor General-toward bringing in the tougher penalties that we hope will play some role in making sure that criminals who try to escape from police are appropriately punished, so that the element of risk can be diminished. We're proud to join in support of that legislation, to support the government in that way.

My own riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale is one that I have had the opportunity to speak to the minister about many times, calling and advocating for more officers on the street because of the extraordinary need for policing in the communities I represent. The move toward community policing is something I have had such an extraordinary opportunity to be influenced by. My riding is made up of many neighbourhoods, and on a regular basis in the evening we attend meetings where regular constables providing service in those communities come, relate to the communities and try to make sure the needs of the community are being addressed.

As the son of a trucker-my father owned a trucking company-I spent lots of time on the road. Having attended too many accident sites and scenes in my life, I'm easily reminded of the issue of road safety and deaths related to accidents and the carnage on our highways, and the risks associated with that for our officers.

I would like to repeat that we look forward on Sunday to joining with other members of this Legislature, alongside the families who have made such an extraordinary sacrifice, in recognizing the public service, the highest calling, indeed the ultimate sacrifice in bravery that has been made by these officers. This is long overdue. We're proud to join with the government in recognizing this and, again, in paying tribute to the families who have given so much.

My colleague the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London would like to add some comments.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I want to pay tribute to the initiative that is taking place here. On May 7, 1934, 66 years to the day that this monument is being erected, Colin McGregor, a police officer from my community, was killed in the line of duty. Colin McGregor's name will be appearing there, and his sons Roy from Peterborough and Colin from London will be present. But what hit closer to me is a friend I went to school with in 1991, Scott Rossiter, a police officer in Ingersoll, was killed in the line of duty.

I think it's sad that that happened, but I think it's good that this monument is being erected, so that the memory of Scott and those 200 other individuals who have given their lives will be remembered. I know that Scott's mother, Marilyn, and his family will be there too. Again, I commend the government for this initiative.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, let me say to the Solicitor General that this is a most fitting action that is being taken on behalf of police officers. We are pleased to see it happening. On a personal level, as a former Solicitor General myself, let me say to the current Solicitor General that I was struck when he made the