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

December 18, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-18 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 18 December 2003 Jeudi 18 décembre 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN THOROUGHBRED RACING

GOOD CITIZENSHIP AWARDS

FOR JUNIORS

ONTARIO KOREAN BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

STUDENT POETRY CONTEST

SEASON'S GREETINGS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY

AUTISM SERVICES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRUST BENEFICIARIES'

LIABILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES BÉNÉFICIAIRES D'UNE FIDUCIE

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

VISITORS

BALANCED BUDGET

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

MOTIONS

THIRD PARTY STATUS ON SUBCOMMITTEES

REFERRAL OF BILL 8

REFERRAL OF BILL 31

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SAFE DRINKING WATER SYSTEM

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD /

PROGRÈS DU GOUVERNEMENT

SAFE DRINKING WATER SYSTEM

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ONTARIO BUDGET

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

QUINTE HEALTH CARE CORP

HIGHWAY 69

LABOUR RELATIONS

MUNICIPAL TRANSIT FUNDING

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HIGHWAY TOLLS

AGRICULTURAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

FOUR COUNTIES HOSPITAL

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

LAKERIDGE HEALTH CORP PROJECT

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

SEASON'S GREETINGS

VISITOR

PETITIONS

OTTAWA RIVER PROJECT

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

HIGHWAY TOLLS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AUTISM SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

AUTISM SERVICES

ATTENDANCE OF CABINET MINISTERS

TOBACCO TAX

SOUND BARRIERS

TOBACCO TAX

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NATIONAL CHILD

BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON TRANSPORTATION

ACTION PLAN

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE

STABILIZATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA STABILISATION

DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Ms Monique Smith (Nipissing): I move the resolution that, in the opinion of this House, members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should

restore decorum and respect in the Legislature by wearing proper attire during routine proceedings in the legislative chamber, such that male members wear a jacket, shirt and tie as standard dress

and female members wear equivalent contemporary business attire.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Ms Smith has moved private member's resolution number 6. According to standing order 96, the member has

10 minutes.

Ms Smith: I rise today to speak to this resolution. While some people have seen it to be a trivial resolution, and some others have seen it to

be a fashion statement and have chosen to make their own fashion statement today, I believe that this resolution goes to the very essence of decorum and respect for this Legislature and our

institutions.

Since being elected, many members in my riding have started watching the proceedings of this place and have noted the lack of decorum and respect in this

chamber. They have asked me about dress codes -- why don't we have rules, why is that people are allowed to behave they way they are? They've asked me where the respect for our Legislature has

gone. Every day our constituents are watching us on TV and we have school children and others visiting this chamber. We expect a certain level of decorum and respect in our classrooms from our

students, and I believe that we should be showing that same kind of respect for this institution.

As we attend to business in our ridings, we are expected to attend in appropriate attire to formal functions, to civic functions, to funerals, to weddings. We

attend in appropriate attire. In this Legislature, we represent our riding. In our riding, we represent the Legislature. I believe that this Legislature deserves respect and deserves a level of

civility and decorum. We have years of history here, years of tradition to uphold.

I first came to this Legislature when I was seven years old. I came to see the speech from the throne with my father, who was then the member for Nipissing. I

remember being dumbfounded at the level of pomp and circumstance. When I was 12, I returned as a page. At that time it was a much more collegial and civil place, and there was a greater level of

decorum and civility in this chamber.

There were, of course, exceptions and some fun notes. There was the member from Muskoka, who occasionally wore his plaid blazer and cheered the place up. There

was the member for Grey-Bruce, who wore his white shoes and his white belt at the appropriate, and sometimes inappropriate, time of year. But they still maintained a level of respect for this

institution and this chamber.

I returned again in 1985, when I worked for the Minister of Education, and in 1997, when worked for the leader of the official opposition. During those years I

saw a decline in the level of respect in this chamber, and it saddened me. It disappoints me and it disappoints a number of members of my constituency to see the lack of respect in this

Legislature.

In preparing for the discussion today I looked at dress codes and requirements in other Legislatures in order to inform the members of this Legislature what is

happening across the country and where we stand.

Interjection.

Ms Smith: I do believe you need to be informed, Mr Bisson.

At the House of Commons there is no standing order setting out a dress code for members participating in debate, but the Speaker has ruled that in order to be

recognized to speak in debate, on points of order or during question period, tradition and practice require all members -- male or female -- to dress in contemporary business attire. This dress

code is observed. This may be a practice that we wish to adopt here in this Legislature, that in order for a member to be recognized, they should be properly attired.

In the Senate there is no specific dress code, but they rely on Beauchesne, a parliamentary document, which provides that a jacket and tie are required to be

worn by male members.

In Alberta, there is no formal dress code; however, prior to the beginning of the spring session, the Speaker sends an annual letter to members addressing a

variety of issues. It includes the statement that suitable dress is always the order of the day and traditional practices will be continued.

In British Columbia, male members are required to wear a jacket and tie. In Manitoba, male MLAs are required to wear a jacket and tie and female MLAs are to wear

corresponding business attire. In New Brunswick there is no official dress code, but they too rely on Beauchesne. In Newfoundland, men are required to wear a shirt, jacket, tie and trousers, and

women are required to wear business attire. In Nova Scotia there is no formal dress code, but a standard is followed. And in Nunavut, the rules of the Legislative Assembly require that when in the

assembly, every member shall be attired in a traditional dress or in a manner appropriate to the dignity of the assembly.

That, I would argue --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Smith: Member for Niagara Centre, perhaps you'd like to move over into the camera. Oh, he didn't get the boots.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing.

Ms Smith: I do hope that the cameras have been able to capture the member for Niagara Centre, who we fully expected would turn up in such attire

today, of all days. It is a historic moment and I hope it will be captured in Hansard.

I just think that the member's attire today reflects again the fact that he has very little respect for the traditions of this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Smith: For the record, we should note that the member for Niagara Centre has appeared in a tuxedo today in the Legislature, but still

sporting his cowboy boots.

In Prince Edward Island, business attire has been interpreted to mean, for male members, a jacket and tie, and for female members, generally accepted business

attire. In Yukon, there is no formal dress code, but a standard is followed: When the Speaker is in the chair, the accepted dress code requires that all male MLAs wear a jacket and tie and female

MLAs should wear comparable attire.

Those are the standards across the country. Those same standards are not respected in this Legislature. But as my colleagues to my left are prone to quote from

various parliamentary procedural documents, I would also like to look at Marleau and Montpetit where they refer to proper attire: "Speakers have ruled that to be recognized to speak in debate, on

points of order or during question period, tradition and practice require all members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire." In Beauchesne, Rules and Forms of the House of

Commons of Canada, there is a discussion of decorum in the House: "Many Speakers have ruled that male members must wear a jacket, shirt and tie, and on rare occasions, such as Robbie Burns Day,

have been permitted to wear a kilt. In general, Speakers have enforced conservative, contemporary standards."

Beauchesne also follows with a discussion on appearances in the chamber and states: "The concern of the Speaker for the appearance of the chamber during debate

extends further than the dress of the members. While members are entitled to refresh themselves with glasses of water during debate, the consumption of any food in the House is strictly

prohibited."

Why is it, then, Mr Speaker, that we stick to those rules --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We do have a speaker on the floor. I know this issue is generating some levity, but let's give the person on the

floor our attention.

Ms Smith: While we do recognize that there are rules that everyone respects in this House, such as not eating in the House, such as bowing to

the Speaker when we pass, there are other rules that have just been left aside. I find it quite disappointing that the members in the third party, the independent members of the NDP, would choose

not to respect this Legislature and the traditions of this Legislature. I think it's important that we renew --

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Speaker: I thought it was proper procedure to refer to members by their ridings and

their ridings only. I thought that was proper respect for the rules of the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: That is proper respect. It's not always followed by almost everybody in here, so I would prefer that you do just that.

Ms Smith: I apologize, Mr Speaker. As always, I would like to uphold the rules.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Speaker: Are you saying there is a new rule?

The Deputy Speaker: I'm not saying anything of the kind. I said that you should refer to members by their position and/or their riding. I would

prefer that you do that. I'm just saying that not everybody -- almost everybody at some time or other doesn't abide by that rule. I wish they would.

Ms Smith: Finally, I would just like to note that in Ontario, our library has found for me that there is no official dress code but a general

practice. They do, however, list a number of exceptions, most of which we see daily here in this House. I would just like the members of this House to take a moment and reflect on the history of

the Legislature, on the fact that we do have traditions to uphold. I think it's important that we do uphold those traditions, the values of this Legislature and the respect that we have for our

institutions. I would encourage everyone to support this motion.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): At the outset, the New Democratic Party wants to thank the author of this resolution. As you know, until we

just recently acquired the most modest levels of funding, we've had but volunteers, no staff. Our one communications volunteer, our media person, Jeff Ferrier, has been double-, triple-,

quadruple-booked and really has felt quite bad about the inability, on his part, to get us the publicity, the coverage in the media that we deserve. The author of this resolution has made up for

that modest shortcoming, and all of us thank her for her contribution to the coverage that New Democrats have received over the course of last week and indeed this week. Again, I apologize, because

I may not have been here as often as I should have been, but I've been busy doing interviews -- television, radio and print -- around this issue.

I want to tell you, New Democrats are advocates of dress codes. We believe in standards. We believe in standards with respect to questions during question period

and have decried the low standards that have been met by the government backbenchers. We believe in tradition and convention when it comes to where opposition caucuses are seated on the opposition

side of the House. I won't belabour you with that lengthy point of order that was made a couple of weeks ago. We believe that this Parliament is an important place. We believe that we should sit,

which is why we opposed this government's resolution that gave it a three-month vacation beginning tomorrow, through the months of January, February and March.

Yes, I very much believe in dress codes. I believe that people should wear Canadian-made clothing. I believe that people should wear unionized clothing, union

clothing with union labels, so that you know that the workers, the women and men who sew those garments, are paid fairly and decently and treated fairly and decently in their workplaces. I tell you

that I'm proud, as a member of this Legislature and just as a member of this provincial community, to have made every effort to ensure that, yes, the clothes I wear are Canadian-made, that they're

union-made; that, yes, those drab white and blue button-down shirts are made by workers who get treated fairly and decently; and that, yes, the Boulet cowboy boots, Canadian-made, that I buy from

Elio's down in Thorold -- and I recommend Elio's boots to anybody here. It's worth the drive to Thorold. Go down to Elio's in downtown Thorold, who has the best supply and biggest stock of cowboy

boots you've ever seen, Canadian-made cowboy boots, cowboy boots that are made by your neighbour, not imports -- Elio's in Thorold.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Have they got cowgirl boots?

Mr Kormos: They've got boots for cow-women as well. Ms Churley-NDP, would be well advised -- look, in this new era of political correctness, I'm

supposed to say "cowgirl"? Not on your life. Yes, cow-women can avail themselves of boots at Elio's as well.

I'm proud of the folks at Lee Wah Laundry in Welland, down on Hellems Avenue. The Lees were immigrants to this country many, many years ago, but have worked

hard, raised their own family, sent a son, with a lot of hard work, through university and on to a professional career. Why, Mr and Mrs Lee, yes, continue to launder and press my white shirts and

my rather drab blue oxford cotton shirts -- Lee Wah Laundry on Hellems Avenue in Welland. I'm proud of them. They're the sort of people who I say set standards that I want to aspire to. I'm proud

of the folks down at Blake's Men's Wear at the Seaway Mall in Welland, where I've been shopping for, heck, I guess 40 years. Blake's Men's Wear, at the Seaway Mall in Welland, and Benny in

particular, who fits me for suits and jackets --

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Not the tux, though.

Mr Kormos: Not the tux. This tux, I've got to tell you, is courtesy of my colleague. It is a union-label tux. I'm very proud of Mr Prue for

owning a tux that has a UNITE label in it, those women and men working in the needle trades.

Mr Hampton: Fair wages, safe working conditions.

Mr Kormos: It's fair wages, safer working conditions.

So I'm proud of my relationship with Blake's Men's Wear in Welland, and I encourage people: It's worth the drive to Welland, to go down to Blake's Men's Wear at

Seaway Mall, Gord Blake carrying on the tradition of his father, Larry Blake; Benny, who's just an incredible guy, a great guy. Again, they sell good, Canadian-made clothing, union-label clothing,

and that's why I shop there.

See, those are the sorts of standards New Democrats believe in. We believe in standards of fairness, we believe in standards of quality, quite frankly, in this

Legislature, and I say to you that people here should be judged more on what they contribute to the debate, more on how aggressively and passionately and with how much dedication they pursue their

jobs here, how fearless they are. Yes, New Democrats believe in standards for politicians, and we've had it up to here with gutless politicians. We've seen far too many of them, far too many

politicians who campaign on one promise or a dozen or two or three dozen --

Ms Martel: Or 231.

Mr Kormos: Or 231, and then once elected proceed to break each and every one of them in a systematic way.

So while I thank the author of this resolution for putting the NDP on front pages of papers and on television and radio coverage this week -- again, I have folks

who just shake their heads, saying, "Haven't the Liberals got better things to do?" Indeed, then they say, "I suppose they do, because only yesterday they broke their promise of the

two-cent-a-litre gas tax transfer down to municipalities, which has socked it to municipalities," which, as the member from Trinity-Spadina would say, whether he's suited with suit and tie or

whether he's here in a clean, crisp white shirt, regardless, would say that this government whacked municipalities. From Toronto all the way down to the smallest town in this province, this

government has whacked working women and men.

This government continues to insult the lowest wage workers in our society by giving them a crummy 30-cent increase in their minimum wage, which only takes them

up to 1997 levels. By time the year 2007 comes -- and who knows whether they'll even keep that promise, with the record they've established so far; in four years' time, who knows what promises

they'll keep? But we know that minimum wage workers, because of this government and its anti-worker policies, are going to be even further behind.

I say to this government and I say to the author of this resolution, it would have been so nice to see a government backbencher with guts, who'd stand up and

condemn this government for not moving promptly on increasing ODSP benefits, which have remained stuck for over eight years now, leaving persons with disabilities mired in despair and poverty.

Shelley Martel and this caucus have been working hard on the issues of kids with autism.

Interjection: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Kormos: Yes, well, I call her Shelley Martel and she's from Nickel Belt. She has been working hard in this Legislature, along with New

Democrats, on behalf of the rights of kids with autism. This Premier, Dalton McGuinty, promised those kids that they'd be funded for their treatment once they turned six. He has broken that promise

too, and indeed he's got his hired guns in court whacking those families that are forced to use the courts to try to obtain some relief. Don't talk to us about standards; don't lecture us about

dress codes, because we believe that it's the substance that's far more significant than the style or the form.

I say New Democrats, whether there's seven, whether there's 17, whether there's 28 --

Interjection: Or 57.

Mr Kormos: -- whether there's 57, New Democrats are going to work provincially, New Democrats are going to work federally, to fight for those

people who need fighting for, to speak for those people who need speaking for, to stand up for those people who need help standing up for themselves and to stand up for those people who have been

dumped on, trashed on, shoved aside, marginalized, beaten up on, whacked, for far too long by the Tories and now by the Liberals. Don't tell us what to wear while we're doing it, because we're

going to do it one way or another, regardless.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a few remarks to make on this proposal, a proposal that I've given careful thought to, and at this

point I have an open mind on it. I look upon the standing orders of this House as a set of guidelines intended to encourage debate and to promote freedom of expression, a set of guidelines that are

here to contribute to the quality of the decisions that we make. I read them closely and I ask, what is decorum? Where in fact are the boundaries of respect?

The standing orders and the behaviour they're intended to promote are there to outlive the intended or the unintended behaviour of one or a few members, whether

it be in this Parliament or in any future Parliament. I ask myself, and by extension the other members, can a standing order or should a standing order define, and if it defines, by extension

should it enforce, a dress code? This gives rise to a number of interesting implications. Would, for example, further study of this bill lead to a hemline code for women? Would there be, for

example, in this House or in committee, debate on the exact measurement of the hemline and in fact on which measurement the hemline should be done? Should it be done in British or in metric?

It would lead to, for example, a number of not-so-hypothetical cases. Consider, for example, the case of the member for Simcoe North. The members here present

know that when the member for Simcoe North wears a dress shirt and a tie, we expect in his questions, comments and interjections a sharp edge. Yet when we see him in the evening, in a more relaxed

mode, wearing his turtleneck, we find from the member of Simcoe North a far more genteel and collegial attitude. Would, for example, a dress code discourage the member for Simcoe North from

this?

I also ask members to consider the case of the member for Whitby-Ajax, always a well-dressed man. Should the member for Whitby-Ajax, a man whose dress code we

find impeccable, choose to show up in the summertime and wear Bermuda shorts for a late night sitting, would a dress code discourage or prohibit this?

I ask consideration of my friend the member for Oak Ridges, whose choice in wardrobe has always been impeccable. Should the member for Oak Ridges choose to

commemorate some event regarding the 1970s by wearing a polyester leisure suit -- an event that I freely admit would be somewhat less probable than the freezing over of Hades -- would this in fact

be a violation of the dress code?

Dress code regulations, then, give rise to gamesmanship. Would a future or present whip with a list of real or perceived infractions of the dress code --

hemline, necktie and polyester infractions -- sit at his desk, awaiting a challenge just shortly before a vote? Would the offenders be named if found in violation, and if the allegation is found to

be unfounded, would a commensurate member of the party making the allegations be required themselves to be named? Governments have fallen for less.

Such a proposed amendment, with all its implications for this and future governments, should be studied in much greater depth. In the meantime, it is worth

noting that, whether dressed up or dressed down, the proposed amendment should be judged not upon its surface implications, but perhaps upon its contribution to the quantity and the quality of the

debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member from Perth-Middlesex. I'm still working on these.

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Yes, Mr Speaker, and still proud to be from Perth-Middlesex. I rise on this motion and I find it quite

interesting. I want to tell a little story to the people back home and to the people here because, as I've mentioned many times, I'm a business person who graduated in music and performance, who

went into business -- perhaps a renaissance man.

One of the things I had to deal with in our business, where we were required to set the tone in a small business of what would be proper business attire -- in

our culture, one wears a suit and a tie and, over the years, I must admit, particularly in rural Ontario, there's less of an emphasis than there was many, many years ago about wearing a suit and a

tie. But on the other hand, we're not running a $70-billion government either. We're not representing 12 million Ontarians either. So I think the standard would be higher.

I remember a young lady who was a co-op student. She came and worked at our firm. It was around the time when a very famous Canadian, Shania Twain, had just

come on to the scene and Shania was an influence on many young women in this province and throughout --

Interjection.

Mr Wilkinson: Yes, that's the point I was going to make. There was a new standard for young women, where it was acceptable for them to wear

attire where their midriff was exposed. I think we all remember that, and I could tell you that many of the male members of this House remember that. I want people to know that I'm proud of Shania

Twain. But this young lady, who was a co-op student from university, came and worked at our office. One day, she showed up at our business office, our place of business, and she was wearing this

new style. Of course, we had to deal -- we have a small firm; we didn't have a dress code. Being the senior partner of the firm, it was decided that I would have to speak to this young lady about

the question of her attire. Of course, that is a very dangerous situation, Mr Speaker, I'm sure you could imagine. In a politically correct world, how would a middle-aged man like myself bring up

this issue? What I told her was that we were going to introduce a dress code, and do you know what that dress code said? "No belly buttons. In our office, no belly buttons." Do you know why?

Because I told the young lady that if she were able to wear attire which allowed her to bare --

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member to direct your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Wilkinson: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

I remember I said to her -- and here was the reason; it was fairness -- that if she were allowed to bare her midriff in our office, then all of us would be

able to bare our midriffs in our office, and that would not be a pretty sight. A bunch of balding, paunchy, middle-aged men in our office baring their midriffs would show a lack of respect to our

clients, a lack of decorum, so we decided that -- nothing wrong with her navel --

Interjection.

Mr Wilkinson: That's right. But again, we had to show respect to our clients.

The question here is whether or not we're going to show respect to the good people of Ontario, people who tune in. I don't believe in political correctness,

but I was listening to the member for Niagara Centre, and I was shocked because he went on and said that the most important thing is that we should wear Canadian clothing in this House, we should

be wearing union-made clothing. With the greatest respect, if that is the case and that is his passionate belief, I don't believe a motion has ever gone into this Legislature requiring that. I

don't think that's ever happened. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's happened. So if we believe in something and we don't come into this House and actually make a motion, then one can talk

and talk, but nothing changes. I think it's very important in this House in regard to this motion.

I would ask other members, all members from all parties, are we going to set a higher standard for ourselves or are we going to set a lower standard for

ourselves? We have to marry that with the concern of a member that perhaps they need to have a different dress code than the rest of us to be effective. But it's the strength of your oratory that

determines whether or not you are heard in this place and whether or not you can influence this place. In this House, as the Speaker has ruled, every seat is a good seat.

Our concern is that once we lower these standards, eventually this place will become irrelevant, and that would undermine democracy. That's why I'm proud of

the member for Nipissing and her reminder that in the federal House the Speaker does not recognize people who do not have proper attire. I think that would be a fair and reasonable way to deal with

it. The Speaker needs to have a motion that is fair, and I think that if we go ahead with this motion, that will allow the Speaker to have that discretion. Thank you to the members opposite for

debating this today, and I look forward to the vote later on this morning.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I hope I am suitably attired for this debate today. I'm pleased to join in this debate on decorum in the

Legislature. To be honest, I can't believe we're here discussing the dress code here in the Legislature.

I know the member for Niagara Centre does have a sort of trademark style: his nicely pressed union white shirts that he wears in here, and I suppose he has

cowboy boots on, although I haven't noticed those, and I don't think they come on the camera in the Legislature here very often. Personally, I don't think it really affects his work in the

Legislature, and it certainly doesn't offend me. If he were wearing his tank top and sandals, maybe I'd have a different opinion about it, but I don't think there's really a need for a dress code

based on the way all of the people in this Legislature currently dress. I am certainly not in any way offended by the way the member for Niagara Centre dresses.

The member from Nipissing was talking about having conservative standards in here. Well, my father was a Conservative member for many years in here and he was

noted for how he dressed, and it wasn't really that conservatively; in fact, he was known for his Royal Stuart tartans, a fairly bright red plaid. He wasn't exactly a fashion statement, but it was

his trademark. In fact, I wore that red plaid jacket at his funeral just because he was so well known for that jacket.

But I have to say that surely there must be something more serious and appropriate we could be discussing here. Perhaps we should be setting some standards for

question period. I think we should have some standards about answers in this place because, really, I haven't heard too many answers in this session of the Legislature. I think I could count on one

hand the answers that were real answers to questions. I know I've asked three questions of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and he's given me the same answer for all three questions

-- and they were on three different topics. It was "$5.6 billion, blah, blah, blah." That was the answer, as our finance critic was so eloquently saying last week. So I think there could certainly

be some standards for question period.

In terms of tradition, I do think it's unfair where the third party has been placed in the House this session, with the government rump separating us from the

other part of the opposition. I think it's more traditional that the opposition parties all be together.

I really do think that there should be something else of more importance that we could be discussing. I'm sure the member from Nipissing must have some

important issues in the riding of Nipissing: perhaps northern tax incentive zones or the ONTC or how the municipalities are going to deal with nuisance bears or the Lake Nipissing fishery and the

water quality in Lake Nipissing. I understand there are invasive species. I understand there have been some spiny water fleas found in Lake Nipissing. Maybe she could have a private member's bill

to deal with the threat that is to the fishery -- or taxation. I'm sure that the past member from Nipissing, our Premier Mike Harris, likely didn't introduce a bill like this. I haven't checked and

researched, but I highly doubt that this was something he debated.

In terms of the decorum part of her private member's bill, I personally would like to see more decorum in this place, from a fairly practical perspective: just

that it gets a little noisy in here. At times I find it difficult to hear responses and questions. So I personally would rather see it quieter. I think there are a lot of people out in the general

public who are slightly aghast at how much heckling goes on in here from time to time. I would be in favour of the Speaker using his discretion in enforcing the rules a little more tightly and

trying to keep things a little quieter in here. I think that would be a good thing. I think the general public would agree that would be a good thing. I don't think it's necessary to have a private

member's bill to bring that about.

In conclusion, I would just like to wish all my constituents back in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka a very Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy holiday

season. This is the last day of the Legislature, and I will be voting against this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): My fellow parliamentarians, I think there are a number of issues that need to be deliberated upon here in

this idea of a dress code brought forth by the MPP from Nipissing. First of all, as a new member, as a rookie legislator here in this Parliament, as you know, we were treated to a number of

seminars and orientation days in which we were taught about not only the grandness of this building and its deliberations, but we also learned about some of the wood carvings, the chamber protocol,

and how to address the Speaker or how to negotiate ourselves in this chamber. It was with a great sense of pride, solemnity, grace and dignity that I think most of us, certainly the new incoming

Liberal caucus members, conducted ourselves in this place. I think it's in that spirit that the MPP for Nipissing has actually brought forth this resolution.

I would like to say, first of all, as Premier McGuinty has just authorized $700,000 worth of funds for the third party, I'm glad to see that that money is now

being put to good use by increasing or upgrading the dress code level of some of the NDP members. I'd also like to note for a moment that the MPP for Niagara Centre, in a true display of vanity --

and as a physician, I'm licensed to actually diagnose narcissism -- thought that this entire resolution was about him and about his particular dress code. But it's not, sir. There are larger

issues, weightier issues and, frankly, I feel that this is really toying with the full weight of parliamentary democracy, whether it's in this chamber or other chambers provincially, federally or

within the British Commonwealth.

I ask you, what does dress or attire actually signify? It signifies a code of respect, a way of conducting yourself, the fact that you may be considerably very

serious about what you're attempting to accomplish. Yesterday, for example, we authorized the expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund of something on the order of about $25 billion. This is

a serious and weighty place. The decisions we make affect lives, whether it's dealing with some of the issues regarding autism, as the MPP from Nickel Belt has raised, or the minimum wage and so

on. So there are a number of issues that I would take exception with.

The other thing, as well, is just a matter of the actual level of respect of the MPP for Niagara Centre, newly found and newly acquired probably an hour ago. I

bring your attention to the Hansard of December 4, 2003, and I begin to quote as he was impugning the reputation of the Deputy Speaker in the chair. This illustrates to this chamber the level of

actual respect that seems to emanate from the MPP for Niagara Centre:

"That leads me to believe that it must be about the money, because the Deputy Speaker earns an additional salary of $12,616. I don't begrudge that. The Deputy

Chairs of the committee of the whole also earn an extra $9,291." And it goes on: "I've heard the phrase, `It must be about the money; it's just the money; it's about the money and nothing else,'"

and it goes on in that vein.

I say to you that those of us who have come to this chamber representing with honour and dignity and feeling the full weight and sense of parliamentary

democracy -- it's for that reason that we're moving forth this particular resolution.

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): It's unfortunate that our friends from the independent NDP have walked out of this chamber at

this time. But what's in front of us is, in a sense, a serious matter. In my view, it reflects a broader issue. When I decided to run as a candidate -- many of us who are new here, over 30 of us,

took this position very seriously, and our leader took it very seriously, and called upon us to run for office, to run on a platform and to get elected and bring serious debate and discussion and

decision-making to this chamber. That's what I ran on, that platform.

Lately, a few of my friends, including my father, will watch this program on television and they'll say to me, "Who's the guy in the white shirt?" I've had to

explain to my father that it's the member from Niagara Centre. "Why is he walking up and down with a white shirt on?" I've had to explain to my father, "Dad, that's the way he wants to dress." My

father goes, "Doesn't anybody have any rules in the House, in the chamber, about this?"

My father and mother, similar to the member from Niagara Centre, are immigrants. He mentioned in his speech that his parents were immigrants; my parents were

immigrants too. They came here and worked hard. They've retired. They're at home now, and my father watches this once in a while, and he'll ask that question to me again and again and again, "Who's

the guy with the white shirt?" I just find it somewhat disrespectful. We have rules here that have existed for centuries, and I'm learning the rules myself. To come in with a suit and a tie is

something that, I think, makes common sense and should be permitted.

I'm good friends with, or at least I'm friends with or have a talking relationship with the member for Beaches-East York.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): We're pals.

Mr Berardinetti: We're pals. At Christmastime he'll wear his Christmas ties. When we were on Toronto city council he wore some of the most

colourful Christmas ties. Nonetheless, he had a tie on, and usually a suit. It created a sort of jovial atmosphere, yet it blended within a certain decorum or a certain way of presenting ourselves

at council. The same should apply here.

I strongly feel that the motion brought forward by the member from Nipissing makes sense. It's reasonable. It brings a level of equality in here such that even

though we have differences in how we debate, differences in our philosophy, differences in how we approach the problems of the province, at least we come here together dressed in a suit and tie, or

the female equivalent of a suit and tie. As a lawyer, I know that if I went before a judge -- I support a dress code and I think it's important that this resolution carry today.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm really pleased to join the debate here this morning. We're spending one hour of debate of

private members' time on a dress code. Every member has the opportunity to use their time, but another time may not come around for this member, who knows, until the next session. I can say there

are more important issues to deal with, but I'll deal with the motion as it stands.

Routine proceedings is what this applies to, which is members' statements, reports by committees, introduction of bills, motions, statements by the ministries

and responses, deferred votes, oral questions and petitions. So the resolution is to apply to the routine proceedings. It doesn't apply to debate in the House. It doesn't apply to night sittings in

the House. It doesn't apply to committees of the assembly. So it's a very restricted motion.

There's also an issue here, and the Speaker may have to decide this on an

interpretation issue, but it says, "Male members must wear a jacket, shirt and tie."

Now I don't whether a tie means a tie that I have or whether that applies to a bow tie. I'd hate to see the member for Essex be not properly attired, because, with his bow ties, he's one of the

better-dressed members in this House. We'll have to see.

Interjections.

Mr Tascona: They're saying a tie is a tie, so there we go. You're in, Mr Speaker.

We look at this in terms of what we're debating here. They want more respect with respect to decorum and business attire, but there's no mechanism of how we do

this. There's no direction in this motion as to what we're trying to accomplish. They're just saying that the Legislature should address this issue.

In the standing orders, which deal with the conduct of business in this House, standing order number 1 says that the Legislative Assembly and the committees of

the Assembly conduct their business according to the standing orders. As you know, there is nothing in the standing orders with respect to decorum and how you dress in this Legislature, because

what they deal with is substance in terms of how we deal with the business, and that's set out in standing order 1(b):

"The purpose of these standing orders is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of members,

"to submit motions, resolutions and bills for the consideration of the assembly and its committees, and to have them determined by democratic vote

"to debate, speak to, and vote on motions, resolutions and bills

"to hold the government accountable for its policies; and

"collectively, to decide matters submitted to the assembly or a committee."

In any contingencies, you go to the conventions, which are matters dealing with democratic rights. The focus of our standing orders is to deal with democratic

rights and conduct in the House.

I'm debating here right now and people are speaking while I'm trying to debate. This is a place for debate; it's not a place for conversations in the House. I

say that what we're trying to focus on here is conduct in the House. That's what's important in terms of substance, and the Speaker is in charge of that. It's up to the Speaker in terms of how the

House is going to conduct itself. That's not an easy job, because when you're dealing with -- in essence, what's in the standing orders is conduct to enforce and respect your democratic rights.

That's what's important. When you listen to question period, you can't hear a speaker or you can't hear the questions because members are yelling and whatever. It would also apply to trying to

enhance the debate when you are the speaker. There are people trying to speak, and then other people are having a conversation. They should have the conversation outside, in terms of respect for

the House.

There are other things that I think the member from Muskoka-Parry Sound was talking about in terms of conduct in the House and the respect you have in the

House. There are other matters in terms of ministers not responding to your question, and you can't get back at them because they haven't responded to the question, because we have limited time

with respect to question period.

You also have ministers' statements. I responded to a minister's statement the other day with respect to human rights. I got the minister's statement at the

same time that the minister was making the statement. Is that respect for the other members in the House, to encourage debate? I don't think it is. The fact of the matter is, the standing orders

don't provide for that, but I think common courtesy and respect for the democratic process here would be that if ministers are going to do a statement and they know who the critic is, they should

provide that statement. It's all printed up, they're reading it, and they should provide that statement before they make it. Then the other members from the recognized parties can get up and

comment on that statement.

The same thing applies to government bills. There is no requirement in the standing orders to give advance notice of a government bill. "On the introduction of

a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the critics of the recognized opposition parties." It doesn't mention when. What is happening is that they are being

delivered at the same time the bill is happening. How is that fair in terms of getting intelligent debate in a democratic process?

Those are things which I think are more important than speaking about how someone decides to dress as they come in here. What's important is the substance of

the debate. This is supposed to be a debating society in here with respect to legislation. It doesn't help when ministers don't provide their statements, when the government doesn't provide their

bills, and then we're expected to get up and comment on something we've never seen. That's just not something that is going to enhance debate in this House. It's not going to advance democracy as

set out in the standing orders.

There are important issues and I think the member from Niagara Centre pointed that out, and the member from Muskoka-Parry Sound did also. There are important

issues that have to be addressed.

I guess every member can use their one hour of time with respect to a private member's bill, but it doesn't come up too often. I've been here about eight and a

half years and I've been lucky to get maybe four to five private member's bills in the time I've been here. It's very valuable and scarce time. I would like to see the government live up to their

commitment to provide private members with more time. I was on the Legislative Assembly committee and we recommended that. There should be more time for private members to do issues that concern

them, so they can get that out there. That has not been provided at this point in the Legislature.

There are important issues that should be addressed. There have been promises that have been broken with respect to hydro. There is no more funding coming out

for health care or education, because the government says they've got a deficit. They don't know how to handle it. The main thing is they don't know how to handle government. The bottom line is,

they're not giving health care more funding and they're not giving education more funding.

There are serious issues out there in my own riding with respect to the hospital that serves the entire area of Simcoe county. We need another hospital in my

riding. That's what's important in terms of health care for my constituents. Across the province our population is growing older. We need more long-term care facilities and more beds for the aged.

That's something that should be debated and discussed in this Legislature. It's a pressing problem.

We have a situation with respect to autism that the member from Nickel Belt has worked on very hard. It's a very important issue, with respect to funding IBI

treatment for children who are older than six years of age. I have a constituent in my riding who has three children of very young ages who are autistic. The funding that's needed for autism is an

issue that should be debated in this Legislature, rather than just being put aside to question period and trying to see if the government is going to live up its commitment with respect to autism

funding. They made the commitment that they would provide more funding for autistic children to give them the treatment they need. That promise hasn't been kept.

The gas tax, which was mentioned earlier by the member from Niagara Centre, and the two-cent transfer down, is an important issue for everybody here, whether

you live in Windsor, whether you live in Barrie or whether you live in Oakville -- whoever relies on public transit. The municipalities are cash strapped. They need more money for public transit.

That was the method that was going to provide the public transit system we need. That is now another broken promise, with respect to the funding the municipalities need. The provincial government

is not going to act on its promise about the gas tax.

We have a litany of broken promises -- important issues that should be debated in this Legislature -- but what we're focusing on here right now is proper dress

attire. That is something that I think is really in the discretion of the Speaker. The Speaker knows how to handle the House in terms of what's important. What's more important is what the standing

orders stand for and what we abide by; that is, they're interested in conduct and procedures, they're interested in the debate, they're interested in making sure the government is accountable. They

make sure we have an efficient operation of government in terms of the conduct here, so that when people ask questions, the minister responds and people can hear what the minister is saying, and

that when we get into debate, we don't get into yelling and people can speak and make sure they're heard with respect to what they want to talk about. This is what it's about; it's a debating

society.

There are things we're going to need to do with respect to the standing orders, and I know the government has mentioned that. They're going to do things to

give private members more power, which will require changes in the standing orders. That's what's important here, not how someone decides to dress. I think it's their conduct -- how they conduct

themselves in this Legislature -- that is the substance that's important here. For us to focus on saying, "This is what you're going to wear if you're a female; this is what you're going to wear if

you're a male," is all well and fine. But I leave it to the discretion and confidence I have in the members of this assembly, to their common sense, and to the discretion the Speaker has to deal

with how this House is going to conduct itself in a very important manner. That's what's important. Respect in the Legislature between members is what's important. I don't believe respect is

dictated by what you wear. There are limits, of course, but I haven't seen that in this Legislature.

When we talk about what's important in terms of legislation and what we're trying to accomplish in this House, I don't want to leave the viewing audience here

thinking, "What are they doing here? Why is the MPP for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford up there talking about how someone dresses? We didn't send him down there to talk about how someone dresses. Doesn't

he have something better to do?" Well, just to be clear, it's the member from North Bay's private member's resolution that we're debating here in private members' business today. It's not what we

would have put forth, I don't think. What I would put forth when I get to my private member's resolution or bill would be the pressing issues, in terms of what I think is important for my riding

and what I think is important that we should deal with in this Legislature.

I think it's certainly within the discretion of the Speaker. Certainly the House leaders can deal with the standing orders, if they feel they should be

changed. But there's nothing in this resolution that will do anything different or give us direction on where to go.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nipissing has two minutes to reply.

Ms Smith: I'd like to thank my colleagues from Etobicoke North, Perth-Middlesex and Scarborough Southwest for their comments on my resolution

this morning. I'd also like to thank my colleague in the official opposition, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who spoke about his father. Unfortunately he was not here when I spoke about his

father, but I would like to remind him that I was a page here when I was 12. I knew your father and appreciated his plaid blazers.

I'd also like to thank the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. I note that he commented about chatter in the House, how this is a place for debate and that we

should be shown respect. I would ask that he share that thought with his seatmate, the member for Durham, who notoriously speaks through all of our comments and statements on a regular basis.

I also found it interesting to note that the members of the official opposition are against a dress code in this House. However, they were in support of

uniforms in schools. It's an interesting double standard that they propose.

I'd like to respond as well to my colleague from Niagara Centre. I do agree that there are a number of important issues we could be discussing. I find it

interesting, however, that you noted that the flood of publicity this has caused for you has led you to be out of the House and not able to debate the important issues we've been debating here for

the last week as you've been out doing your media. There have been important issues, and we have been here debating them. But we're glad you're here today.

I would like the members here to take away from this debate a couple of important points. Tradition is important. This Legislature is important. We should

maintain a level of respect, a level of civility, a level of decorum. I have respect for this Legislature and its traditions, and I know that most members in this House do as well. I would just

like to remind the member for Niagara Centre of his quote from November 24, when he said in this Legislature, "Convention is important in this institution; not to say there isn't evolution, of

course not, but convention and tradition are important."

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario condemns the previous government for its neglect

and mismanagement of the Family Responsibility Office and directs the current government of Ontario to clean up the mess and hold deadbeats to their family responsibilities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Craitor has moved private member's notice of motion number 4. The member has 10 minutes for his

presentation.

Mr Craitor: I'm pleased to see my motion being debated in the Legislature today. For too long our children have suffered because previous

governments have neglected the responsibilities laid upon them. The very title of the office we're seeking to change, the Family Responsibility Office, is our first clue that families in Ontario

depend on us to help deal with what is already a very difficult situation. In this motion, I call on the government to clean up the mess in the Family Responsibility Office. I have committed to the

people in my riding of Niagara Falls, the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the areas of Thorold South and Port Robinson that we will deal with the mess we have inherited and fix the problems that

plague this vital agency.

I'm sure all members here have heard the problems first-hand from constituents, eager for someone to help them deal with this mass of disorganization. My

office has been inundated on a daily basis with people frustrated by the problems they are encountering at the Family Responsibility Office. I'd like to outline some of the problems my community

office in Niagara Falls has dealt with in the short time since I was elected as an MPP two and a half months ago.

People wanting to speak to representatives at the Family Responsibility Office can expect at least an hour's wait on hold before their call is answered. One

woman we worked with had to take an entire day off work just to try to get through to a representative at the Family Responsibility Office. This is unbelievable, and it's outrageous.

The Provincial Auditor found that more than 13,000 calls placed to the Family Responsibility Office have received a busy signal each day and go unanswered.

Eighty-nine per cent of all calls made to the Family Responsibility Office are blocked by a busy signal -- unbelievable. I guess it's only the lucky ones who wait for hours on hold who might get

through.

Each time a call is made to the Family Responsibility Office, a different person looks on the computer and talks to the individual, so the parent who is

waiting to receive much-needed funds from their former spouse never speaks to the same representative each time they call in. What does this say about the priority of our children and families in

Ontario? Often letters and faxes sent to the Family Responsibility Office are either never answered or only acknowledged when they become obsolete.

Another person who contacted my office expressed how frustrating it is to provide the Family Responsibility Office with information about where her former

spouse is working or where he has moved to, only to have that information ignored, and an opportunity to collect money owed passes by this family that desperately needs this financial support. This

woman was owed more than $300,000 in arrears from her former spouse. The Family Responsibility Office is unable to pick up the fax and get the information processed in a timely fashion. This is

absolutely outrageous.

It is apparent to anyone who looks at this situation that the Financial Responsibility Office is understaffed and poorly managed. Therefore, it is this

government's responsibility to fix the problems before more families fail to receive the support they need and we have more families and children living in poverty. Too many of our children are

being neglected by parents who brought them into this world.

The problems with the Family Responsibility Office are not new. The Provincial Auditor found that caseloads have doubled, from 630 per worker in 1994 to an

appalling 1,129 cases per worker in 2003. While the number of incoming calls increased significantly during that period, the number of workers have actually decreased by 20%. I'm quoting facts

taken directly from the auditor's report in 2003. I was astounded to read some of the things the auditor found as he conducted his audit of the Family Responsibility Office. I know that my

community must not be alone in the number of complaints and requests for assistance that we are given on a daily basis.

The Provincial Auditor found that there is $1.3 million of support money in arrears. Let me repeat: $1.3 million in arrears. This is outrageous, and is our

first indication that the enormous underlying issues have contributed to the poverty of families that have gone without.

I have pledged to my community of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Thorold South and Port Robinson that I would bring these concerns to Queen's Park and

work on their behalf. I'm proud to raise this important issue in the House. I'm hoping that by doing so, I'll be helping and we'll be helping all the families that are so desperately in need.

Our government must start to get tough on parents that shirk their moral, financial and legal obligations to support their children. By refusing to provide

adequate support, parents are abusing their children. As a government, we must take more of an effort to hold these deadbeat parents accountable. When our children suffer, our society as a whole

suffers. It must become a priority for all members of this House to take a stand on supporting this motion.

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): The member from Niagara Falls raises a fundamental question. He asks whether we believe there should be a

Family Responsibility Office or not. In the absence of the FRO, is their any risk or sanction for defaulting on one's family responsibilities? With some 180,000 family responsibility cases under

administration by the FRO, serial defaulters can hide in a forest of anonymity, of sheer numbers. Most recipients of family responsibility payments use these payments to get by, not to buy

themselves life's finer things.

FRO statistics show that only one third of all payers are in full compliance. I say to single mothers who struggle in the snow with bags of groceries that if

Ontario says it will help you collect the funds due you, legally negotiated and mandated, then Ontario should be serious about it.

We either have a Family Responsibility Office or we don't. And if we have a Family Responsibility Office, then we either believe in it or we don't. And if we

have a Family Responsibility Office and we believe in it, then we either make it work or we don't. If we don't make the Family Responsibility Office work, then what is there to differentiate this

government from its predecessor?

Those who receive benefits from the operation of the Family Responsibility Office number among the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.

The member from Niagara Falls condemns the previous government in his motion. The track record of the FRO condemns the previous government in its sorry litany

of statistics:

-- While the number of caseworkers has been cut by 20%, the cases under management are up by 50%.

-- Caseworkers' loads have doubled, from an average of 600 per caseworker to more than 1100, while caseloads in Quebec are 400 per caseworker and caseloads in

Alberta -- Tory-governed Alberta -- are 335 per caseworker. This is not a question of faulty political ideology; it is more a question of systemic managerial incompetence by the former

government.

-- Outside Toronto, nearly 90% of telephone calls made are blocked -- never answered; a busy signal. People whose lives teeter on the edge of desperation must

reach a point of unmanageable frustration when their cries for help cannot or will not be answered.

-- One third of FRO cases, that is, 60,000 cases, are in non-compliance. There is no significant downside for defaulting on FRO commitments.

Fortunately, the 2003 annual report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario offers a few recommendations, recommendations that this government

should consider seriously and act upon:

"In order for all necessary case documentation to be available on a timely basis for administering cases and for advancing telephone inquiries, the Office

should ensure that:

"All necessary case documentation is scanned," as it is not now;

"Scanned documents are of an acceptable quality," which they are not now; "and

"System downtime is minimized," which it is not now.

"To ensure the office fulfill its responsibilities to collect and forward support payments to families, it should ensure that it receives all the required

information for registering and enforcing support obligations on a timely basis and properly initiate follow-up action when it does not." It does not now.

"To help ensure that effective and timely enforcement actions are taken, the office should review its case management practices and consider assigning

responsibility for each case to an individual caseworker." We have heard from the member for Niagara Falls that each time someone calls in and asks, "What is the progress of my case?" there is no

one that can say, "I know your case. I'm on top of it. I've done something." It's just a file in a computer. Each time you get a different person; each time you have to reinvent the wheel. There is

nothing like having an assigned caseworker. We use assigned caseworkers in other aspects of social services. Why cannot the Family Responsibility Office use an assigned caseworker?

The Provincial Auditor says, "To help improve the administration of family support cases in a timely and effective manner, the office should establish criteria

and standards for manageable caseloads and staff accordingly to ensure that the standards are met." The FRO has been the victim of benign neglect and perhaps not-so-benign neglect. Maybe it would

help to simply put some more people at it. Staff has been cut by 20%. We should restore some of those staff.

"To help ensure that client inquiries and enforcement actions are dealt with appropriately, the office should ensure that all caseworkers conduct the necessary

follow-up work on a timely basis" -- again a question of appropriate staffing, a question of dedication of appropriate resources.

Thank you, Speaker. I'll allow some other members time to speak on this resolution.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm just going to speak very briefly to leave some time for my colleague the member for Niagara Centre.

I'd also say that the member for Nickel Belt is unable to take

part in this debate but would like to. As you will recall, it was the member for Niagara Centre and the member for Nickel Belt who,

during the early years of the Tory government, in 1995, when the caseloads at the FRO and everything was falling apart, broke into the new offices to discover that the computers were all sitting in

hallways and nothing was being done. They played a huge role in at least getting public attention paid to the terrible situation of that office at the time.

I commend Mr Craitor for bringing this forward today. I just want to point out that posting pictures of the deadbeat dads, although it is a good idea, is not

going to resolve the problem. I believe, as I listened to his comments, that he's aware of that. What is needed here is fundamental: To fix the systemic problems within the FRO, it needs resources,

plain and simple. I think he's acknowledged that as well. You can fiddle around with how casework is actually done, but if you don't have the front-line workers there to answer those phones -- and

I agree with him that it should go back to the way it used to be, where caseworkers are assigned specifically to the same cases.

Under the previous Tory government, that has happened across the board in social services, in welfare and other areas. It's creating huge problems to not have

a consistent worker who knows your situation, who knows your case. In fact, it's not cost-effective to do it that way, because each time somebody does manage to get through, they're dealing with a

whole new person who has to reinvent the wheel in some ways.

I want to point out in my couple of minutes here that after the speech by the finance minister yesterday talking about a deficit, which we believe -- the

evidence is there -- the government knew about anyway and made these promises, I'm really, really concerned that the extra resources are needed now, not after consultation -- we know what's needed.

As Mr Craitor pointed out, we need the resources put into the FRO right now.

So I am going to support this resolution today and will pledge to work with Mr Craitor -- he can work on the inside of government; I can work on the outside

with my colleagues -- to make sure that the needed resources, enough resources, are put back into that office now, tomorrow, to stop this pathetic, unbelievable actually, situation for mothers and

their kids.

We have to remember when we are speaking about this to not just think about numbers and statistics. We are talking about children, some of whom are going

hungry because they are not getting the money they deserve. So let's keep the faces of those kids in mind as we try to force, pressure the government into putting those resources that are badly

needed back in the FRO.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I am really pleased to stand here today and speak on the motion brought forward by the member for

Niagara Falls. He has touched on a systemic problem that many of our offices, as in our constituencies, are inundated with. I would say that 60% of the complaints that come into my office are about

the dysfunction of the FRO offices. In April 2003 -- over the last four years, I have certainly brought to the attention of the minister and the Ombudsman a number of the issues relating to this

office. It is a dysfunction.

What I asked my constituency office to do is to actually record what the complaints are, coming forward from people who are using this office. Let's remember

that government offices such as the FRO are supposed to be there to serve the public. These are some of the problems that have come to my constituency office that we have encountered with the FRO

service.

Oftentimes, the constituents can't get through to speak to a client service representative on the toll-free number. They just can't get through to speak to any

individual. Updating by the finance department has, on many occasions, been very slow. Lifting of federal garnishments is often an oversight. These are situations we've had to deal with, and these

are very significant impacts on people's lives.

There have also been many times where new court orders or amended court orders are not actioned for several months. In other words, people go through all the

pain of getting the court orders changed, yet months go by before those are actually implemented. Again, it creates financial hardships for the recipients.

There are also many times where we found a lot of lack of attention to detail. It's a systemic problem, and it may be created because we don't have the

technology in place that we require; possibly we have cut the people who are working in FRO offices so much that they're unable to handle the workload. As we've seen from the Provincial Auditor's

report, the caseload is something like 1,400 per individual working at the FRO office. That's way, way too big a caseload for any individual to be able to handle.

I'm mentioning these specific issues because even the Ombudsman spoke to this; I believe it was in his 2002-03 report. What he said in his report of that time

was that the Family Responsibility Office consistently generated the second-highest number of complaints to his office. This is an Ombudsman trying to restore a level of fairness in how a service

is delivered.

He goes on to say, "The FRO performs a uniquely significant service for individuals and families who rely on its enforcement of support orders for their

income." I have certainly seen come through my office a number of cases whereby the families in question on the receiving end of support had to go on welfare because it had been months and months

and they had not received any kind of support they were entitled to. So there's something wrong with the system.

The member from Niagara Falls has certainly touched a nerve, touched on an area that we, as government, have to take a look at and really try to address so we

have an office that will be functional, will be effective and will do its job in facilitating these areas, these issues much better than it is now.

One of the interesting parts is that it's all about being able to manage this service in a way that's more effective. I've certainly had constituents complain

that they've submitted information to the FRO office -- I mean, these are just examples of why it doesn't work at times -- and there's no confirmation of the information having been received or

actioned. Many times, I know we have had to submit the same information over and over again, because it seems to get lost in a big, black hole.

I want to commend the newly elected member from Niagara Falls. We have to deal with this mess. It's not just a fiscal mess. I believe it's a function of

government to make sure that its services are provided effectively and appropriately, because after all, government is here to serve the public.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to the resolution. I think the member for

Sarnia-Lambton concluded in the proper way that this is what government is for. I just want to remind the member opposite for Niagara Falls that you are the government. You're not in the blame game

any more; you're in the game of fixing problems that you think exist. The fact that this is not a government bill, that there has been no government action on this, speaks volumes.

Of course we share the principle that deadbeat parents should be held accountable. Who doesn't share that principle? That has been a tremendous problem not

only for the previous government in trying to deal with it but back to the 1980s. I'll take the member back for a little history lesson if he doesn't know how this originated. Prior to 1987, it

used to be that child support payments and their enforcement was through the court system exclusively. It was the courts that got the judgment and it was the courts that also enforced that

judgment. When the Liberals were elected in 1985, then Attorney General Ian Scott in his wisdom felt that the court system was good for getting judgments but not so good in terms of enforcing those

judgments. It was Ian Scott who took it upon himself, with the Liberal government of the day, to bring in government involvement to make sure there would be a better enforcement mechanism.

Unfortunately, because the problem, as the member stated, is the accountability of deadbeat parents, it's easy to get that judgment but not so easy to enforce

that judgment. That's where the problem lies and where the work needs to be done. Let's be honest: Maybe we'll never solve this problem in terms of people trying to evade payment. Yes, there is a

human cost to children and the people involved. That is a human cost on all of us that we have to deal with, because we're in a just society. We have to own up and face that we have to help the

people. People who have a deadbeat parent situation may have to go on welfare, look for other sources to support their family.

So the blame game from the member for Niagara Falls isn't helpful here. What's helpful here is that the government, the minister responsible, brings in

legislation or changes regulations now to deal with an issue that he feels so strongly about. Accountability is what's important.

Ian Scott, the Attorney General of those days, brought about a mechanism for enforcement through the government that was not as successful as it could be. It

was fine-tuned somewhat by the NDP government, but that didn't solve the problem, because there were too many people who were not paying and there was a lot of pain because people were not

paying.

It was the PC government that established the Family Responsibility Office and introduced tough new enforcement methods for non-payments such as suspending

drivers' licences, using private bill collectors and reporting defaults to credit bureaus, to name a few methods of enforcement. The result was a 50% increase in the amount of money collected since

1994-95. FRO collected a record $555 million in court-ordered support payments during the 2001-02 period, a 50% increase since 1994-95, when we collected $368 million in court-ordered support

payments. We're moving in the right direction in terms of getting the judgments enforced. Ninety-five percent of court-ordered support payments received are processed within 24 to 48 hours, as

compared to up to 10 days before our government reformed the system.

We increased the number of court-ordered support payments deposited directly into the recipients' bank accounts. This has improved efficiency. That's what it's

all about: getting the money to where it's supposed to go. I tell the member, it starts from the court system when there is a judgment. From that judgment, it has to be enforced.

Other improvements made by the Family Responsibility Office since 1998 included: expanding the availability of automated client information telephone lines to

24 hours, 7 days a week -- that is an improvement; expanding the use of electronic payment methods; increasing the speed and accuracy of processing payments; and allowing employers to make payments

on behalf of payers through the Internet -- methods to improve the way payments are made.

The NDP objected to any user fees being associated with FRO. To deal with that, there was only one fee that was paid by the support recipient, which is $25 for

their payment record. This is only charged if they need more than the one free copy that they receive. If the participants keep track of their payments and receipts or use the automated telephone

line, they will never need this document. In cases of financial hardship, they may ask the director of the Family Responsibility Office to waive the fee, so the fee was not ever an issue with

respect to this particular document, which is the payment record.

I believe the government enforcement mechanism, whatever you want to call it, whether it's the Family Responsibility Office or another name, has improved. It's

more effective. It's a more accountable system that focuses on getting money into the hands of women and children. That is the major focus; that's what it's all about. Sure, there are mechanisms

for the debtor not wanting to pay and evading service. That's the challenge.

These changes were necessary because there were backlogs -- if you can believe it, member, because you weren't here -- and inefficiencies in the Liberal and

the NDP governments. That's why this is an ongoing problem. The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act is simplifying and streamlining the collections system, making it easier for children to get

the money they are entitled to, regardless of where the parents live. I've been in this Legislature for over eight years. I think that everybody who has been here has had issues with respect to the

Family Responsibility Office, but one of the major issues is deadbeat parents who leave the province, and also deadbeat parents who can find ways -- even though they're in business and have a brand

new truck, somehow they can evade, because they're in private business or in their own business, making any payments. Even when you can suspend their drivers' licence, you can do things with their

credit bureau, they're still not paying. It's the human will not to protect your children which is the problem here. I don't understand it; I don't know how anyone could understand it but you have

a court system that works to make sure you get the judgment. What the government is trying to do is to make sure that that judgment is enforced. Some people don't want it to be enforced, and

they'll find all kinds of different ways to do it, so don't blame the people who are trying to make sure that they get the money. Take a little focus on the people who aren't paying it. That's what

the exercise has been about in terms of trying to get these people to pay.

Between September 1997 and March 2002, the PC government suspended almost 16,000 drivers' licences, which led to the recovery of $190 million in outstanding

court-ordered support payments. Obviously, that was a mechanism that worked. It's kind of obvious, but it's a mechanism that worked. It's not the mechanism that solved all the problems. One would

think that that would be enough, but obviously it wasn't.

Overall, there have been aggressive enforcement measures introduced during the prior eight years that have been more successful in getting monies to families

and children than were used under the former governments. If this government's going to come up with new and better enforcement mechanisms to make sure the money goes to where it belongs, that's

what this is all about. It's not going to happen through your resolution, because that's what it is -- a resolution.

When you look at the two parts of the problem, or how the system works, there isn't a problem with respect to getting the judgment, and there's not a problem,

it would appear to me, when we say that 95% of court-ordered support payments received are processed within 24 to 48 hours, as compared to up to 10 days before the FRO system came into place. So

let's look at the facts here.

The problem is what other mechanisms you can use. We're using the interjurisdictional court support order payment system. We're using suspending drivers'

licences. We're using different methods, as I indicated, to try to get payment made.

What's important here is, you look at what your government promised to do. Don't play the blame game here. You said during the campaign, under your Growing

Strong Communities -- and I'm joined here now by the member from Durham -- "We will crack down on deadbeat parents and make them pay up. Withholding family support payments is a serious crime. It

makes the lives of single parents even tougher, and it hurts our kids. We will not watch children suffer while deadbeat parents shirk their responsibilities." Well, who would? That's all

motherhood.

"Deadbeat parents in Ontario owe more than $1 billion to their partners and children. We will use innovative new techniques such as Internet tracking to find

deadbeats and recover the money they owe. We will pursue aggressive enforcement measures such as suspending drivers' licences for anyone missing two or more support payments." We're already doing

that.

Yes, there is an issue in terms of finding the deadbeat parent. That's the main issue -- to find them. The bigger issue is to find their money, whether it's in

a bank account or wherever else they put it. I know a personal situation of a mother of three children. The father has left the country; he's gone somewhere else. Believe me, the work that she's

had to do, and without lawyers, to try to get the money to support their children -- that's the problem in terms of that deadbeat parent: trying to find them and get that money.

I am all ears to find out what you're going to do with, as you say in your campaign, "innovative, new techniques such as Internet tracking to find deadbeats

and recover the money they owe." Well, you're going to have to do a little bit more than that. I'd like to see what the government's going to do with respect to bills. I think what they could do --

they can do it immediately, they can do it through regulation, they can do it through order in council to bring in other mechanisms. They don't have to wait. They could have done it a month and a

half ago -- they've been here that long -- in terms of implementing their promises. That's what's important, because it's the regulations in that statute for the Family Responsibility Office that

are going to be the teeth of what you're going to accomplish.

To the member from Niagara Falls, of course one wants accountability in the system. You got elected on promises that you're going to do something about it.

It's your job as a backbencher not to come here and say, "Oh, the previous government didn't do a good job; we're going to do better." Why don't you go to your government minister and say to them,

"What are you going to do? We don't need a bill. We want the regulations changed now."

If we're all going to vote on this here today, one would expect that the minister is going to come up with something immediately because the Legislature has

spoken. We all know that the ministers have their own discretion in terms of how to deal with a resolution. They can deal with that resolution and not respond to that resolution for up to six

months.

The member from Durham, in his wisdom, is here. I want to mention that the member on the previous bill mentioned decorum, that we have to be very careful about

how we conduct ourselves in this House, but the member from Durham is very nicely dressed today, and I think he is looking very good. So I'm going to conclude; because he's so properly dressed, how

can I continue?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I heard that member's final comments. John is not the one. Mr O'Toole is certainly not the one who needs

advice about decorum. As the one person in this assembly who, digitally or otherwise, lets himself be known, I've always known Mr O'Toole to be a person of great decorum indeed. I regard him as

number one.

The resolution warrants support. However, take a look at what's happening here. I want to tell the Liberal members, you won the election. You see, this is the

"blame the previous government" syndrome. What you're doing is not rocket science. Of course, you worded the resolution in such a way that maybe Tories will feel uncomfortable voting for it,

because it says "condemn the previous government."

Look, this isn't news. Back in 1996, the member from Nickel Belt, Shelley Martel, concocted a scheme to break into the Family Responsibility Office and

persuaded me to go with her, against my better judgment. Well, I didn't want to; she made me. At 7 in the morning, we go in there with a cameraperson, and we find the place in total disarray. We

find the place inoperative. What happened, as you know full well, is that the government of the day, one Attorney General called one Mr Charles Harnick, my former friend, had shut down 10 regional

offices and tried to consolidate them in North York, up at the MTO building.

Shelley and I had been hearing stories week after week, and had been raising them in the House, about the fact that this office was inoperative, literally not

hooked up. So we go there. You didn't have to break into the place. It wasn't much of a B and E, because you walked in. There was no security; the doors were unlocked. The hallways -- first floor,

second floor, third floor, fifth floor etc, and the videotape confirmed this -- were strewn with files in unsecured cardboard boxes that anybody could access. We indeed did.

Then when we got into the rooms, which were supposedly operative, there were all sorts of uncrated computers and/or computers uncabled, unconnected, phones

that weren't hooked up, there was no dial tone -- the place was in a thorough shambles, no two ways about it. The sad thing was that Shelley and I, and other New Democrats as well, had been

confronting the Attorney General of the day, one Mr Harnick, about this, who had been insisting that it was up and running, that it was operative, that we were, oh, making a mountain out of a

molehill etc. The videotape spoke for itself, and a darn good thing we did videotape it, because my bacon was in the fire there for a few minutes. The videotape proved to be valuable in more ways

than I had anticipated.

Since 1996, we've had auditor's report after auditor's report, year after year, confirming that the FRO -- FSP, as it was originally called -- simply wasn't up

to snuff. I remember the lacklustre efforts to somehow try to distract attention away from the de-funding of it, the de-staffing of it, by saying, "We're going to implement new enforcement

methods." Look, it's not about the enforcement mechanisms; it's about ensuring there's enough staff there with the tools to do the job that they've got to do to handle the court orders that are

being filed and make sure they're properly processed. Deadbeat parents -- let's be careful; deadbeat parents are deadbeat parents and, as the former speakers indicated, they're adept at evading

responsibility.

The problem is, it isn't the deadbeats per se who are causing the real problems. They're problematic, of course, inherently, but it's the fact that the office

still doesn't have adequate computer systems, still doesn't have adequate levels of staffing to deal with the load of support orders that they have to administer -- end of story. It's not about

finding more enforcement mechanisms; it's about getting staff and resources into that office, and it's about reconsidering the prospect of restoring regional offices. Please.

So to the author of this resolution, in your response -- yes, once again, à la Jerry McGuire, it's about the resources that this government is going to

give the FRO to do that job. They've been grossly underfunded. They were crushed and broken by the previous government. I acknowledge that. I think that's clear, and increasingly clear every year

when the auditor releases yet another damning report about the status of the FRO.

Shelley Martel and I determined, back in 1996, that you've got to get the place up and running. The auditor says, once again, that they still haven't got

current computer resources. It takes money. Now we've got a government that is saying it's not going to keep any of its election promises, that it's looking to cut another $4 billion from services

being provided to the public. More cuts to the FRO? What are you going to cut next? You certainly haven't indicated -- and I look forward to the author of this resolution telling us -- where this

government is going to find the necessary funds to get the FRO back up and running, where it's going to find the necessary funds to, if need be -- and I believe it is necessary -- restore some of

the regional offices.

Show us the money, Mr Craitor. It's not enough to condemn the previous government. The electors did that. It's your turn now. Show us the money.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I rise today in support of the motion of my colleague the member for Niagara Falls. Experience has taught me

over the years that quite often before you can start to fix something, you need to understand the issue and admit that a problem even exists.

In this case, the conduct and the efficiency of the Family Responsibility Office was brought to my attention very shortly after being elected. Being newly

elected, I took over the office of my predecessor, the former Speaker of the House, Oakville MPP Mr Carr. Even though the business of government may have ground to a halt for the election period,

the problems people experienced on a daily basis kept going and the phone continued to ring. Having no staff hired at the time, I began to answer the phone myself and set about the task of solving

some of the problems.

Quite early, I began to hear the term "FRO" and quickly learned that it stood for the Family Responsibility Office. It also soon became apparent that the name

of this office was rarely or never used in a positive sense. Ordinary people talked of being left on hold for long periods of time, calls not being returned, files being lost or simply mixed up.

Sometimes people would hang up in frustration. Cheques would go uncollected. Families or children would simply go short on food or rent or clothes until somehow the Family Responsibility Office got

around to sorting out their personal information.

What people claimed they met when attempting to deal with the Family Responsibility Office was a system in which it appeared that provincial employees were

sincere but hopelessly overworked. Employee morale appeared to be at an all-time low. The staffing of this office under the previous Tory government was simply inadequate to the task at hand.

Clients knew it, staff knew it, members of the Tory government at the time knew it, and yet nothing appeared to be done to correct the situation.

Once again, the previous government appeared to have left the most vulnerable people of our society to fend for themselves. While appointed executives were

being paid outrageous sums of money to drive OPG further and further into the ground and the province further and further into debt, the most vulnerable people, the people who could have used our

resources the most, were denied access. It seems the previous government simply ignored and mismanaged an office that was designed to help people when they needed it most. Single moms and dads,

children of separated families, victims of deadbeat moms and dads were left to fend for themselves with a system that had no hope of coping with the problems and tragedy these people faced on a

daily basis. Provincial employees have informed me that the Family Responsibility Office has now become the quagmire that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board used to be.

It was clear from my first experience that something was amiss and needed to be fixed. I finally tracked down the number of the MPP liaison for the Family

Responsibility Office. This call was made in about mid-October. I was greeted by a recorded message that said something to the effect -- and remember, this is in mid-October -- "This is" -- blank

-- "the MPP liaison for the Family Responsibility Office. It's Thursday, August 14. I'll be out of the office for a few days." This is in mid-October that I'm making this phone call. Can you

imagine, if you're a client or a mother or father trying to feed or clothe your children and you get greeted with a phone call like that? That is simply inexcusable.

Although I was newly elected, I certainly knew something was seriously wrong and needed to be fixed. That's why I support the motion that's on the floor today.

It sheds the light of day on this issue. It's an issue that I believe needs to be addressed. It goes a long way to showing how serious our government is, not only about balancing budgets and living

within our means, but also about how we plan to protect and assist the most vulnerable members of our society. I would ask that the entire House support this motion.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to speak to Mr Craitor's motion this morning. I would say, even to the member who has just spoken,

that it is a job. In fact, in our constituency office for the riding of Durham we have a full-time person, Fern Sargent, for whom I have the greatest respect. She has developed a terrific

relationship with the Family Responsibility Office and with our particular case manager. It is really an extremely important relationship to try to form to make sure the court orders are

executed.

I believe the ministries -- it was under the Attorney General, and now it's under community and social services -- are trying to get the technology up to date,

but really it comes down to a broader societal issue. As we were saying among ourselves, we'd like to see something that speaks to the issue of society and the challenges that families face

today.

That doesn't seem to be very popular, but when I look at the Family Responsibility Act, and when I look at family law generally and some of the court orders,

the awards from those hearings are onerous responsibilities. I've spoken with Senator Anne Cools, who is kind of a noted expert in this subject area, and am very supportive of some of the actions

she has put forward.

I really feel that resolving the issue of custodial and visitation rights is also part of this whole game. There's a family breakdown, and when the family is

broken down and there are children involved, certainly the hearts of all of us in this House go out to the children, not just at this time of year but at all times of the year.

I don't see anything specific in Mr Craitor's resolution this morning that is going to change the status quo without society putting more emphasis on family

first. In families, indeed both parents have responsibilities, but in that societal unit the children should be first. I'm a parent of five children, and my wife and I have sacrificed many things

so our children could have things. What we need to do is speak to strengthening the family in our community and in society broadly.

I think this is more politics than policy. I don't see anything here that any government wouldn't try, to make sure the Family Responsibility Office is charged

with linking the payer with the recipient. When we came to government, I can tell you, the office was in even more disarray. Quite often, people try -- we've got interjurisdictional court orders

that are now in force.

I wish you'd look at your challenge, because at the end of the day we're all here to try to help families and children. The minister isn't here to hear these

comments, but --

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

The member for Niagara Falls has two minutes to reply.

Mr Craitor: First I want to acknowledge all those who have spoken from both sides. As a new member here, I do appreciate a lot of the comments

and a lot of the history that I am not aware of. There have been some positive things done by the previous government, and I'm going to acknowledge that.

The motion was put forward with an intent of sincerity. For me as a new member, it was my way of trying to bring something forward that I sincerely believe in.

Prior to becoming a member of provincial Parliament, as a member of city council I was receiving calls, and parents would come and see me thinking I could do something at the city level. I always

said to myself that if I ever had the opportunity to take that issue forward -- and I do now -- that I would and in any venue that I could. If it meant bringing it forward as a motion, to me that

was a good start, and I've started that way.

It will not be something I will let go of. It's not something that's done for political reasons; it's something I believe in on a personal level. I have a

number of very close friends, one in particular, who I know extremely well and talk to on a regular basis, who is going through this. Her husband is currently in the United States, so I'm aware of

the difficulty she's had to deal with in trying to get those monies from him.

The auditor's report has 25 pages and 20 recommendations that deal with this. That tells me how significant this matter is and how important it is that our

government work on it, and I make the commitment for the length of time I'm here. Hopefully, it will be a short time before we can deal with this and get working on trying to improve the system. I

ask all members to support the motion I've put forward.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allowed for private members' public business has expired.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with private member's notice of motion number 3, by Ms Smith.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll deal with this after dealing with the second item.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Craitor has moved private members' notice of motion number 4.

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

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Call in the members. This will be five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1157 to 1202.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brownell, Jim

Caplan, David

Di Cocco, Caroline

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Klees, Frank

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will stand and remaining standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Duguid, Brad

Hampton, Howard

Hudak, Tim

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 30; the nays are 18.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters dealing with private members' public business having now been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1205 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN THOROUGHBRED RACING

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian athlete, not Wayne Gretzky or Lorie Kane or Beckie Scott or even

Mike Weir. This athlete is unique. His name is Wando, the brilliant three-year-old chestnut colt whose patience and a powerful late kick earned him a spot in Canadian thoroughbred racing history

this past August when he won the final leg of the Canadian Triple Crown. Winning the Breeders' Stakes, the Prince of Wales Stakes and the Queen's Plate, defined as the oldest thoroughbred race in

North America and the most prestigious race for Canadian-bred horses, is indeed an amazing feat.

Congratulations go to owner and breeder Gustav Schickedanz of King township, who is carrying on his proud family tradition of breeding the best of horses, a

tradition that goes back for many generations. Schickedanz said of his champion horse, "He runs a beautiful race. He just gallops for home." Patrick Husbands, the jockey who rode Wando to the

Triple Crown, said, "He's a great champion." Congratulations also go to Patrick Husbands and to the talented trainer, Mike Keogh.

This has been a great year for Canadian thoroughbred racing. It's an industry that employs roughly 60,000 people in this province and generates some $1.6

billion into the economy. Congratulations to all of the men and women involved in this great industry.

GOOD CITIZENSHIP AWARDS

FOR JUNIORS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Today is a great day for a number of special students from 20 Toronto schools. They are receiving the Good

Citizenship Award for Juniors. These students were selected by the teachers at their respective schools for having demonstrated the following positive character traits: kindness, respect for other

people's feelings, being helpful toward younger children and the elderly, and conducting themselves in a responsible fashion toward their parents, teachers and peers.

The awards were introduced in 1978 and were designed to encourage responsible citizenship among our community's youth. This year's winners represent the

qualities we would all like to see in today's youth. They are the type of children who serve as wonderful role models for their peers.

The recipients for the good citizenship awards are, from St Nicholas of Bari Catholic School, Dalila Madeira and Joey Ricardo Khemraj; from St Rita Catholic

School, Carolina Canto and Dwayne Roach; from St Sebastian Catholic School, Tia Marie Samaroo; from Stella Maris Catholic School, Tiago Real and Stefania Matarazzo; from Alex Muir-Gladstone, Scott

Terceira and Kimberly Gaudet; from Dovercourt Public School, Elizabeth Khuu and Bernie Longange-Kingiela; and from F.H. Miller Junior School, Nirmala Ramprasad and Andy Nham.

We wish them well as they start their life's journey.

ONTARIO KOREAN BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise today about a meeting I had with members of the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association.

One of the men I met with was the president, Mr Jong Kyu-Huh, who said the OKBA represents 2,400 corner stores across Ontario, all of which are upset with recent tobacco tax hikes imposed by this

Liberal government.

Tax hikes on cigarettes create a scary climate for store owners and their employees. My Kyu-Huh informed me that increased tobacco taxes translate into more

smashed windows, more frequent armed robberies, break-ins, and female employees who do not want to work past 9 pm for fear they will become a victim. Stores are no longer being robbed for money;

they're being robbed for cigarettes. The situation, according to Mr Kyu-Huh, is getting worse day by day.

The majority of us have figured out and we understand that tax cuts create jobs and fuel the economy. Mr McGuinty has ignored and continues to ignore this

concept. I wonder if Mr McGuinty is going to ignore store owners and their employees who are working in fear of their lives due to Liberal tobacco tax hikes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Increased cigarette taxes do not work, and neither will smoke-free Ontario nor requiring store owners to hide their

display. I truly believe these issues have no bearing on curbing smoking habits in Ontario.

STUDENT POETRY CONTEST

students of l'École secondaire L'Escale de Rockland.

These students took

part in an open letter and poem contest called Operation Mighty Plume. As such, they wrote poems and letters to Canadian soldiers in

Afghanistan. A committee read all the letters and picked one that was going to be read in front of soldiers from the 30 nations serving in Afghanistan on Remembrance Day.

The poem of Mona Mreiche, a student from L'Escale in my riding, was selected, and Rockland native Corporal Peter Bowles told the L'Escale students that the

poem had people in tears. Mona received a plaque and an ISAF nametag. As well, all the students who participated received certificates signed by the base commanding officer, as well as letters from

the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

I am proud of these outstanding and caring youth of my community and I commend them for their commitment to our forces in Afghanistan. On behalf of L'Escale

students, the staff and myself, I want to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to our Canadian troops overseas. God bless them all.

SEASON'S GREETINGS

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): At this special time of year when we as Christians celebrate the birth of our Saviour, I want

to draw your attention to two events in my riding that I saw as incredible displays of the awesome power of God through nature.

On November 28, a fierce winter storm brought down trees that succumbed to the heavy wet snow load. Those fallen trees knocked out power lines as they fell

across some back roads, leaving them impassable. I encountered this personally on my way home from Pembroke. Much of my riding was also left without electricity for up to 72 hours.

Only one week later, trees that were pushed to the breaking point earlier were now covered in the most spectacular coat of hoary frost, sparkling in the

morning sunlight, that I have ever seen in my entire life. The area around Killaloe literally took my breath away. Within a period of one week, we saw evidence of His power and might, followed by

His wonderful beauty and kindness, leaving no doubt as to who is really in charge.

Merry Christmas to the people of my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, to the members of this Legislature and to all Ontarians.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to take this opportunity to remind the government and also to remind people watching that it's

the end of the session. We have now come through what is the first session of the new government, and I just think it's rather interesting to recap where we are at this point in this government's

agenda.

I ran in a special place I call northern Ontario, where we had a Liberal platform that talked about the things that were going to happen in northern Ontario. I

just want to report that many of those things that are contained within the Liberal platform are nowhere to be seen on the government's docket when it comes to Orders and Notices or any of the

legislation that we dealt with.

I think, for example, of my good friend Mr Bartolucci, now the Minister of Northern Development, who in the run-up to the election said, "We have a northern

platform. We're going to bring in studded tires." Rick, where are they? We're looking for studded tires; they are nowhere to be found. We haven't seen the Minister of Transportation once get up in

this House and say they are ready to bring studded tires back into the province.

The four-laning of Highway 69: Remember that one? My friend and colleague the member for Nickel Belt, Madame Martel, myself and other northerners support the

whole concept of moving to four lanes on Highway 69. We were supposed to have an announcement by now, and all we've got is basically that they're going to extend the highway in a couple of places

and put a few bridges in. Where is the four-laning for Highway 69? It was in the campaign platform.

Then we've got the Adams mine: They were going to kill the Adams mine once and for all. It's alive, it's well, and it looks like it might go ahead. I'm just

saying, oh, Lord, not another broken promise for Christmas.

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): Christmas came early to Hamilton yesterday. It's with extreme pleasure and pride in McMaster University's

medical school and the city of Hamilton that I acknowledge the magnanimous gift of $105 million to McMaster by Michael G. DeGroote and his family. This is the largest single gift in Canadian

history. The medical school will be renamed in his honour, another Canadian first.

Some $64 million will be placed in an endowment fund for health care, medical research and education, and will provide a multitude of projects, one of which is

$15 million to a centre focusing on pain resulting from strokes; $10 million will go to a centre on cancer focusing on molecular determinants; and $10 million will go to a centre on infectious

diseases. Mr Speaker, $41 million will go toward building labs and expanding McMaster University Medical Centre.

Mr DeGroote has been a very generous contributor to McMaster in the past and is continuing his generosity toward Hamilton in an unprecedented way. His donation

will positively affect Canadians and the world community for many, many years to come. On behalf of the people of Hamilton and the broader Hamilton community, we thank Mr DeGroote and his family

for his contribution. McMaster University is already very good; now it is going to be the best.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise in the House to call on Premier Dalton McGuinty to keep his promise to parents of

autistic children. Prior to the election, Premier McGuinty wrote to these parents and vowed to extend intensive behavioural intervention treatment to children six years and older. He described the

current cut-off age as "unfair and discriminatory."

Now the Liberals are backtracking and refusing to keep this commitment. They have forgotten the promise to families and children in our province, and, most

shamefully, they are avoiding the serious implications of this broken promise.

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals across the way are making a habit of breaking promises. They have broken their promise on the Oak Ridges moraine. They have

broken their promise on freezing hydro rates. They are now breaking their promise on balancing the budget. It appears that the McGuinty Liberals are taking particular glee in pointing fingers and

blaming everyone else for the reasons why they have broken their promises. As they play the blame game, children in our province are suffering. Parents have to endure heavy legal costs to fight the

government in the courts for necessary medical treatment for their children.

It appears the Liberals are more committed to creating a crisis than they are to keeping their commitment to the families of autistic children.

On behalf of these families, I call on the Liberal backbenchers, members who are from the medical profession, to tell Premier McGuinty to do the right thing

and keep his promise to the families of this province.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I rise today to say that I'm really surprised that the NDP supported private schools. During the campaign,

the candidate running for that party -- we sat next to each other and it's one of the things we agreed on. A month ago, the NDP were asked to choose between private schools and public schools, and

they supported private schools. On the second reading they were asked the same question, private schools or public schools, and they chose private schools. In the committee they were asked the same

question and the same result, they supported private schools. Last night was their last chance. They were asked again, and they voted for private schools.

Our public schools desperately need funding after years of Tory mismanagement. Already the McGuinty government has put $112 million into improving literacy

among our most vulnerable. When we moved to cancel the private school tax credit, where was the NDP? How can we take anything the NDP says seriously? We on this side of the House have always been

against taking money away from public schools, and we are cancelling the private school tax credit for a good reason: We think the money will be better invested in public schools. I thought the NDP

would vote in favour of Bill 2, but sadly, the NDP failed and they supported private education.

VISITORS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure everybody here would like to know that my mother, Myrtis

Churley, who hails from Bay de Verde, Newfoundland, is with us in the gallery today.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: She's better behaved than I am, no doubt about it.

I also want to take this opportunity to introduce Chuck and Robin Konkel, the parents of the wonderful Laura Konkel, who is the page from my riding. They're in

the gallery with us today as well.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): In my short reign, that's the best point of order I've heard since I've been here.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to say that most of us thought that Ms Churley's mother was

actually her sister.

The Speaker: Member for Timmins-James Bay, is it on a point of order?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On my point of order -- but first of all, we know who's running for leadership around here, sucking

up.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to clarify for the members of the assembly this is Madame Churley, and this is Madame Churley-NDP who sits in the

assembly; we want to be clear.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On this last day of this group of the pages' term in the House, I

would just like to acknowledge all the parents of the pages who are here, and specifically, from Don Valley West, Susan and Frank Hayes and Caroline, Katie's sister, and William and Jean Stadelman,

who are here for Katie Hayes's last day.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): You have taken away some of the thunder from speech, I also wanted to extend my best wishes to the pages.

This is their last day. They have complained to me that they wanted an extension of two more weeks here, and I said to them to blame it on all the members here. I just want to wish them all the

best and hope that they have learned a lot.

I should tell you a little confession. I asked them for a grading of the members. It's still in the envelope; I haven't told anyone yet. I want to thank you so

much for the work you've done and for your contribution here. All members acknowledge it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRUST BENEFICIARIES'

LIABILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES BÉNÉFICIAIRES D'UNE FIDUCIE

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 35,

An Act respecting the liability of beneficiaries of a trust / Projet de loi 35, Loi concernant la responsabilité des bénéficiaires

d'une fiducie.

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

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): This limits liability for the beneficiaries of a trust. It was originally contained in the budget bill

that died on the order paper with the calling of the election. I appreciate that the Minister of Finance has agreed to have a look at the bill, as has my colleague Michael Prue, as to whether it

might see expeditious passage in the spring.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 36,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 respecting the election of the head of council for The Regional Municipality of Niagara / Projet de loi

36, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités à l'égard de l'élection du président du conseil de la municipalité régionale de Niagara.

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

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): This bill will give the taxpayers of Niagara the ability to vote for the chair of the regional government. As a

strong believer in direct democracy, I'm always looking for the best ways to engage citizens in our political system. I believe that making this position elected by the people of Niagara is an

important evolution in our municipal system.

As members know, the regional chair provides leadership in key areas like policing and public health. I'd like to see that individual get a mandate from the

folks of Fort Erie, Smithville or Welland, rather than simply the 30 councillors at the regional headquarters.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act / Projet de loi 37, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le Conseil exécutif.

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

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): This bill will require Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet members to answer questions in the Legislature, and

if they don't answer the questions they'll face a fine of $500 a shot.

I appreciate this government's effort to require ministers to be here. This bill goes further. It requires them not to just be here but to answer questions on

behalf of the people of Ontario.

VISITORS

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children's Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): On a point of order, Speaker: The family

of our wonderful page Gideon is here: his mom, Yoni Kwinter; his brother, Adam; and his grandmother, Rose. Of course, he is the grandson of our wonderful colleague Monte Kwinter.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I have two bills to introduce. One I'd like to introduce is Bill Wrye, who has been acting as the

executive assistant to the House Leader. He's been working very well with all members and I want to thank him for all of his support over the past few months. We're lucky to have him here.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): In the form of a bill?

Mr Baird: I have a second bill.

BALANCED BUDGET

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Balanced Budget Act, 1999 / Projet de loi 38, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1999 sur l'équilibre budgétaire.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): This will require a balanced budget this year.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1356 to 1401.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, J