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

April 20, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-20 (PDF)

L046 - Thu 20 Apr 2000 / Jeu 20 avr 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND ESTABLISHMENTS AMENDMENT ACT (FUNERAL SERVICES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES DIRECTEURS DE SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES ET LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS FUNÉRAIRES (SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES)

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

GUELPH ARTS COUNCIL

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

CELEBRATION OF WOMEN AWARDS

HIGHWAY 407

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

CENTENNIAL COLLEGE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

YOUTH CITIZENSHIP AWARDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

LITHOTRIPSY

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

FORESTRY AUDITS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DIRECT DEMOCRACY THROUGH MUNICIPAL REFERENDUMS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE DIRECTE PAR VOIE DE RÉFÉRENDUM MUNICIPAL

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND ESTABLISHMENTS AMENDMENT ACT (FUNERAL SERVICES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES DIRECTEURS DE SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES ET LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS FUNÉRAIRES (SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES)

Mr Sergio moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act with respect to funeral services / Projet de loi 54, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les directeurs de services funéraires et les établissements funéraires à l'égard des services funéraires.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): As I begin to address the content of my private member's bill, let me say that this is not a very exotic topic, but nonetheless it is of the utmost importance. It requires, it protects, it ensures that every neighbourhood, every community is protected from unlicensed, unsupervised, unregulated, uninspected and unscrupulous funeral establishments.

The Funeral Directors and Establishments Act regulates the body governing autonomously, if you will, licensing funeral establishments. It is a well-run and respected profession. My comments and my bill deal strictly and directly with the licensing of the funeral homes themselves, not with monetary issues, not with the economics of the business. I won't touch that at all. I know there is a lot of commotion out there. It is a big business. I won't venture into dealing in uncharted waters.

But the act is silent when it comes to establishments calling themselves funeral centres, funeral parlours, visiting centres or visiting assembly halls. The act does not address this particular problem. Churches are not part of that as they are non-profit organizations. Therefore, churches will continue to do last rites or funeral masses, as they have been doing all along.

My intention with this bill is to close this loophole, to close the gap. It is to bring an amendment to the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act whereby any funeral establishment is licensed; be it a funeral centre or a funeral or a visiting centre, they must be licensed. It is important that any funeral centre, any funeral home or any funeral establishment is indeed licensed, adheres to the ethics of the profession, to the standards of the profession, is subject to all licence requirements and is inspected on a regulation basis.

In the time of bereavement, the general public should not be questioning whether a funeral establishment is a funeral home or a funeral centre or a visiting centre. I believe the public should not be expected to know the difference. At the same time, the last thing a consumer wants to face at the most delicate of times is that the services are being bungled by a shabby operator.

We have to move on. This is an area a lot of people have concerns about, where the peace and quiet of every community, every neighbourhood, is at stake. What I intend to do with my bill is to make sure that the profession continues to operate in a professional way, adhering to standards and ethics, that neighbourhoods are protected at the same time and that any funeral establishment, called by any other name, is fully licensed, adheres to all laws and is subject to all conditions, standards and inspections from all levels of government.

I was quite encouraged by a letter I got from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, from which I'd like to read a quote. This is in answer to a letter I sent to him. It says, "I share your interest in ensuring that consumers are afforded a high level of consumer protection by ensuring that funeral services are regulated and that industry practitioners are held to a set of high business standards." I want no more and no less, exactly that. This is not a partisan political issue. My bill is to clean up something that over the years the act has neglected to look at.

The Red Tape Commission, I believe, is now a permanent commission. While I'm very encouraged by the comments of the minister and I hope he will support my bill and help us and help me move it along to the next step, I have to say that the Red Tape Commission has not met-with all their good intentions, and I'm sure they have a lot on their plate-since prior to the last provincial election, since last spring. So with all their good intentions, that commission is moving at less than a snail's pace.

This is an issue that we are responsible, as members elected at large by the public, for dealing with, to bring peace and quiet to every community and let our people know that when they call, we answer their call.

When we go to the Red Tape Commission, I have to say, yes, I would love to see my bill move ahead, but at this stage I am neither greedy nor presumptuous to say I'm asking my colleagues, the members in the House, for second and third reading today, although I would love to; I'm saying that if there are other areas to look at to make the bill better, to make the present act better, then let's move it along to the next step, to the next stage, where everyone concerned-funeral directors and establishments and other interested parties such as churches and the public in general-will have an opportunity to come forward and express their views.

But it's something we cannot shove under the rug. Communities are waiting for us to act, because it is a serious problem.

The public believes that it is not acceptable, that it is not proper that a body has been prepared, embalmed, whatever you may want to call it, in a particular place and then transported to another, unlicensed location. That is not acceptable.

The intent of my bill is to do exactly that, so that there is no skirting of the law here, so that the public gets what it's entitled to get, and that is ensuring protection from the unscrupulous operator. I won't delve into the municipalities area either, and if the local municipality through its zoning and planning requirements allows a funeral home, so be it. We, as provincial legislators, want to deal with licensing those particular establishments. That is the main intent of my private member's bill.

When people, when the community, when the public wave a red flag, it's up to us as legislators to act, to move into the action, if you will, listen to them, respond to their concern and act. That is why we are here, to legislate when concerns are brought to our attention.

In concluding, because 10 minutes fly away very easily, I'm saying to the members of the House that this is not a political issue, that it's not political partisanship here, that it is something that affects everyone in the House and every community, every neighbourhood in Ontario. I'm saying, let's move it along. Let's go to the next step and hear from people who perhaps will bring forward other concerns with respect to the contacts, the operation of the funeral homes and establishments in general.

I would like to see, and I think the members of the House would like to see, everyone have the opportunity to come forward to the public hearing process of the various committees we have at our disposal and have an opportunity to address those meetings and bring to us any other concerns.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my privilege to respond to the member from York West, Mr Sergio, on his Bill 54 amendments to the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act. He has made a number of points and as the parliamentary assistant I'm going to respond in a formal sense here, but I will also veer off the script a bit and personalize the concern. In many respects I completely appreciate and understand the initiative Mr Sergio is taking.

Bill 54 proposes to add a new

section to the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act. The proposed amendments would prohibit anyone from holding bereavement ceremonies on a for-profit basis, aside from a licensed funeral establishment; a cemetery or a crematorium that has been approved under the Cemeteries Act; a location at which bereavement ceremonies are held four or fewer times per year; and small communities within the province where failure to allow services to be provided would prove a hardship to the local population.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has responsibility for cemeteries and funeral legislation in Ontario. As PA, it's my duty to comment on and respond to this particular proposal as it has been put forward in Bill 54, and the ministry has found that it does not truly represent the best interests of the people of the province at this time.

However, that being said, at the request of the ministry, the Red Tape Commission was asked to review and for some time has been reviewing this issue. In fact, it's been an issue since the last time changes were made in the 1990s. Mr Gary Stewart, MPP for Peterborough, and Marcel Beaubien were asked in the previous government to conduct consultations. I can assure you that Mr Stewart, as a former funeral director, is fully aware of the issues and of how controversial this issue really is. I think it's important for us to be talking about it today.

Mr Bob Wood and Frank Sheehan, who co-chaired the Red Tape Commission, are in the process of consultations with stakeholders in the group, and a number of issues in the death care sector are important.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable Bob Runciman, has requested the commission to review the rules governing the sector and provide him with recommendations. The commission has already engaged in consultations, as has been said by Mr Sergio, with the stakeholders in the bereavement sector, including cemetery owners, funeral service providers, industry associations, monument builders and some community organizations.

It may seem strange to think of funeral services as a changing industry but in fact it is changing. For example, an increasing number of people are opting for cremations. Also, the increasingly multicultural nature of our society in Ontario has introduced a variety of new and somewhat different traditions to the business area.

The issue that Bill 54 attempts to address is often referred to as the visitation centre issue, where we have a visitation centre on an existing cemetery providing a lot of the services the traditional funeral home provided.

Within my riding of Durham I personally consulted with Cory Kuipers, who operates a funeral home; Mr Paul Morris, Morris funeral home in Bowmanville; Carl Goode from Newcastle Funeral Home; Myles Oriordan of Wagg Funeral Home in Port Perry; as well as Mr Harry Rath, who has long been known as an important contributor, presently employed by Lowen Group, but who has worked in the private and not-for-profit sector as well, a very knowledgeable individual. I sat with him and understood some of the dynamics and the importance of being patient and having balanced change at this time.

I understand that visitation centres are not clearly addressed in the existing legislation, and that does present a loophole and indeed the problem from which arises this particular Bill 54. This has contributed to the controversy between cemeteries and funeral providers.

Besides the other issues of the for-profit and not-for-profit, the churches and the rest of it, it gets a little confusing, for who's really hiding and who's really paying taxes? Is the playing field level, or the cemetery plot level, so to speak. It is due to this controversy that the Red Tape Commission has become involved in consulting with all the stakeholders to try and find a solution that works for everyone.

However, visitation centres represent only one issue, and there are many others, as I said before. When the Red Tape Commission has completed its review of the issues, they are expected to provide suggestions on how to improve legislation governing the bereavement sector. However, we must ensure that any changes we make will fully benefit the people they are intended to help, and the way to do this isn't by dealing with the legislation in a piecemeal fashion, as perhaps is done here.

I might say, without being critical, there is a

section in there that I need to have explained to me because, as it's currently written and structured, it just doesn't make any sense at all. Again, not being a lawyer, I'm quite surprised by the language in the proposed legislation.

First, and most important, we have to make sure the legislation will protect the consumer's ability to receive bereavement services in a professional and caring manner, which has been the tradition they've been accustomed to and expect in the future, remembering that often these purchases are being made at the most difficult time in their individual lives, their families' lives, and at the most vulnerable time in their lives-often elderly people dealing in a difficult time, difficult situation. Pre-arranged funerals are a big part of the business.

Life insurance policies now are being sold with pre-sold funeral arrangements. These are creating the necessity to make amendments to the legislation. We also want to ensure that the new legislation will address the major issues that will face the death care industry well into the new millennium.

For that reason, I'm unfortunately unable to support Bill 54 and urge the assembly to reject the private member's bill, not for any personal reasons but to pressure the government to continue its consultations, bringing forward an improved piece of legislation addressing this very controversial issue.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I'll be sharing this time with the members for Prince Edward-Hastings and Elgin-Middlesex-London.

I'm pleased to stand this morning to support my colleague from York West in this private member's bill which will amend the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act with respect to funeral services.

It has been said, and perhaps will be said again, that certainly funerals-the conducting of funerals, the offering of funeral services-are most definitely a business. But it's a business and a service that's provided to citizens of Ontario when they are at their most vulnerable. It's a very solemn business. It's a very solemn process that is gone through.

You know, there are a number of bills that are put before this Legislature that we have varying views on, and in fact not all of them touch everybody in society. But it's a natural fact that when it comes to funerals, at some point in time all of us will be involved and it will touch all of our lives.

What the member for York West has pointed out is that we have a problem. It's been suggested, and I suspect it's been suggested in a positive way, that the government be pressured to have legislation that will do what this member's bill is going to do, as well as some others.

It's also been pointed out by the member for York West, the sponsor of this bill, that we don't know when the Red Tape Commission will handle this. We don't know when it will become a priority on the government's agenda. That's what private members' business is for. It's for individual members of the Legislature to bring matters before us that maybe aren't of an emergent nature when it comes to the government. What we're asking you to do is support this. If the government chooses at a later date to further amend the funeral directors act, well, then, fine. So be it. That will be done in its time.

The member for York West is coming to the assistance, if you like, of many vulnerable people in the province. He's coming to their assistance at a time when they might not necessarily receive the service that they think they are entitled to receive and that they are paying for. I believe it's part of the government's responsibility-this is no doubt agreed by all-that there are times when the consumer does have to be protected.

I can't think of any time that would be better to look at protection than when someone is bereaving, when they've lost a loved one, a family member, and when they need to know that those they are dealing with are fully licensed, fully trained to carry out the service they're going to provide.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to join in the debate with respect to the bill before us, Bill 54, which is entitled

An Act to amend the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act with respect to funeral services.

I just want to comment on the bill. It's not a very long bill, but I think the general intent of my friend's piece of legislation is aimed at something that happened within his riding.

The funeral and cemetery sectors in Ontario, as you know, Mr Speaker, face a great many challenges in the years to come. We want to be certain that any legislative reform that continues to help the death care industry develop responsibly is complete and responsible. Bill 54 doesn't achieve that.

One of the provisions of Bill 54 would limit some locations to holding only four or fewer funeral ceremonies each year. This proposed amendment could restrict the holding of bereavement ceremonies and rites at Legion halls, community centres and other local establishments, which would clearly not be in the interests of many Ontario communities. And why four? I would add that the member from Peterborough says also churches, that this would limit it to churches also in terms of holding ceremonies. I would say, why four ceremonies per year?

How would you feel if you were told you couldn't grant your war veteran uncle's dying wish to hold a service at the Legion because there had already been four funerals there this year? I know that from personal experience, having had my uncle, who was a war veteran and president of the Legion, pass away just recently.

This government is committed to ensuring that Ontario's death care legislation remains current. The last changes to the act were over a decade ago. The current act takes into account the tendency towards pre-purchase of bereavement services and the provision of non-traditional funerals and basic low-cost funerals. It also protects consumers by providing an opportunity to cancel prepaid services, which helps ensure that consumers aren't talked into something grander than they would normally have purchased. It also allows flexibility if the consumer needs or wants change.

Although the current legislation provides many benefits to consumers and businesses, new issues are arising, and the Red Tape Commission's review of Ontario's bereavement legislation will lead the path to the future.

Any new legislation must respond to the realities of a new, electronically driven marketplace. In the marketplace of the new millennium, the corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, involved in the death care industry are very different and much more sophisticated than those of the past. Any new legislation that regulates and guides them must be carefully developed, with a thorough understanding of the wishes of all stakeholders, including the interests of consumers across the province as well as the death care industry itself. The approach taken by the Red Tape Commission in its review of the bereavement sector is the type that would yield effective legislation.

I understand the member's interest in this piece of legislation. I understand his reasons, certainly arising out of a single situation in his own riding, which is unfortunate. But my big concern on this bill, as I've indicated earlier, is limiting to some locations the holding of four or fewer funeral ceremonies each year. As I said, the proposed amendment could restrict the holding of bereavement ceremonies and rights at Legion halls, community centres, churches and other local establishments, which would clearly not be in the interest of many Ontario communities.

Certainly as a member who represents a rural component, Bradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil, that just doesn't sit well with my constituents, I can tell you. We are very community oriented and you find that ceremonies are held in churches and Legions.

I can't support this legislation for the reasons I have provided.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'm pleased to rise and support this bill. I too have read it; it is not very lengthy. In the community I come from, I have attended funerals in homes, churches, schools and Legions. This does not preclude that. The key word in this bill is that it is "for-profit." I have not been present at any of those where it has been a for-profit function. I am pleased that it discontinues allowing that, because rural communities value the opportunity to have a funeral in a place that is special to the family and to the deceased.

As an individual-and I draw on my own life's memories-I was in grade 13 when my mother passed away. I think I can reflect the feeling that everyone goes through when they lose a loved one, and that is that life seemed to stop for a little while. I have some memories, but not complete memories, of that event. I know from my siblings and from my father that it was a time of distress and a time when we relied on others. We had a faith and a belief that the funeral home was licensed and would do the right thing, would show the proper respect, would follow the regulations, and that happened.

Because of that, the memory I have is that we focused on the loss of our mother rather than difficulties with the funeral industry, because there were none. We knew that this particular home was following the law as it existed.

This past January I lost my father. This has been a little bit of a different experience because my father donated his body to medical science, to a university. There was no funeral home involved, and there was no funeral as such. That brought out different emotions-the first emotion of pride. My father was a strong believer in his country and served for six years during the Second World War. He was strongly committed to his community, strongly committed to bettering others. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him. I believe that the donation of his body to the university was the right thing to do, and I'm proud of him for that.

But it also invoked in me the emotions of, how was his body being handled, is it being treated with dignity and is it being treated with respect? I know it is. I have every confidence it is. But it still bothers me that it is other than the traditional, and I needed the assurance of exactly what would happen and what would follow and that there would ultimately be a funeral. For survivors after the loss of a loved one, it is their last opportunity to show their love and respect for the person they have lost. They need to have the assurance that the funeral home they're dealing with is going to do the right thing.

The right things don't necessarily always happen automatically. The right things happen because of professionalism, because people have had the training, because people know the regulations, because there is governance and there is inspection and regulation. I believe that mandates that the funeral industry needs to be undertaken by professionals who are licensed and follow the law.

If we go to the possibility that could happen, as inferred by this bill, that for-profit organizations can set up and operate a facility for funerals that is not a funeral home, if they do not take the appropriate action, if they make a mistake, if they learn what to do off a learning curve, saying, "We'll make a few mistakes, but eventually we'll get it right," there are absolutely horrid memories for the family that is left. The family needs to have the assurance of absolutely no worries or no concerns. They need to focus on their loss. They need to have absolute confidence in it.

That's all this bill does. Maybe a review of the act will change it in years to come, but each and every day there is a family that could potentially fall victim to inappropriate treatment or an inappropriate ceremony.

The member for York West has brought this forward not for one specific incident. I believe we need to learn from experience and say that we need to ensure that the people in Ontario, both the deceased and the remaining family and friends, have every assurance that things will be done the right way. This is important.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got to tell you, I'm not an expert on these matters. I bring no expertise, and I've got to admit-

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Sit down.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: No, you're quite right. He's asking me to therefore sit down. But I've got to tell you, I stay away from funeral homes as often as I can, because I'm afraid. So my expertise is experiential to the extent that I have to go every now and then, but that's about it.

On this matter, I have some knowledge but not in great detail. Mr Sergio says the facility that opened up in his community is the first to use a legal loophole and operate without a licence, and it's because of this that it's here. I also know that my former colleague M. George Mammoliti, who has since joined the Liberal Party, people should know that-God bless, I've got no problem with that. He's actively involved in this particular matter and has been for quite a number of years.

Mr Sergio: As a local councillor.

Mr Marchese: As a local councillor, of course. He has led people to believe that he could have stopped this operation from existing and/or operating. My only problem is that this operation was able to get a permit under the zoning bylaws at the time-it's my understanding, Mr Sergio-was able to get this operation established under the zoning rules of the day, meaning three years ago or so. Then what happened was that they were able to slap on what's called an interim control bylaw that simply says, "Hold on here, you can't go any further."

So this fellow, Mr Marchi, the brother of Sergio Marchi, the former Liberal minister, is having to go to all sorts of different places-the OMB. They said, "No, it's not our problem here," at the Ontario Municipal Board, "You've got to go to the courts to settle this."

Eventually, I suspect the city is going to have to foot the bill to pay this guy's costs, on the assumption I make that he properly got the zoning bylaw three years ago. I know no more than this. I thought I would put it on the record because this is a matter that obviously has been dragged on for years. The public perhaps was led to believe this could be stopped. Mr Marchi was under the impression that he could build under the zoning bylaws, and now he's in court. They're all in court: the public, politicians, Mr Marchi. At the end of the day someone is going to pay, and it's very likely going to be the public that will end up paying for this particular problem.

On this bill, again, I bring no expertise to it. My only concern is this: The reason for having a licensed establishment is to make sure you properly embalm bodies, probably for public health purposes. That's why you license them. I suspect there could be other reasons. So if you have a licensed establishment embalm and then send the body to another place for visitation, what's wrong with that? Does that other operation have to be licensed? It doesn't seem to me that they have to be licensed in that way for visitation purposes.

My only concern, and the only reason I want to support this bill, is that the little funeral home establishment person who embalms and does the visitations in his centre is not able to compete against someone who has an established, licensed place and is able, because he has the means, to send the body elsewhere for visitation and get more business for himself.

I forget the term Mr Tascona used. Frances, what is that term?

Mr Tascona: Sounds like a disclaimer.

Mr Marchese: No, It's a term used for people making money on the-

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Through the Speaker, please.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Death care industry?

Mr Marchese: Death care industry, yes. What a frightening thought. Imagine making money out of the dead, but it is an industry. That's why he calls it the death care industry. Is that a term that people use in the industry? I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't use that term, because it's not something you want to promote publicly, right, that you're making money out of the dead? Of course, they are.

So only at the level of protecting the little guy against the bigger guy who's got the bucks would be my motivation to support this bill, and for no other reason. There have been other explanations or opinions offered by the member from Durham who, it seemed to me, had other good issues to bring forth. Again, I assume they're going to bring forth a bill to deal with crematoriums and funeral homes, because there is a whole vast array of issues that flow from that.

I would be quite interested in supporting the bill, sending it to committee for discussion. Perhaps it will encourage the government to bring forth a bill, sooner rather than later, because it may be a matter of public interest, obviously. But that's what I would do, Mr Sergio. I would support you to bring this bill forward for discussion in committee, and if the government has other concerns, they will bring them there. It will give us an opportunity to have funeral directors come to committee to discuss their issues and their concerns, and perhaps we can hear more about the death care industry. I would like to learn a little more about that and other related issues.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I'm pleased with the opportunity today to speak to private member's Bill 54. As we have heard, the challenges that face funeral and cemetery sectors here in Ontario are varied and complex. As my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has said, and I agree, this means that our approach to any reform of the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, and for that matter all of Ontario's death care legislation, must be comprehensive. It must include a thorough review of both consumer and business interests.

In my view, this is a very delicate topic. It seems like an unusual topic to be discussing in the Legislature, but it's an important topic. It's important that we ensure that the public can purchase cemetery and funeral services with confidence. In the decisions that are made in trying times of people's lives, it's very important that whatever law is in place is accurate and comprehensive.

I'd like to speak more specifically about the implications of Bill 54, introduced by the member for York West. This bill proposes that for-profit organizations must abide by the rules he wishes to establish. However, not-for-profit organizations would be exempt. Without a comprehensive review, we would be concerned about ensuring all providers of bereavement services would have equal access to the market.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has requested, as has been said, that the Red Tape Commission review a number of issues surrounding the cemetery and funeral sector with a view to ensuring that Ontario's death care legislation remains both current and consistent with the needs and wants of consumers. Whether or not exactly the same rules should apply to for-profit as to non-profit funeral service providers is still to be determined, but I do know that when the Red Tape Commission completes its review of all the issues, they will all have been carefully considered.

Because Bill 54 doesn't provide equal access to the marketplace, this legislation would result in an uneven playing field in the bereavement industry, which clearly works to the detriment of both consumers and businesses. Also, I think a broader public consultation would be vital for the development of effective legislation before any regulatory changes are undertaken.

Another concern is that if Bill 54 were adopted, some areas of the province, at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, would be exempt from its provisions. This would be planned for areas with small populations, and hence fewer services available. The result would be a mishmash of regionalized rules with no consistency, and that, in my view, is not in the best interests of the consumers for whom we are concerned.

I am not saying that change is not or will not be needed. I have spoken to some of my constituents on this matter in Guelph-Wellington and they have expressed a need for concern and change. But without careful and full consideration, we could end up providing ineffective regulation that would be a disservice to all.

I look forward to the opportunity to ensure that legislation continues to be supportive of the future needs of consumers. I would like to compliment the member across the way for his proposal for a solution to the situation that clearly does require some redress. Unfortunately, private member's Bill 54 is not the mechanism that I view as the appropriate way in which this can be delivered. Regrettably, I too will be unable to support this legislation as it has been presented to the House today.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I would like to commend the member for York West for his initiative with this piece of legislation. I'd also like to thank Jim Cardinal of Cardinal Funeral Homes for the input he has provided to me regarding this issue.

As a society, we have always treated the issue of death with respect and dignity. For over 150 years in this province, funeral homes have played a vital role in dealing with the issue of death and making sure that those services are provided for families. We've come a long way from the days of the furniture store and the funeral director running out of the same shop. We've evolved into a very sophisticated industry, an industry that's of extreme importance to citizens of Ontario. In fact, there are over 500 funeral establishments all across Ontario that are making sure that proper care is given to families at this most important time.

We know too that funeral homes and the public are protected by legislation and by the Board of Funeral Services. This is what it's all about: protection for the consumers. The industry has seen a great deal of change over the years. We've seen the rise of casket stores, Internet services, and cemeteries providing more and more services.

Visitation centres too have been part of the industry. We know that visitation centres have played an important role. In the Acting Speaker's own northern Ontario, visitation centre have been an important part of the funeral industry. But the key to that is that those visitation centres have been owned and operated by licensed funeral directors. That's the concern with what is in front of us and what is taking place in the province today.

It needs to be understood by the members that funeral homes are licensed. We know they have a proper facility. We know funeral homes meet all health and safety regulations. Funeral homes undergo regular inspections. We know too that when a family comes into a funeral home, they are going to be dealing with a staff person who has not only been educated and trained in dealing with families at a time of grief within the family, but has the proper care and training in dealing with a body. We know too that when you go into a funeral home today, you have price lists available to you so you know every service you're getting and what the costs of those services are.

The concern over the visitation centres and the funeral centres is that these centres aren't licensed. We know there is no guarantee that there is regular inspection of these centres taking place. There is no guarantee that when a family comes in, they're going to be dealing with an individual who has received the proper education and the proper training.

There is a health issue involved in this too. Within a funeral home we know there is always the possibility that something can go wrong with an embalmed body. There are natural biological processes that can take place. At least in a funeral home, we have a guarantee that if something were to happen, we have those facilities right there to look after that body. But there is no guarantee that that is taking place in a visitation centre. It could be a very traumatic experience for a family member or for somebody who is at a funeral home for a visitation to not know and not have those safety provisions in the background.

Why this amendment? There is a public perception out there that these visitation funeral centres are licensed, and they are not. The public has this perception that they're dealing with educated and trained individuals and individuals who have full knowledge and understanding of the grieving process and the death process. That is not happening.

This is all about consumer protection. It's about protection to ensure that the consumer is well served. It is a concern about improper marketing techniques that can be and possibly are being used by some of these visitation centres. This is a very important time for people, and this could be intrusive into their lives. There is concern about commission selling. I think those are issues that we need to worry about.

Quite frankly, these visitation centres are not playing by the same rules as funeral homes, and we can't allow that to happen. Every one of us in this Legislature owes that to the public, to ensure they are getting licensed and trained people and the best service. We must deal with this amendment. People are most vulnerable at a time of death, and we cannot allow any unscrupulous, uneducated or untrained individual to take advantage of those vulnerabilities that may exist.

We need the support of all this House to ensure that we close those loopholes that exist and make sure the citizens of Ontario are getting the best care and the best-educated and best-trained individuals at a time of death.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

The member for York West has two minutes to reply.

Mr Sergio: I want to thank my colleagues, all the members of the House, for speaking on my private member's bill.

Let me quickly address a couple of extra points here. I especially appreciate the comments of the members for Durham and Guelph-Wellington, where they recognized the serious problems that exist, and especially the member for Guelph-Wellington, who said that public consultation is vital for the process. The member for Durham says that we have to put pressure on the government. Well, this is the way to put pressure on the government, to move to the next step and make it public, give the public in general an opportunity to come forward with anything they know they want with respect to the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, and there is a lot out there.

I take those concerns, but let's move on, let's bring it into the open, let's have public hearings, and let's make the act a better one for the general public, the practitioners, the directors and the consumers.

Ontario and Prince Edward Island are the only two provinces in Canada that do not allow a licensed funeral home on a cemetery property; 40 of 50 US states allow that as well.

I think the time is right to move ahead with making changes to the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act. While I take the concerns of your members with an open mind, I would like to see, indeed, that we move along and we put pressure on the government. I have to say, members, that since last spring the Red Tape Commission has not met once. It's time that we move on and give the general public, the practitioners and the consumers the needed protection that they deserve. I hope to have all your support.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government should (

i) amend the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994, by repealing clause (

c) of subsection (1) of

section 4 and substituting in its place, the following: (

c) shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made by another person to further the member's private interest; and (ii) proclaim the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994, in force.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Clark has moved ballot item number 18. The member has up to 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Clark: This is going to be an interesting situation in that we're dealing with

an act that was part of an omnibus bill back in 1994. What's interesting is that it has passed third reading, but it hasn't been proclaimed into law. It has not been repealed, but it has been amended. It was amended when we were dealing with the same-sex benefits.

This particular bill, the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, is something that wouldn't come as a surprise to any members in the House that I would be very keenly interested in it in that I have continually over the years advocated that there needs to be more accountability in municipal government. I have continually advocated over the years, for example, that there's a need for value-for-dollar audits at the municipal level to hold municipal councils accountable for their tax spending, how they're spending the money, where they're spending the money.

I have argued over the years that there needs to be some type of enforcement for in camera meetings; that when a municipal council decides to go in camera-and we know the specific reasons as to when they're allowed to go in camera-if they somehow take a liberal

interpretation of that, there should be a penalty upon the members who decide to go in camera illegally or take that liberal

interpretation. It should come as no surprise that I have also argued over the years that municipal councillors should declare gifts that they may receive. In the course of doing their jobs, from time to time they receive gifts. They should be disclosed as well as the disclosure of income.

The Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act

preamble states pretty clearly, "The purpose of this act is to preserve the integrity and accountability of local government decision-making." It does it through a number of areas.

It clearly defines what the pecuniary interest is for a member of a council. It states very clearly when they have a pecuniary interest. That means, in terms of income that they're receiving, if there's some financial benefit that they have. It states which members of their families might have that pecuniary interest; in this case, the spouse and any child who is under 18 years of age. You very clearly see that they've set out when the pecuniary interests would be there. That's a part of the act.

It also sets out the exceptions, because there can be exceptions. Someone may be receiving an honorarium from some charitable organization. That should be an exception to the rule. But I think it's important that, considering the fact that we have now moved into these mega-cities, these amalgamations that we now have-not that I supported it-at the same time, the salaries have increased for councillors. Councillors in some cities are making significant salaries. Although they may still argue that they're part-time, they are making significant salaries.

We have seen anecdotal evidence where a member of a council may be working for another body, in fact could be a lobbyist or a lobby group and lobbying municipal councils, as well as sitting on a municipal council. So there's clear concern from a number of my constituents that there is an opportunity right now where individuals may find themselves in conflict.

Our job as legislators is to make sure that there are such standards. I point back to John Carver, who set up the Carver model of governance. You want to set clear standards so that the individuals know how far to the left to go, how far to the right to go. They know exactly what their standards are and what their limitations and expectations are. That's vitally important.

I don't know what's going to happen today in terms of this resolution. I could be the only guy standing here at the end of the day voting in favour of it. I know that. But, you know, I think it's vitally important that members in this House speak to the issue of accountability in municipal politics, speak to the issue of all of the things that they're concerned about, whether it's a declaration of gifts, a declaration of income, in camera meetings, value-for-dollar audits. It's vitally important, if the government decides they're not going to proclaim this thing, that they do something else.

They have to do something. They have to set a level playing field. I hear from constituents in my community time and time again that it's vitally important.

I know there's a difference between urban municipalities and suburban municipalities and I hear from my colleagues that in a suburban municipality they may not have the same situation. I had one fellow state to me: "In the rural communities we don't need full disclosure because everybody knows everyone in the rural community. They already know everything that's going on in the rural community." If that's the case, then why would they be upset about full disclosure? If everyone already knows everything and knows how much money the members are making in that community, then why would they be upset about full disclosure?

I would encourage the members in this House to support the resolution. We know it's not binding but we have to send a message it's time to put some accountability in municipal politics. That's why I would encourage all of the members to help us out in that regard.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to speak to this bill from my colleague from Stoney Creek. It's one of those few occasions we're probably going to agree during the time we've had here so far.

It's important for us to look at the issue of accountability because the role of municipal government has changed dramatically over the years and the responsibilities of municipal government have changed dramatically. I do believe there is room for improvement in how we now deal with the issues of conflict and disclosure, in many ways. From my experience on municipal council, councils have a tremendous amount of power to make decisions that influence a lot of people, particularly from a financial point of view.

Some decisions that council members make in regard to zoning changes, land use or planning are significant decisions that can go a long way in not only shaping the future of a community, but there's the potential for conflict, the potential for abuse. I think you have to put a transparent system in place for that to happen.

This bill, I believe, is a step is in that direction and certainly I will support it.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): The history of this issue is pretty interesting when you think that the bill that the member's resolution suggests should be amended was actually passed in 1994. It was part of Bill 163. That bill was a broad bill. It included a number of things, including major amendments to the Planning Act, which were looking at tightening up the way in which planning decisions were made, bringing major environmental considerations to the table there. We've seen most of that wiped out by the current government.

But the other provisions in there had to do with municipal conflict of interest. At that time there had been many examples in various municipalities in the province and, in fact, some people who had ended up in situations in court with charges about abuse of their office. But there weren't clear guidelines and it was in many ways unfair to municipal politicians or people seeking municipal office not to know what the rules would be and it was unfair to the public not to have very clear and concise and public rules of accountability.

As we see, time has passed and this very important

section of Bill 163 has never been proclaimed. It was passed in November 1994. As you know, in June of the following year there was an election. Governments changed and we've had another election since then and this piece of the legislation remains in limbo, remains unproclaimed.

In some ways I'm not surprised, because at that time the Conservative Party in opposition and, I may add, the Liberal Party in opposition opposed this bill, for a lot of reasons. But there were people who spoke very directly to the concerns they had over the conflict-of-interest rules. In fact, if I may, I might cite one such member, a member of the now government, Bill Murdoch, who on June 20, 1994, said:

"We have a lot of concerns about this bill in rural Ontario. This fall, we're going to have municipal elections. We want good people to run for our municipalities. We need good people out there. Municipal government is the closest government to the people, there's no doubt, far closer than anyone here is and we certainly need those people to run. But under Bill 163 I'm afraid we're going to have a hard time getting the good people to run. In some municipalities they hardly make any money at all and they're going to make them disclose what they make in their business at home or what their wives make in their business or what their kids make."

Mr Murdoch, clearly speaking on behalf of a certain constituency out there, suggesting that good people won't run if they have to be fiscally accountable in terms of disclosing finances and any conflict of interest, if they have to be accountable in terms of the rules of declaring their conflict when an item comes before them and accountable in terms of their actions and their behaviour with respect to trying to influence a decision, the subject of which they may have a conflict of interest.

The clause that the member's resolution seeks to amend is under subsection 4(1), a broad

section that says, "If a member has a pecuniary interest," a financial interest, "in any matter and is or will be present at a meeting at any time at which the matter is subject of consideration, the member," and it goes on to set out things that they have to do in terms of disclosure, in terms of absenting themselves from the discussion. But clause (c), which this resolution seeks to amend reads, "shall not, at any time, attempt, either on his or her own behalf or while acting for, by or through another person, to influence the voting on any such matter or influence employees or persons interested in a contract with the council or board in respect of the matter."

The amendment that's proposed in the resolution, while I will be supporting the member's resolution, actually waters this down. It says, "(

c) shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made by another person to further the member's private interest."

The key words in that to me are that they "shall not use his or her office," as opposed to, under the current clause (c), "shall not, at any time, attempt, either on his or her own behalf," or for another person.

So the clause that's there is actually tougher in that it affects your entire behaviour. The proposed resolution suggests that you can't use your office. In other words, you can't pay for mailings out of your office or have your staff involved or conduct such activities of influence from your office. It may not be the member's intent, but I see it as watering down.

However, having said that, the fact that this

section remains in limbo and has never been proclaimed is of great concern to me. As the member indicated in his introductory remarks to this resolution, we need this protection for the public now more than ever. As we have seen, not just the massive amalgamations of municipalities which have taken place are continuing to occur, we've also seen a tremendous downloading from the provincial government on to municipal governments and the scope and extent of business that they carry out has dramatically increased.

So the member is right when he says that the world of municipal politics and the world of municipal governance has changed, and now more than ever we need clear conflict-of-interest rules.

I'm appalled that the government which stands so often and claims to be a government that cares about conflict of interest, that's brought in a lobbyist registry, that's done all of this sort of stuff, would allow this

section to remain unproclaimed.

At the municipal government level we, as the public, as taxpayers, deserve no less protection from conflict of interest and backroom dealings than we do at a provincial or federal level. The issues are as important, they are as grand in terms of their scope and in terms of their impact and they are as large in terms of their financial where withal out there in the community to have an impact on people's businesses and on transactions.

I think the resolution is worthy of support because, in particular, it calls on the government to proclaim this

section of the legislation. I believe the previous Rae government, which brought forward this legislation, was definitely on the right track in bringing public accountability at the municipal level with disclosure and conflict-of-interest rules. I think it is a shame the current Harris government-even though I realize they oppose the legislation-has not proclaimed this

section and I think it is-I can't use the word because I know you'll rule me out of order. But it's interesting that on the one hand they speak to the public as defenders of accountability and of protectors against conflict of interest, and yet on the other hand they leave unproclaimed such an important

section of legislation that would affect those issues directly at the municipal level.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate commenced by Mr Clark, the member for Stoney Creek. I can say that he, as a new member, has certainly done a very capable job. For a former municipal councillor as myself, this is interesting because when I was on council in 1994 and now as a member elected in 1995, the requirements of a municipal councillor versus the requirements with respect to an MPP are almost like night and day with respect to disclosure and the requirements put on a provincial member.

I can understand the intent of the legislation that was put forth in 1994, and I was aware of it, having been on council, in terms of the requirements that are put forth in this piece of legislation.

The purpose of the piece of legislation is interesting. It says: "The purpose of this act is to preserve the integrity and accountability of local government decision-making." That's the thrust of the bill.

It deals with the pecuniary interest of a particular member. The definition of "pecuniary interest" is "includes a direct or indirect pecuniary interest of a member and a pecuniary interest deemed to be that of a member."

The pecuniary interest involves that of the member who is "a shareholder in, or director or senior officer of, a corporation" privately held, or where that person "has a controlling interest in, or is a director or senior officer of, a corporation" that is publicly held, or "is a partner or agent of a person." So it's designed to deal with direct and indirect dealings with respect to a member where that member can gain financially, if you want to put it in the simplest terms, where there's a pecuniary interest.

Obviously, the public wants to know, when someone votes on a resolution or on a bylaw because we're dealing with the municipal level here, that that person is making that decision with a clear conscience and not with the opportunity to gain financially.

But it also deals with more than just the disclosure of an interest, which you have to declare in council and you can't vote or debate on that particular matter. It also deals with gifts. The

section that deals with that is kind of interesting. It says, "A member shall not, either directly or through another person, accept a fee, gift or personal benefit except compensation authorized by law that is connected with the performance of his or her duties of office." The exception is "a gift or personal benefit that is received as an incident of the protocol or social obligations that normally accompany the responsibilities of office," or a contribution that is permitted under the Municipal Elections Act.

This is something that obviously applies to the members here, with respect to gifts, but there's a further requirement which is something that, in terms of what we're dealing with, I think is very important in terms of bringing transparency and making a member really think about what their financial interests are and what their positioning is.

What we're talking about is the financial disclosure requirement. Obviously, every member here knows, in terms of the obligations we have, that we have to disclose our complete financial interests. We're also reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner, with respect to the statements that are filed, and they're filed annually. That's what was put into this piece of legislation, the financial disclosure requirement, which applies to members of a council and a board, as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act, a public utilities commission and a police village.

What it requires is that every member shall, within 60 days of being elected or appointed, file with the clerk of the municipality or the secretary of the board a financial disclosure statement in the prescribed form. That's an obligation so that obviously a council member sitting down, looking at the situation, would be fully aware of what their financial situation is, and it's filed. Obviously, that's something that we do here. So there's a difference in terms of what's required here at this level versus another level.

When you deal with it in terms of the public trust and you deal with what the public expects from the decision-makers, people they put into that office, you really have to look at it. Should there be a difference?

I think the member from Stoney Creek has indicated that he understands there's a growing concern in communities like his about holding our public officials accountable to the people who elected them.

As our municipalities increase in size, municipal governments and salaries grow with them. Certainly that's a case in terms of how councils deal with their increase in compensation. For example, in the city of Barrie, during the term the councillors decided, with some debate but not a public forum on it, to raise their remuneration significantly.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How much?

Mr Tascona: That's for the public record, member from St Catharines.

I'll give you the example of the town of Innisfil, where the members have decided by resolution: "Yes, we're going to increase our remuneration, but we're going to do it at election time. We want everybody to know that that's on the table. This is what we're looking to be increased to, and that will be part of the election process."

So there are different ways of doing that but certainly everybody here has heard of situations where the public has not been happy with the way compensation has been handled by municipalities or school boards.

The member also says, "To avoid conflicts of interest and to keep provincial and federal politicians honest, rules of disclosure are in place." That's right, they're also in place at the federal and provincial levels. We are required to keep our own books open to the public. What has happened is that a set of rules for municipal politicians has been established, but they're not in effect.

What the member is saying here is: "You put together a piece of legislation that's been passed by the House, but you haven't put it in effect." What he's requesting this House to do is put it into effect.

As a member who wasn't here in 1994, but as I'm discussing my past as a former municipal councillor and as a current MPP of the House, I feel that what the member is proposing is legitimate. I think he's certainly dealing with a piece of legislation that would deal with the situation. It may be that things have changed somewhat, but that's something for us to review in our own time. I feel that the principles of the legislation are sound because they apply to us here, so I can support it in that vein. What the member from Stoney Creek is looking for is to proclaim it in force.

We've heard from other members here. and we've also heard from the member from Stoney Creek. I've said my piece. I think that the intention is in the right direction and I can support that.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Bradley: Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I intend to support the resolution, which I think makes me ask the question, why hasn't this been proclaimed for the last six years? If it's been there, one would have thought that someone in the government would have proclaimed this section, because it is an important section. It has been mentioned already that federal and provincial members are under very restrictive-and justifiably restrictive-rules in terms of conflict of interest, in terms of declaring interest, and it seems to me that this piece of legislation should be enacted.

As the member for Beaches-East York noted, there may be a weakening of one section. I hope that's not the case and I hope when this is brought forward again, if there is a proclamation or a change, that perhaps we can look at that.

This reminds me of the spills bill. There was a bill passed in 1979 in this Legislature in a minority Parliament. It dealt with putting the onus on polluters. In other words, if you spilled an item into the ground or into the air, it forced the person responsible for the spill to act immediately and assume responsibility immediately and then other things would be decided later. It was in fact reverse onus.

The Conservative government of the day refused to implement it by proclaiming it, so I understand what the member's worry is. For approximately five years we had no spills bill in this province. The polluters were having a heyday. One of the first things the new Peterson government did was proclaim that spills bill. I think it's important that we do proclaim legislation that's on the books.

It is important to have that disclosure of interest. If you look at it-and I say this advisedly-it's easier to buy a municipal politician than it is a federal or a provincial politician-"buy" meaning influence. If you think of it, it's pretty hard to buy the whole political party when you're making a donation to a political party because you have to buy the influence of the whole caucus. I think it's very difficult.

The member from the Niagara Escarpment will agree with me, I am sure, that an individual politician at the municipal level is much more subject to influence than someone at the provincial level. That's why I always thought the province should have some very strong powers in terms of planning. The NDP government put that into effect. I personally supported that legislation. I didn't think it went far enough, quite frankly.

Ms Lankin: Your caucus didn't.

Mr Bradley: There was a hostage in the bill somewhere that made the Liberal caucus not vote for it, I'm sure, but I personally strongly supported that legislation.

You have to watch out. When I see somebody on a municipal council voting a certain way for a developer, I always ask the question-and the news media local should be going to see-did the developer donate to that person? Does that mean the person can't vote that way? No, but it's an interesting piece of information. I think all these rules that apply to those of us who are here should apply to municipal councillors as well.

I want to say as well that we need more control and disclosure of fundraising and spending at all levels of government, including the municipal level. As far as the provincial government is concerned, I would have liked to see this resolution deal with the provincial government, because in the last session of this Legislature before the election, this government changed the rules to rig them in favour of a governing party.

They did that by increasing the spending limits that political parties can spend during election campaigns-and frankly, previous to the election campaigns-and the amount of money that people, corporations, unions and anybody else who wants to contribute can contribute to the coffers of any particular political party. In my view, that is a backward step in democracy. It gets us down to some of the problems they're having in the US. The bigger the role that money plays in politics, the worse it is for the democratic system.

The last provincial legislation also exempted certain things, such as polling, from any spending limits at all. I worry again that the party that caters to the richest people in the province-the most powerful people in the province, the wealthiest people in the province, who are able to give the largest donations-is going to benefit from that kind of legislation. I think that's detrimental to democracy, and that usually favours a party in power.

We should also look at who gets appointed to agencies, boards and commissions. The member would know this is important as well. Are these municipal councillors having people who contributed to them appointed to agencies, boards and commissions? That's interesting to note. It doesn't mean they should be excluded. I don't want to say that, because I think it's unfair to say that, but it's interesting to note. The more disclosure, the member recognizes through his resolution, the better off we are.

We want to know who benefits from privatization, for instance, when various levels move toward privatization. Who benefits the most from that? Is it the friends of councillors, the friends of the provincial government, the friends of the federal government? Who benefits from that?

The member would note that there has been an assault on local government. He would agree with me on this, I know. Merger Mania: The Assault on Local Government, by Dr Andrew Sancton of the University of Western Ontario, is a book worth reading before anybody embarks upon amalgamation. The member would know that when you have these larger units, people have to spend more money and have more influential friends to get them elected.

So all these people who think that when you've got the smaller units there are too many politicians out there and think one big region is the answer to everything, as some people in Niagara do, should recognize that they will end up with 16 regional councillors who have to have lots of money or a prominent name to run, or end up with having political parties at the municipal level, which I would be opposed to. This is timely in that regard. I recommend Merger Mania to as many people as possible.

What has this government done in terms of its own contribution to democracy or detriment to democracy? It has changed the procedural rules of this Legislature to make the role and responsibility of members diminished considerably and given much more power to unelected people. It has changed the election rules so that we have a shorter campaign, which again benefits the party with the most money, usually the incumbent party. There is no enumeration to speak of any more.

We're rigging the rules for municipal referendums now so that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will declare what kind of questions should go on the ballot, not the locally elected people. We have no controls on government advertising, so the government can advertise whatever it wants and spend taxpayers' dollars. The Ombudsman's role is reduced. The Environmental Commissioner is no longer independent. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is not effective because it costs a lot of money to get the information. Last, there's the downloading on to municipalities.

I'm glad the member brought this resolution forward. I hope he considers others of the items that I have suggested during my remarks for further consideration for resolutions.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I just want to say for the record that I agree with the member for Stoney Creek. I support the resolution and I want to congratulate him for bringing this resolution forward, because I suspect he may be one of the few brave members today supporting this resolution. If that's the case, I congratulate him even more.

Just as an aside, I support everything my Liberal colleague said. Everything. There was one little thing, just for the record. I suspect it's not just the Tories who get the rich guys to go to their fundraising events. M. McGuinty, your leader, had a $600 fundraiser. I'd love to check in. It would be nice to be able to go to the Tory fundraiser and the McGuinty fundraiser and see whether there's some cross-pollination between these groups.

I've got to tell you, I represent the bankers in my riding in downtown Toronto, insurance companies. They don't come to my $25 fundraisers.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: No, 25 bucks. That's all the people in my riding can afford. We had good food. We had a good band too, a montuno band, a very jazzy, classy band, all for 25 bucks.

Mr Bradley: Was Mr Cleghorn not there?

Mr Marchese: No, Mr Cleghorn said he couldn't come to my fundraiser, but I suspect he was at yours, and theirs: cross-pollination, inbreeding, scary stuff. It was just an aside, Jim, as a friend.

But speaking to the resolution, which is far more important, the reason I suspect the member for Stoney Creek watered down the

section is because he's trying to get a buy-in from the members, who are saying, "Look, if you can't water down this bill, I don't know that we can support it." It's a suspicion of mine. I could be wrong. But I don't support the change that you have made because I think it too provides a loophole through which a number of people could slip, where some official who might have been exerting some influence directly or through others could simply claim that he or she was not acting in an official capacity. It's a loophole. I understand the political reasons why you're watering it down.

If we go to committee we can talk about it, because I want to support this. Hopefully it will go to committee in order for us to be able to have discussion on this bill.

I support your language about the need for standards, the need for clear guidelines, when you speak to this bill. People have a right to have expectations of their municipal councillors. You may have used the word "accountability"; I don't remember. But it's certainly a word that you often use as a government: "We want to make everyone accountable. We, provincial politicians, want to be accountable, and above all, we want transparency." That's another word your government often uses, doesn't it, Brad? "Transparency." Does this not give the public greater transparency that at the moment it does not have?

You can't say: "We want accountability. We want to be held accountable. We have a disclosure act. But we don't think municipal politicians should." It isn't consistent. It is in fact contradictory to have one position for one level and not the same for the other level. As Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, said, if we need accountability in these matters, it's at the municipal level more than any other level, I suspect, generally speaking-not for all cases, and some ministries in particular. But at the municipal level we're dealing with zoning issues, planning issues. We're dealing with development issues.

In some municipalities, more than others, some people can be greased to be helpful with the decision-making. They can. I believe they can. I believe municipal politicians are human, and they might decide that for the public interest they want to support something, I suspect.

I know my good friend from Dufferin-Peel says some of these municipal politicians only make 5,000 bucks; why do we have to have disclosure for someone who only really makes $5,000 as a city councillor? But if you are helpful for some development industry in the area, it can amount to something, right? You understand the expression, right?

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Yes. It's a universal expression, right? This expression; sorry, Frances. She couldn't see the expression.

At the municipal level there's a need, in my view, to have integrity of our local officials so that their integrity is not brought into question, so that the taxpayers-remember them?-have greater reliability through the accountability mechanism that you're hopefully about to bring forward, and because there's greater transparency they will feel better. Whether or not it solves the problem of possible improprieties is another matter, but at least it gives me, Joe Taxpayer, a greater feeling of protection, that my public interest is protected. That's the extent of this bill.

That's why, in my view, we need to have this bill brought forward: for the public interest and to make municipal politicians' behaviour accountable.

If this goes to committee, it will give municipal politicians an opportunity to discuss, to give evidence one way or the other, to give opinion one way or the other. It will give municipal officials who may have something to say about this an opportunity to come forward at committee and say what they want to say.

If the Conservative members today don't support this, it will be inconsistent with their usual politicking. It will contradict their usual language of transparency and accountability. If that is so, they will be indeed consistent with their contradictory behaviour, and maybe life goes on. I don't know.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: That's the beauty of the Tories. You can be inconsistent all the time and it doesn't matter.

I'm going to support your resolution, Mr Clark. I hope the others do too.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the private member's bill from Mr Clark, the member for Stoney Creek. It's a resolution, actually. The resolution is a bit technical because it deals with an existing statute that's on the books and has never been declared as law.

I served for a number of years as a school trustee and as a local and regional councillor. I can tell you that today, in that particular respect, there are election disclosure documents. Every contribution is a matter of public record, as it should be. I fully support that. There should be more transparency and accountability to the public, the people you're elected to serve. That already exists under the Elections Act, so that any publicly elected person must declare the contributions-provincially, federally, municipally, school board-whoever is elected to public office.

Despite the comments from the member for St Catharines, I think it really is a red herring to say that there isn't enough disclosure in that respect. All of us are required to do that.

Secondly, there is an already existing requirement on the books, under the Municipal Act, for the conflict of interest, which means that your participation in public debate is limited in those areas where you have a pecuniary interest, as it should be. I think that is important, and it does exist. I don't see how this really embellishes that or changes that in any way, nor should it.

The one part that we may have some discussion about is the personal financial disclosure portion, which is Mr Clark's intent here. I find it difficult to disagree with him, because we in public office are accountable. There are degrees, if you will-

Mr Marchese: Of public accountability.

Mr O'Toole: No-of interest. Meaning, when I served on council I think our pay at local council was under $10,000 annually. I did have a job with General Motors, the major employer in the area, and I made considerably more than I did as a councillor, being there 30 years in a management position. I would also have had stock options and participated in the stock plan. Being over 50 years of age, I had investments and such things that I did not think were appropriately disclosed and would not be appropriately disclosed for a job that's paying less than $10,000 a year.

I did it out of interest for my community, and I think in small-town Ontario, that is generally the motive; people aren't there to line their pockets. Nor do I think anyone in public office, in a general sense, is there for that reason at all, nor would I like to leave that impression. But that is the part where I don't believe, at that level of government, there is a requirement for full personal financial disclosure.

I might add, it would be quite onerous for some people serving on municipal utilities or the public board. It says here a fireman who was holding public office, or something like that, would also have to disclose.

That being said, Mr Clark raises a very good point. I want to make sure that I have the record straight here. The member for Beaches-East York did say that the Rae government brought forward this section-which I recognize is true, she did-and it's sitting on the books now. But she also said in her remarks this morning that we have strengthened such things as disclosure of information, conflict of interest and the Integrity Commissioner. We have strengthened those areas. Each of us goes through an annual review, as we should.

The member for St Catharines went on a bit of a rant, talking about a number of issues. At the end of the day, the public decides. We've seen an election just recently in Prince Edward Island where there was a back-to-back majority. Ideologically there may be differences between those who don't believe in tax cuts, which I think is what I heard Mr Bradley say, and those who do believe you can stimulate the economy through an economic plan that includes a broad selection of tax cuts, so that people can stimulate the economy instead of bureaucrats stimulating the economy.

That's where we differ and the rest of it is pretty much rhetoric. I will be supporting the intention of the bill, but I'm not sure I can support Mr Clark's resolution this morning. Others may want to comment and I'll leave a couple of minutes for that.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I've learned a lot this morning, hearing the discussion about urban politics. My riding is primarily a rural area. We have some cities such as Belleville and Picton, but by and large it's a rural area. I know the vast majority, if not all of the politicians in my riding and they're not in it for money. They're simply not in it for money.

I believe that if we are going to have a democracy it requires two things to happen. One is that people vote, and I think there needs to be an improvement in that rate, although perhaps as politicians we've made people cynical and turned them off voting. We also need people willing to serve, and serving is by and large a thankless task at the municipal level.

A municipal politician in a small community literally opens their entire life up to the community when they put their name forward. I would suggest that if you ever want to know what your family tree is, run for local office. People will find it out for you and will share with you all of your background. Between politicians who make $62,000 a year in Toronto versus politicians who make $1,000 a year in rural Ontario, there's a profound difference and I think we need legislation that reflects that difference.

I read in the media a remark a couple of days ago that I think is pretty fair. It says that if you want to understand what a piece of legislation from the Mike Harris government means, read the title and then "un" or "dis," because it's the reverse of it. Interestingly, as we've gone for fewer politicians, by and large across Ontario we've seen a substantial increase in the compensation for elected officials at the municipal level. That may be warranted. They're doing a lot of additional work; they're serving a much larger clientele. So we have fewer politicians to represent the public, but at the same time they're receiving much more money.

I know that the politicians in my community aren't doing it for the money. I can think of trustees with $5,000 per year that they pay taxes on and election expenses that they pay out of their own pocket. I have seen trustees come to a school board meeting when they've got hay in the field that really needed to be brought in because it was going to rain. They came because of their sense of responsibility.

I have served with trustees who lose pay at work when they come to serve at a board meeting. On top of the time, there is travel. With the extremely large school boards in my riding, trustees are travelling an hour and a half or an hour and three quarters each way to get to a meeting and return. Local politicians who are well known are always on duty, 24 hours a day. Whether they're at home, in the grocery store or simply out at some community function as a private citizen, they are on duty. There is no anonymity in a rural area as there is in the city.

I had concern back in 1994 with the legislation as it was drafted then, and my concern was that it took the big stick and tried to deal with every individual on every board. I am now in my 24th year serving on the children's aid society board. I know, for the other people on the board with me, that we receive zero dollars. However, it is an organization that fell under that legislation, so someone serving on that board would have to take and disclose their financial interest and that of their spousal partners and their children under 18 etc for a role that provides no opportunity for corruption and is quite the opposite: a role where people are trying to contribute.

I certainly believe in transparency in government. I couldn't be more supportive of it. I would like to know some of the decisions that are made in cabinet because I think the public needs to know. I would like to know all of the regulations, which I believe in many ways are very quietly slipped through. I think there's a lack of transparency there. I think more transparency maybe would have allowed this scandal at the ORC not to happen. As a provincial government, I think we need to tackle corruption. I think we need to make government more open, but it's not at the level we're talking about this morning. This is simply deflecting some of the issues.

I'm not convinced either that this will stop corruption. I believe the intent of the legislation is good and I believe there's room for improvement, but I think we need to do it in consultation with our partners, not have it legislated and forced on them. Let's sit down and talk to the people involved.

I would suggest AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, would be an excellent source of information. I know their involvement back in 1994 wasn't listened to, but there's still an opportunity, since it hasn't been proclaimed into law, to talk with the people at the municipal level. Let's draw on their expertise, let's hear their life experiences and let's hear their advice on what it should look like. This may essentially be it, but I believe there is room for refinement to reflect the diversity of the roles that are played by board members, municipal politicians and school board trustees in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Stoney Creek has two minutes plus the remaining time for his caucus.

Mr Clark: The word in all of this debate this morning that keeps popping up is "accountability." I think that in the real sense of the word that's exactly what the constituents in my community are concerned about. Whether it's municipal, provincial or federal politicians, they want accountability and they want transparency. This is what this particular bill from 1994 provides.

I've heard some of the comments. "We should have accountability when there's a larger salary, but if there is a smaller salary, then we shouldn't have that accountability." In essence, that's the argument you're making when you're talking about an urban to a rural community. "They're only making $5,000 and we don't have to worry about it, but if they're making $70,000"-where do we draw the line? The argument that has been made is that in rural communities it's not an issue because they are all honest people. I'm not saying they're not. I'm not saying that urban politicians are not honest.

What I'm saying is that the laws of the land are set out so that everybody in the province has to adhere to the law of the land and have it apply to them. We should have one set of standards for everybody. In this case, I think it's important that we begin developing that set of standards on accountability.

Disclosure is important-the idea of disclosing gifts that are received. We hear anecdotal stories of trips to Florida being given out. We hear anecdotal stories of a week at the cottage. We don't know what dealings are going on. But if we have to disclose gifts here, as members in this House, then I think the onus is on municipal politicians to do the same. I think the vast majority of municipal politicians are in the job because they're dedicated and want to do what's right in the community. I can't conceive of why a municipal politician would argue that they shouldn't be held accountable, that there shouldn't be disclosure on these items.

I cannot accept for a moment that there should be a line in the sand that once you hit a certain salary level of, say, $5,001, now you have full disclosure. If we're going to have one set of standards, it should be for all municipal politicians. I think that's vitally important.

In closing, I want to remind all the members that this was part of an omnibus bill that was brought in earlier on. This is one section. It hasn't been proclaimed. This is a resolution. I may be standing alone on this side of the House at the end of the day-I don't know-but I think everyone who spoke today spoke to the need for accountability and transparency. If the government is not going to proclaim this act into law, then they had better find other means to fix the Municipal Act to put accountability in place, to make sure the disclosure is there, and to deal with all the other issues I have continually raised in this House since first being elected.

I thank everyone for their participation this morning and I encourage them to vote in favour of the resolution.

The Acting Speaker: In accordance with standing order 96(e), I will suspend the House until 12 o'clock, when we will deal with both ballot item number 17 and ballot item number 18.

The House recessed from 1145 to 1200.

FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND ESTABLISHMENTS AMENDMENT ACT (FUNERAL SERVICES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES DIRECTEURS DE SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES ET LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS FUNÉRAIRES (SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 17.

Mr Sergio has moved second reading of Bill 54. Shall the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

I believe the ayes have it.

We will call in the members after we deal with ballot item number 18.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Clark has moved ballot item number 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Call in the members for ballot item number 17. It will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND ESTABLISHMENTS AMENDMENT ACT (FUNERAL SERVICES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES DIRECTEURS DE SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES ET LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS FUNÉRAIRES (SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Tilson, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 23; the nays are 22.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I would like the bill referred to the social development committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is the House in favour of this matter going to the social development committee?

Would members in favour please stand.

Those opposed, please stand.

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.

All matters relating to private members' public business now having been completed, the House will adjourn until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I regret that I have to rise today to express my extreme sorrow and shock upon hearing of the violence that has taken place at an Ottawa-area high school this morning.

Based upon what we know so far, a grade 10 student has stabbed four fellow students and one staff member at Cairine Wilson high school in Orleans, a suburb of Ottawa. I am relieved to report that none of the injuries appear to be life-threatening. I know I speak for all the members of this Legislature when I offer my heartfelt condolences to the victims, their families, the students and the staff of the school. We, each and every one of us, pray for their speedy recovery, and we offer our support in any way possible.

As many of you will know, today is the anniversary of the awful Columbine High School shootings in the United States. A few days from now will be the anniversary of the Taber, Alberta, tragedy.

Unfortunately, this violent act is not an isolated incident in schools. In the coming weeks, as the information behind the circumstances unfolds, we must closely examine the reasons behind these very regrettable acts. It goes without saying that as politicians, parents, educators and young people, we all have a responsibility to take action and the necessary steps to develop the school supports that will address the underlying reasons for these acts of violence. Preventive measures such as counselling, dispute resolution and sensitivity to diversity could perhaps prevent future occurrences.

For now let me express again, on behalf of this House, my shock and sorrow at these events, and let us pray for those involved for a speedy recovery.

GUELPH ARTS COUNCIL

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): Today I would like to advise the House of the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Guelph Arts Council. Over its quarter century, this council has nurtured art activities in Guelph, making my community of Guelph-Wellington a more vibrant place in which to live.

Its mandate is to stimulate, encourage and coordinate the development of arts in Guelph. To accomplish this, the council has acted as a programmer, a resource and support service provider, an arts incubator and an advocate. Over its 25 years it has assisted in the development of over 20 cultural undertakings, most recently the Arts Schmoozefest. Without the council's patient and unwavering efforts, the River Run Centre would never have come to fruition.

It is an indispensable information resource concerning the arts in Guelph. Its bimonthly newsletter keeps the entire community plugged into the ongoing arts activities in Guelph and area. Its resource centre and its community guidance all assist in areas of interest to the community such as in things like grants of copyright.

It has contributed to the preservation of Guelph's historical properties. From its historical walking tours of the city to its public art displays, it makes a daily contribution to the social and economic well-being of our community.

I would ask all members to join with me in complimenting the board, the staff, the supporters and the volunteers and congratulating the Guelph Arts Council on its 25th anniversary and wishing it continued success in the years to come.

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I rise today in remembrance of the 85th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government of the day began a systematic genocide of 1.5 million Armenians, many of whom were women and children.

This Monday the Armenian community will gather at Holy Trinity Armenian Church in Scarborough for a special service. On April 25 there will be a vigil here at Queen's Park. On April 30 the genocide committee will commemorate the anniversary at the Alex Manoogian Centre.

If the world community allows a genocide to happen without comment or consequence, we have learned it will be repeated. Hitler once said to many around him, in planning his Holocaust, "Who today remembers the Armenian genocide?" In other words, if the world community had stood behind the Armenian community, perhaps Hitler would never have been able to do his unspeakable deeds.

There is a continuing piece of unfinished business in this sad saga: that to this day, those responsible for the genocide have failed to acknowledge their responsibility or to apologize. For the Armenian community-indeed for all of us-the wound that is the Armenian genocide cannot begin to heal until those responsible, the Turkish government, accept responsibility and apologize.

CELEBRATION OF WOMEN AWARDS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Today I rise to talk about women who make a difference. Last weekend, I was asked to participate in an exciting event in my riding of York North. It was a celebration of women at the York region women's show that culminated in an awards dinner, the Celebration of Women awards. Women were nominated for their contributions in the fields of politics, business and in the not-for-profit public and private sectors. As well as acknowledging their personal accomplishments, women nominees were judged for their contributions locally, regionally, provincially and internationally.

Twenty-one women were nominated and the following received awards: Sabine Schleese, Kim DeWolde, Brenda Larsen, Susan Hay, Mayor Margaret Black, Mayor Lorna Jackson, Dorothy Clark-McClure, Sandra Hynds, Sue Dodgson, Maureen Pollock, Susan Plamondon, Lindsay Freeman, Alice Luckock, Christina Doyle, Donna Whitmore, Mary Filpetto, Dr Helena Jaczek, Ildiko Luxemburger, Dr Jennifer Steadman, Pam Santon and Charlotte Garner.

The woman of the year is Ildiko Luxemburger, a registered nurse who works in the surgical unit of the York County Hospital.

Each of these represents the fact that we can make a difference and serves as an inspiration to all of us.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): How does a toll charge of $1.13 become a grand total of $64.76? Easy. Just leave it to the 407 ETR administration: actual toll charges of $1.13; plus administration charges of $30; plus an adjustment of $30 for God knows what; plus a non-existing previous charge of $27.20; a fee of $2, as if a $30 administration charge wasn't enough; and a $1.19 charge for, again, non-existing late payments.

The 407 ETR administration is in a state of total disorientation, because they can't keep up with the tremendous increase in revenue. They are rubbing their hands while Ontario motorists are licking their wounds. Gee, thanks, Premier. You are doing a swell job leaving Ontario motorists unprotected from huge toll increases. Soon tolls will be up again by some 30%. We have taxes and we have tolls, and now we have highway robbery. Now you can see how $1.13 becomes a grand total of $64.76.

This must be Mike Harris magic, giving a wand to the ETR administration to charge the people of Ontario whatever they want, whenever they want. This is a rip-off that the Premier should not allow to continue.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In March 1998, the Ministry of Transportation transferred $4.6 million to the regional municipality of Sudbury to complete the widening of regional road 80 through to Hanmer in the city of Valley East. This fulfilled a commitment made by the MTO in 1975 to fully fund four-laning of this highway when traffic volumes warranted. At the time of the transfer, local officials raised concerns that drainage improvements were needed along this

section of highway and without these it made no sense to continue. The MTO agreed to consider a funding request for this work too, so that both projects could occur together.

The city of Valley East submitted its proposal and technical work to MTO on May 6, 1999. On November 12, I wrote to Minister Turnbull to request a decision since one had still not been made. On December 15, the minister replied that his staff were reviewing this request and would be in touch with local officials "in the very near future."

On February 26, the MTO finally replied to ask for more technical information in order to make a decision. It took nine months for this government to finally get around to reviewing this important proposal, and still no decision has been made.

Is this what the government means by doing more for less? The MTO has now suggested a meeting to discuss the technical concerns. This is a meeting which should have occurred months ago. I can only hope that all the issues will be addressed and dealt with at this time. Otherwise, that $4.6 million will continue to sit, another construction season will be lost, and local people who could use work this summer will be out in the cold once again.

CENTENNIAL COLLEGE

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I'm very pleased to be able to stand in the Legislature today to report about a major reinvestment initiative that the Mike Harris government has made in post-secondary education in Scarborough.

Today, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade announced a $2.5-million investment in Centennial College in my riding of Scarborough Centre. The investment is to establish a centre for aerospace training and education. The centre will offer post-secondary, apprenticeship, corporate and secondary school co-operative programs in aerospace manufacturing and support.

I know the administration at Centennial is eager to get this project underway. Last month, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities announced an investment of nearly $39 million in Centennial College through the Mike Harris government's SuperBuild Growth Fund. That investment is part of a $70-million, public-private partnership to build new computer study facilities for Centennial College at the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus. That investment will allow the college to increase enrolment in computer science programs by over 4,400 students.

It's an exciting time for both Centennial College and young people in Scarborough. These investments are a tremendous example of the Mike Harris government's dedication to giving our students the tools and the education they need to be successful in the new economy.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Just two days ago, in the community of Penetanguishene, the Minister of Correctional Services came to town. He finally came to town after four long months of using taxpayers' money to do a push poll to see what people think, spending taxpayers' money to try and soften the opinion of people with local radio ads to the tune of $16,000, spending taxpayers' money to mail each and every resident a letter to tell them, "You'll get what we say you'll get."

At the meeting, the minister took great pride in describing the new prison as a shiny new technological wonder of the world, the flagship of corrections in Ontario.

History teaches us about another group of arrogant and boastful people, the builders of the Titanic. This flagship was the most technologically advanced wonder of the world. No one could stop this flagship.

The people of Penetanguishene are sending up the flares. They see the iceberg ahead. It's privatization. They see the danger ahead and you're just admiring the glitz and the glamour. They, along with 75 other communities across the province, are telling you how they feel and what they want to have happen in their community.

Minister, steer clear of the iceberg because if you don't, you and your government are going to go down with the ship. Don't take anyone else with you.

YOUTH CITIZENSHIP AWARDS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Yesterday in the House we debated Bill 55, the Parental Responsibility Act, and at that time I wanted to make some positive comments about the youth in our community today. I also had the pleasure last evening of attending the designation of awards for citizenship for the Blue Heron division of the local Pathfinder groups.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will read the names of those young people who received the award for citizenship as part of their guiding principles. From the 3rd Bowmanville: Erin Ashton, Jennifer Dugan, Elizabeth Salisbury, Rebecca Townsend, Rachel Boldtt, Anna Koppelman, Samantha Salisbury. From the 5th Bomanville: Jennifer Ashby, Laura Frisina, Sarah Brunton and Jennifer Weston. From the 1st Courtice: Felicia Jefferson and Cherie Van Driel. From the 3rd Courtice: Heather Yeo, Samantha Bonchek and Charlotte McDonald. From the 1st Orono: Caitlin Cameron, Amanda Stewart, Jessica Knapp.

From the 2nd Newcastle: Amanda Coady, Heather Dunlop, Kassia Falla, Nickie Golder, Caitlin Laing, Shannon Morrison, Gemma Sheppard, Jamie White, Caitlin Darcy, Sian Evans, Jenny Feltham, Jenna Hossack, Leigh McSwan, Erika Sanders, Erin Ward and Mandy Willson.

I commend each of these young people for putting a good face on children. When we were talking about it yesterday, it just depressed me that we looked at the negative; we should be looking at the positive things our young people do.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I'd like to bring to the attention of this Legislature an important environmental initiative announced this week that will have a significant effect on air quality.

The government has now finalized our regulation requiring mandatory reporting of annual emissions. It comes into effect for electric power generation companies and their facilities as of May 1. In the regulation we identify 28 substances of concern that will have to be monitored and reported. These include all emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide, which contribute to smog, acid rain and climate change.

We will continue consultations and modify the regulation so that all other industry sectors will be required to report on their emissions as of January 1, 2001.

The government believes that reporting is an important component of our actions to improve air quality, because for the first time we'll have real information about what emissions are being put into our air and by whom.

But more than this, we believe the new reporting requirement will lead to improved public accountability for all sources of air pollution in the province; province-wide emission reductions as the public's right to know motivates companies to reduce their emissions; a level playing field for companies in all economic sectors in the monitoring and disclosure of environmental pollutants; a mechanism for tracking the progress of the ministry's air quality initiatives; a way for us to measure if our policies are having the desired and necessary impact.

As we move forward to make our air cleaner, reporting will lead to increased public awareness. This is vital to ensure companies understand and are responsible for their emissions. Both the government and the public must know what improvements are occurring, which initiatives are having a positive effect and what the possible business impacts are.

This initiative works alongside our other aggressive new measures to attack air pollution in Ontario which were announced on January 24. I want to briefly review these measures and then talk about where we are today and what has happened in the past few months.

The key new measures in our program are some exciting things like the establishment of mandatory caps on smog and acid rain-causing emissions; introduction of emissions reduction trading to give businesses greater flexibility to meet tough new standards; and the establishment of environmental performance standards for any electricity that is produced in or imported into Ontario. These measures establish a clear framework for business to begin to focus on its role in helping to improve air quality.

It is also important to note that these reductions in annual emission caps are only the beginning. Ontario has aggressive long-term total emission reduction targets. We are committed to a 45% reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides by 2015, from a 1990 base year. We are also committed to a 50% reduction in the emissions of sulphur dioxides by 2015 from our Countdown Acid Rain strategy. Our commitment to these long-term targets includes a fair share reduction by the electricity sector.

In addition, Ontario is committed to meeting or exceeding US Environmental Protection Agency emission standards for utilities once they are established. I want to say today that if these standards are not as stringent as those in Ontario, Ontario will stay with its own targets. That is why Ontario supported the ruling by the US EPA that required a number of states to reduce emissions of smog-causing pollutants and why we became a respondent in the case when it was appealed. That is also why we were so pleased by the decision of the US Court of Appeals that supported the earlier ruling.

With more than one half of Ontario's smog originating from US sources, we had a vital interest in the decision. We will continue to be vigilant about all sources of increased air pollution, whether emanating from within or outside the province, and we'll maintain our commitment to meet or exceed the US standards.

Finally, my ministry has started discussions with other major sources of emissions in Ontario and other stakeholders to find the scope, timing and implementation of emission limits from other sectors in the province. To meet these long-term targets we need reductions from all emitters.

I'm proud of these measures and I'm also proud of Drive Clean, which is living up to our early expectations. More than five million vehicles will be covered by the program when it is fully implemented. It will reduce smog-causing pollutants from vehicles in its program area by 22%.

We are investing over $4 million to upgrade our air monitoring network, and we are developing approximately 120 human health and environmental air standards in the first major overhaul of air standards in more than 20 years.

To enforce our environmental rules, this government will establish the toughest penalties in all of Canada against those who pollute the environment. Further, we will create a SWAT team to increase enforcement activities through inspections, investigations and prosecutions, and we will set up a pollution hotline to take calls from anyone who suspects that a company or individual is polluting the environment. These initiatives and commitments are appropriate to review during this Earth Week.

Now I invite you, Mr Speaker, and all members to make your own commitment to the environment. Please join me in recognizing this as Earth Week, and Saturday as Earth Day. It is important that we reflect on what we can all do to improve our quality of life through a cleaner environment.

Environmental protection knows no borders, and no one has a monopoly on good ideas. Protecting our environment must be a team effort; it depends on dedication and thrives on the relationships that are built. Individuals, communities and businesses across the province are committed to making improvements to the environment, and this government is equally committed to this goal. But clean air cannot be the responsibility of just some businesses or just the government. In fact, there must be action not just across Ontario, but across Canada and North America if we are to achieve the government's clean air targets.

This means the involvement of all economic sectors and people, and of communities in all regions of the province. Clean air is everyone's business. It must be.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thought this was a statement on volunteer week, not on Earth Week, because most of the things that you do are voluntary for those who are the polluters in the province. You believe in that voluntary approach. The word went out to your employees early on in your term that they should take a business-friendly approach rather than enforcing laws as they used to be enforced in this province.

I think we could describe today's statement, and I guess William Shakespeare describes it best, as Much Ado About Nothing. Once again you have many words on paper, but no action, no real enforcement, no real commitment on the part of your government. In fact, I have to agree with Bill Murdoch that unfortunately the Premier chose a minister who would do exactly what he was told to do. That's what Bill Murdoch, the Conservative member for Bruce-Grey, said. I'm only quoting Bill on that particular occasion.

Now, you've got them self-monitoring. What you have to have, of course, is a good, strong team of Ministry of the Environment staff to take samples once in a while, to walk in once in a while and test to make sure those samples are in fact valid. What you've done instead is you've fired out the door one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment, you've cut the budget by over 40% in the Ministry of the Environment, you've tied their hands behind their backs, and then you come in with some words this afternoon, words that cannot be translated into action.

You have a chance. You are considered now to be the second worst polluter in North America, next only to Governor Bush's Texas, which is considered to be the worst in North America by independent organizations. Your fines are down to the lowest level ever. Your prosecutions and fines are way down because you're simply not chasing the people who are violating the laws of the province, as used to happen.

There's over a 200% increase in toxic waste coming into the province of Ontario that we're importing, and we're dumping a lot of it in a questionable dump in Sarnia at this time, which you allowed to reopen despite major problems there.

You've dragged your feet on the Kyoto Protocol. In the federal-provincial conference, you and the Minister of Energy of Ontario were out dragging your feet trying to prevent the federal government from taking strong action. You've refused to become meaningfully involved in a new Great Lakes agreement; you've run away from that particular agreement because you have nothing to bring to the table. You refuse to stipulate that the Lakeview generating station, one of the largest polluters in Ontario, a coal-fired generating station, be converted to natural gas fuel as a precondition of any sale. You've categorically refused to do that in this House.

You should be restoring the staff-I thought the announcement today was that you were going to restore the 33% of staff that you fired out the door, and restore the budget cuts that you made.

You've weakened the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which one of the former ministers really cared about, by shifting it over to the Ministry of Natural Resources and then putting people who don't particularly care about the environment in some of those positions on the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

You've cut the number of air monitoring stations in the province. We used to have a lot of those stations in the province to monitor what was going on. Then, when we found somebody was in violation, we would prosecute them. Now everything is to be done on a voluntary basis.

You've cut the laboratories in this province that used to carefully analyze information that came in and prepare work for prosecutions.

You have simply abandoned everything that was meaningful in the environment.

You say now that you're going to have the toughest penalties. We already have very tough penalties, but you simply don't enforce those. You're going to have some kind of SWAT team. You virtually dismantled the Ministry of the Environment investigations and enforcement branch that none of the polluters liked in its full status that it had before, where it was tough, where it was independent, where it had the resources. You simply cut those people out of there. Now you talk about bringing in a SWAT team. As for a pollution hotline, you have the spills hotline that could be used as a pollution hotline at any time.

You really have to decide whether you're going to take action. You don't have the resources; you don't have the staff to do so.

I think you've ignored the Ontario Medical Association, which is extremely concerned and has called for much tougher action. In fact, the noise that we hear today in Ontario, if you listen carefully, is the collective sigh of relief from polluters who, thanks to you and Mike Harris, dodged the pollution-fighting bullet prepared by the highly respected Ontario Medical Association.

What a disappointment this notice has been.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I just want to remind the minister of a press release I put out on August 10, 1999. I know he wasn't the minister then; he is now and he can do something about this. I put out a press release reminding people that I awarded Mike Harris the silver medal for coming second for having the largest pollution emissions among 62 North American jurisdictions. I remind the minister that Ontario came second to Texas in 1996. Since the Harris government took office, we've seen a cut of over 40% in the Ministry of the Environment budget. You are heading for the gold.

We were hoping for an announcement today that would change the road you're on, but instead what we get is nice words but no clout there to back it up.

The minister's words sound like a good thing, but when you look at it carefully he's talking about a voluntary system, which means there's no level playing field across all industries.

About this SWAT team, I have to remind the minister-and he hasn't said how many staff he's going to rehire out of the 750 or more staff, mostly front-line staff, who have been cut, but I can guarantee you that it's going to be a fraction of those who have been laid off. If all those people hadn't been laid off, perhaps Ontario wouldn't have come second in 1996. He and his government have cut the ministry to the bone, and now you're talking about putting a tiny fraction of that money back. I can guarantee you that only a few of the people who have been laid off will be brought back.

I am really disappointed today, on this day before Earth Day. I thought the minister-because we have been asking questions in the House consistently about the biggest polluter in the whole of the GTA right now, and that's the Lakeview plant. Even at 20% right now, it's the biggest polluter, and if it's sold it could go up to running at 80% capacity. We've been asking the minister, Hazel McCallion has been asking the minister, for heaven's sake, and the city of Toronto-Jack Layton and others- have been asking the minister to make an announcement about that and to come clean and tell the people of Ontario that they're going to do something about the biggest polluter in the GTA.

I was hoping the minister would commit to making the conversion of Lakeview for coal to natural gas a condition of sale. Why didn't he do that? That would have meant more than anything else he talked about. The minister talks about beefing up enforcement and raising the level of fines. That's all very nice, but fines are down because the minister has no staff to be out there enforcing, inspecting and making sure that people are living up to environmental standards. There was nothing about that today.

The other thing I want to talk about-there's so much to talk about, because the government, since it came to office in 1995, has watered down practically every regulation and every environmental law that exists.

Let's talk about the Oak Ridges moraine for a second here. There's huge pressure on this government to freeze development in the Oak Ridges moraine until we can come up with a plan that everybody can live with and that is environmentally sensitive. The government is refusing to do that, knowing that our water is under threat. Minister, we would have liked an announcement today that you were going to freeze that development.

We've got some very urgent problems going on in this province right now. We've got water table problems. We've got low water levels. I asked a question yesterday about a company asking to take, in my calculations, billions of litres of water out of that river. No response. The minister didn't answer my question. We're concerned about low water levels. We're concerned about drought. No words about that. Unfortunately, today the minister had an opportunity to come clean and give us some answers about some huge environmental problems we're facing here, and he chose not to do that. I'm disappointed.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin oral questions, members may know that today is the last day for the great group of pages we have here. I was wondering if the members would like to thank this fine group that we have here for their fine work over