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

September 27, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Sep-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 27 September 2001 Jeudi 27 septembre 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

RENT REGULATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

RENT REGULATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

RENT REGULATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

MARTYRS' SHRINE

REGENT PARK COMMUNITY

CHILD POVERTY

MORDECAI RICHLER

HOME CARE

HATE CRIMES IN LONDON

MEDICAL SERVICES IN LONDON

CARL BREWER

TRAGEDY IN SWITZERLAND

SECURITY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION

TOURISM

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION

TOURISM

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

EDUCATION ON INTOLERANCE

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

FAMILY RESOURCE PROGRAMS

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

CORPORATE TAX REDUCTIONS

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

SAVINGS OFFICE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

LORD'S PRAYER

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

PROTECTION DES MINEURS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FOOD SAFETY

AND QUALITY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

ET LA SALUBRITÉ DES ALIMENTS

Thursday 27 September 2001 Jeudi 27 septembre 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I move that the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, on behalf of the people of Ontario, calls on

the federal government to immediately hold a federal inquiry into the events that led to the tragic death of unarmed aboriginal protester Dudley George, so that despite the continuing refusal of

the Harris government to call a public inquiry, Ontarians may finally know the truth about what happened at Ipperwash Provincial Park on, as the resolution reads, September 6, 2001, clearly

referring to 1995.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Kormos moves ballot item number 19 and, according to the standing orders, has 10 minutes to lead off

and will be followed by debate in rotation.

Mr Kormos: This matter has been not only before this Legislature but before the people of Ontario, before the people of Canada and, quite

frankly, has been a matter of concern internationally now for six years and some weeks: September 6, 1995, an unarmed aboriginal Canadian engaging in a peaceful protest -- acknowledged. The

information that has trickled, at times haemorrhaged, into the public domain indicates, by virtue of a CSIS informant, one Jim Moses, present in Ipperwash park, that not only was Dudley George

unarmed but that the authorities knew he was unarmed. In fact, during the criminal trial of the OPP officer convicted of the negligence which was in effect the homicide of Dudley George, the

presiding judge found as a fact that Dudley George was unarmed and that the police knew that he was unarmed.

Critical in the debate since September 6, 1995, has been the growing concern and the incredible wealth of evidence that indicates that this government, the

Harris government, so soon after their election to power, played a very specific role, a political role, which constituted interference and constituted direction of the OPP which resulted in the

homicide, the death, of Dudley George, an unarmed aboriginal Canadian engaging in a peaceful protest around a piece of land which again, it's become clearer and clearer to the point where it's

beyond any doubt, was historic territorial and burial land of aboriginal people and one which again it becomes increasingly difficult to deny is a piece of land that they had every right --

morally, legally and ethically -- to be present on by way of occupation, by way of protest.

This House has heard repeated calls from both opposition parties for a public inquiry into the role of this government -- the Premier, the Attorney General of

the day, other members of cabinet, including and added to that a backbencher from that community, all of whom are named in a civil action filed by the George family. Let's make one thing perfectly

clear: the George family has made it clear from day one that the civil action is all about trying to determine the facts surrounding this event at Ipperwash park. The George family has made it very

clear and there's simply no contest to the proposition that that civil action will end tomorrow should there be the calling of a public inquiry into the events surrounding the murder of Dudley

George.

This Legislature knows full well the initial -- the seminal -- evidence which started to generate concerns and which took the concerns of people in the

opposition parties and people across this province and country from the level of mere suspicion to the point of genuine, legitimate conclusions and inference about the role that the Premier and his

members took in the death of Dudley George, with revelations by way of notes made by people present at the conversations and at the meetings between the Premier, other members of his caucus, his

cabinet included, and policing authorities: the now infamous "Get the [expletive] Indians out of the park"; the repeated contradictions on the part of the Premier as he's subjected in question

period: one day acknowledging one thing, the next day denying it, one day admitting his presence somewhere and his meeting with somebody, the next day denying it; and now of course the

understanding that the Premier's conduct is being driven by the insurers of the government, who are dictating his response here in the House and his determinations, as Premier of this province, as

to whether or not a public inquiry should be held, I put to you.

This morning in the Toronto Star, journalists Peter Edwards and Harold Levy reveal yet more, and, I tell you, this is as shocking as any of the evidence that has

been put forward to the people of this province. It's as shocking as any of the evidence that's been put forward to date because we learned today -- and I submit to you that the evidence is

conclusive, that there is no dispute about it, that there can be no debate about the facts as presented in the revelations by Peter Edwards and Harold Levy in the Toronto Star this morning. Again,

they obtained their evidence by the review of documents filed in the court during the course of the civil trial by the George family. It's a civil trial that I tell you has been frustrated day

after day after day by the pettifoggery of the government's lawyers and by the legal machinations and legal manoeuvring which are designed to protect the Premier and the other persons named in that

civil suit and not designed in any way, shape or form to bring forward the facts as they actually are or to bring forward the truth; it's designed to suppress the truth. Let's make that perfectly

clear. Let's understand that. I understand that.

That's the role of defence lawyers. And the Premier and his cabinet and his backbencher have very good defence lawyers, courtesy of the taxpayers of the

province. I understand that as well. This is a civil action. It's an adversarial process. It's designed so that the plaintiff, using the laws that exist, has to establish certain facts and, in the

adversarial nature of it, the defendants -- the Premier and some of his cabinet members and his backbencher -- are entitled to use that law to suppress those facts. It's the nature of a civil

trial; it's the adversarial system. That's why this doesn't belong in the civil court.

Johnstone Roberts, a great jurist here in the province of Ontario -- he really was -- someone who befriended me many years ago, now passed away. He was an

excellent judge and was acknowledged as such. One of the first things he told me as a very young lawyer, when I began practising law -- he took me aside in a very avuncular way and admonished me to

remember that in the court system, justice has nothing to do with the truth. This is a judge telling me this, a very experienced judge.

He said that's the problem with the civil process here. It's not necessarily designed to draw the truth to the surface. It's an adversarial system guided by

long-standing and traditional rules. I understand those rules; I believe most other people do as well. But we've also got to understand that this isn't a forum where one determines facts in an open

and forthright way and in a non-adversarial way.

What did we learn this morning as a result of the inquiries by Peter Edwards and Harold Levy into the recent filings in the civil action -- again, an incredibly

shocking event. We learned there was a sanitizing, a cleansing, a very significant editing of police officers' notes that were presented by way of disclosure, as the law compels it, in the criminal

trials of some of the people charged around the Ipperwash incident. The sanitization consisted of the deletion of the very handwritten statement by that police officer about political interference,

heat from the political side.

I tell you that this omission in the typewritten notes was no matter of inadvertence. When you read the handwritten notes and compare them to the transcript that

was prepared, it is impossible to conclude that this was mere inadvertence or oversight on the part of some typist or clerical worker. This was a clear effort that amounts, in my view, to

obstruction of justice by somebody at a very significant stage in the process in the course of these events to protect the Premier and his government from the strong and clear allegation of

political interference that resulted in the death of Dudley George.

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

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I rise today to speak against this resolution. This resolution is based on a false premise. It is based on the

premise that the only way to get to the truth of what happened is through a public inquiry. I disagree with that premise.

We already have a place to get to the truth, not just the truth of what happened at Ipperwash, but the truth of what happened in any case where parties disagree.

That place is our courts. Members opposite seem not to have faith in our judicial system. They seem not to trust our independent, respected, impartial judges. But I do.

What issue would be considered by an inquiry? What question would the commission be asked to answer? It's this: Who is responsible for the death of Dudley

George? That would be the issue at an inquiry. That's the question the commission would answer. However, that very issue, that very question, is already going to be determined in court. The courts

are already dealing with the issue of who's responsible for this tragic death.

The courts have been dealing with this question in two places: first, a criminal case and, second, a civil law suit. The first case went all the way to the

Supreme Court of Canada. An officer was convicted of criminal negligence causing death. In other words, the court found someone criminally responsible for the death of Dudley George. You say you

want an inquiry to find out who is responsible for the death of Dudley George? Well, the criminal courts have already convicted somebody for that very act.

Two others points about the criminal case bear mention. First, the criminal charge was laid following a full investigation by the special investigations unit --

an arm's-length independent investigation by the SIU. Second, at no time during the criminal proceeding was it ever suggested that political direction was given to the officers on the ground -- no

evidence whatsoever.

Now, the civil case. There's a second place where the courts are already dealing with the responsibility for this tragic death. and it's the civil lawsuit. The

issue in the civil lawsuit is whether the defendants, including the government, including Mike Harris, are responsible for the death of Dudley George. That's what is being alleged in the civil

case. The allegation is that the defendants are liable for this tragic death. That's precisely what an inquiry would consider and it's already being dealt with in court. In fact, one of the

specific allegations being made is that the defendants, Harris, Harnick and Runciman, ordered, permitted and/or allowed the tactical response unit of the OPP to utilize force, including deadly

force, against the protesters. The defendants deny that allegation. They say it's a false allegation. But the point is that the court is going to decide the truth of that allegation. An

independent, impartial court is going to decide that. If you want to get to the truth of these allegations, there's already an independent process in place.

But those calling for the inquiry don't want the truth so much as they want political theatre, a media circus. That's what's really behind the call for an

inquiry. Consider some of the arguments advanced by the members opposite:

They want an independent, impartial process. The courts are independent and impartial.

They want it headed by a respected jurist. Our courts are full of respected jurists.

They want full disclosure. The court process includes full disclosure. It's called discovery. Already more than 11,000 documents have been provided to the

plaintiff's lawyers.

The next step is for all the parties, including each defendant, to answer questions under oath. They want sworn testimony and findings based on evidence. Well,

that's exactly what happens in court.

They want an open, public and transparent proceeding. Our courtrooms are open and public and the process is transparent.

Indeed, the civil action is actually superior to a public inquiry in several ways. A public inquiry can't award compensation, but a trial judge can. A commission

of inquiry can't make findings of wrongdoing; the courts can. A public inquiry would mean starting all over. This civil action is already more than five years old and the parties are in the midst

of discoveries.

All this is known to the members opposite. They know that a court of law is the best place to seek a fair, independent determination of the truth about who was

responsible for the death of Dudley George. But they're less interested in that truth than in political gamesmanship. How unfortunate that they've chosen to deal with a human tragedy in this

way.

One final point: fairness to the defendants means that they too are entitled to have their day in court. For more than five years they've faced serious

allegations, terrible allegations. Each and every one of them denies the allegations, says they're false. Just this week, the OPP defendants again confirmed that they never, ever received political

direction. The defendants want the court to decide these allegations. They're entitled to have the court decide these allegations. They are entitled to their day in court, and I agree.

I am voting against this resolution and I urge all members of this House to do the same.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): First of all, I will discuss the premise from which the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips,

has consistently been trying to deal with this matter as a way of garnering the truth. That's what this is about. Why is it that this matter of Dudley George incenses us so much? To me it's an

issue that deals specifically with social justice. This is an issue about, in my view, a perception that there was a blatant abuse of power. Speaker, I listened when you began the proceedings

about, "Help us to uphold power wisely and well." That does not appear to be the case with the issue of Dudley George.

To me, this is a fundamental premise of a democratic province where the police, who enforce the law, must remain independent of those who are lawmakers. We know

that. The police must be free to do their job without influence from the lawmakers. That's what is at the bottom of this.

Gerry Phillips is the member in this Legislature who's been seeking to uncover the truth. There is a huge array of evidence that links the Premier and some of

his cabinet members to the decision-making that led to the death of Dudley George. There's a great potential to influence, if not directly, indirectly -- it is such a fine line -- by the type of

intervention that we find evidence for of the Premier and other elected officials, including an MPP who was at the command post during the events.

We have a history of various levels of government whereby MPs or MPPs have just made a phone call to judges or to a police station and they've resigned, only by

making a phone call, because they've appeared to interfere.

In the case of Dudley George, the allegations and some of the evidence indicate that the Premier wanted the natives out, period, any way they could. That is the

fundamental error of judgment that was made by the Premier, in my view, if the evidence is found to be so.

On the other hand, these actions were taken by the Ontario Provincial Police, and it is the responsibility of the province to hold an inquiry in this matter. I

have to say that I disagree that we should force or that we should ask another level of government to deal with the responsibility that in my view is at the foot of the provincial government. We

must have confidence in the ability of this Legislature to get at the truth, and the credibility on this matter hinges on the province holding the inquiry.

There's nothing more sinister, in my view, than authority that acts or appears to act unjustly. This erodes the trust and undermines the credibility of those who

are here to uphold the law and the lawmakers, and that is the police and the legislators.

I will conclude with this: in my view, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has been consistent in asking for an impartial inquiry from the province. The

province must take action and the Premier and his cabinet must be held to answer to get at the truth.

Mr Kormos: That's precisely the point. When I hear the canned responses from the government in their effort to distinguish a civil action from a

public inquiry -- well, not to distinguish it, a parallel that somehow suggests the paramountcy of a civil action versus a public inquiry -- look, the primary function of a public inquiry is

specifically fact-finding. Quite right. It isn't about assessing damages, it's about fact-finding. That's what the people of Ontario want, that's what the people of this country want and that's

what people internationally, who have become incredible aware of what happened in Ontario on September 6, 1995, want.

I agree with the proposition that it should have been this province, this government, that called the public inquiry. That would have been the honourable thing

for the Premier to do. Honour, however, has not been a particularly strong suit of this government when it comes to this matter -- or, for that matter, many others.

This resolution calls upon the federal government to initiate an inquiry. Howard Hampton, on September 10 of this year, wrote to the minister, Bob Naulte, asking

him to do specifically that. The problem is the province won't call an inquiry. Six years later the province stonewalls, the province hides behind its insurers and its lawyers in the civil action

and the province does everything it can to delay the civil process. The province, the Premier and his lawyers and his colleagues' lawyers do everything they can to frustrate the plaintiff in this

civil action, to make sure that it's as protracted as possible, and they use every available opportunity to try to suppress the plaintiff's claim.

I think the opposition is in accord about the need for an inquiry. The sad and tragic reality is that the province won't call one. We, therefore, ask this

Legislature to call upon the federal government, because the coalition that has been supporting this issue and making sure that it's at the forefront of the public view over the course of the last

six years recognizes that there's an inherent conflict of interest here: the Premier is being asked to call an inquiry into his own conduct.

The federal government clearly has constitutional obligations to aboriginal people. In fact, a very learned legal opinion was prepared by Bruce Ryder, associate

law professor here in the city of Toronto, which examined the case law and examined the constitutional obligations and determined -- I think beyond any doubt if you read the material, that the

federal government has -- and in fact has suggested that the ideal scenario, in view of the federal responsibility, this fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people, would have been a joint call

from both the federal government, in view of its jurisdiction, its fiduciary duty to aboriginal people, its responsibility to aboriginal people with respect to their welfare and well-being, that a

joint call for an inquiry and a joint inquiry would have been most appropriate.

We have nobody else to turn to. There is, I believe, clear jurisdiction on the part of the federal government, and the law supports this view, that it has the

jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into what happened in Ipperwash. This province, this provincial government, this Premier and his cabinet have shown nothing but disdain for the facts, for the

facts as they would be presented in a truthful way in a public inquiry, and has done everything they can to stonewall and frustrate people attempting to conduct the inquiry and to help bring facts

forward.

It's for that reason it's imperative that if we're really serious, if we're really concerned about the facts being determined and if we understand as we do that

the province is grossly disinclined to call that inquiry -- and that power rests solely in the hands of the government -- we then have to look to the federal government to fulfill its

responsibility, not only to Dudley George, but to aboriginal people across this country.

The homicide, the death of Dudley George, has been identified by Amnesty International as possibly being an extra-judicial execution. It has attracted the

attention of just and fair-minded people internationally. We can't expect that justice or fair-mindedness from the provincial government. I'm hoping today that this House will lend its support for

a call to the federal government to exercise the fair-mindedness, justice and pursuit of the facts that this government denies us.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I want to start by saying at the outset that I know I speak on behalf of all members of the government

and the House in expressing my sorrow in the untimely death of Dudley George on September 6, 1995, at Ipperwash Provincial Park.

I will say that this is a rather interesting debate. To sit back and see it unfold is difficult at times. First and foremost, these are very serious allegations

the members on the opposite side of this House make. The arguments with respect to the federal issue have already been debated and discussed. The federal government has already said they weren't

going to get involved. The request to the federal government has already been turned down. I think your leader of the third party wrote to the RCMP this month. The RCMP responded, in writing,

saying that, no, they wouldn't be involved either. Those requests were made and those responses have happened.

It's a curious time. It's strange to sit in this place. Substantially, the allegation that's made is that the people on the government side are hiding behind the

courts. It's a strange charge. It's a strange allegation. It's strange because I've never heard it before, that the charge is that you're hiding behind the judicial process, you're hiding behind

the courts. That's exactly what the member said, that the judiciary that's set in place as a third party, completely unaffected by the government, completely alone and separate, somehow the

government has gone around and hidden behind the court system. I guess that's the kind of allegation. I guess we will have to debate that allegation.

I think it's important for us to examine the fundamentals of this case. The fundamentals of this case, as I understand it, are that somehow the OPP received

direction from the provincial government with respect to the situation at Ipperwash. That's the nut of the case, as I understand it, in the six years that I've been here hearing the arguments. The

nut of the case is that somehow the OPP received some kind of direction from the provincial government in dealing with the Ipperwash situation. As far as we can see, with the crib notes that we've

gotten through the process, the only thing that they've attested to is the fact that the government has looked to seek an injunction to have the Indians removed from the park. I think there have

been many occasions in the history of this province where governments have done just that, sought injunctions, and as far as I can tell, I don't think anyone is really harbouring that as the crunch

or the nut of the case. So we'll move on.

If we believe that to be the case -- and I'm doing my best to understand the opposition's mindset on this. I'm not arguing about whether or not it's a reasonable

case or a reasonable argument. What I'm trying to understand is what it is that they believe happened. What is it that they believe took place that would allow such heinous allegations, such

serious allegations to be made against members of this government, people I know very well? I guess the bottom line to the whole discussion -- and I look across the floor to the members -- is that

somehow somebody directed the OPP directly. I think then you have to go talk to the OPP. You have to talk to the provincial police who were responsible, in charge, at the time. I don't know how

else you can do it.

You can look at notes here and there, but you have to go to the people who were on the ground, in charge of making the decisions, and ask them directly. This is

the nut of the case.

Ms Di Cocco: What are they going to say?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The member for Sarnia says, "What are they going to say?" That's frightening, because what that intones is that the police

will lie. It frightens me that anyone across the floor would believe that in such a serious case like this that's before the courts, under oath, senior police officers would lie. I don't believe

that. So I look.

The crux of the claim asserted by the plaintiffs is that Premier Harris and other senior members of the government directed the OPP in their response to the

Ipperwash occupation. In short, they allege -- and this is a serious allegation -- that the government's direction led to the death of Dudley George. That's what they allege. That is a very, very

serious allegation, one we should not take lightly. If the allegation were on the other side of the House, I would ask for every opportunity for that member to be allowed to prove their innocence,

because this is an allegation of death -- nothing short -- an allegation of death.

So we go to the OPP and we ask the OPP, the senior officers in charge of this situation, whether or not they received direction from the provincial government.

Their response is, "Quite contrary." It comes from unimpeachable sources, I might add, because I know some of these people personally. Thomas O'Grady, former commissioner of the OPP; John Carson,

the inspector and incident commander at Ipperwash; Mark Wright, an acting detective staff sergeant; and Christopher Coles, who served as chief superintendent, have admitted there was no direction,

communication or input by the government into the actions of the OPP at Ipperwash. Those four were in charge. Those four have said, "We received no direction from the government."

It seems to me, as a person who stands here and hears the evidence offered up, that these four people in charge at the time would have a very weighted opinion

about what happened. I would go to them and say, "Did you receive direction from the government about these allegations that this government in fact caused the death of Dudley George?" The answer

is a resounding, unanimous no.

So the question must be asked, who are we serving here? We're serving the people. The courts are a tertiary, third party with no input from the government. What

better way to determine the guilt or innocence of someone who has allegedly directed the death of an individual in this province than asking the four OPP officers and taking it through a civil

court, with a judiciary that's impartial, unbiased and completely fair? Somehow, the members opposite don't believe in this process. I know of no other. If you're asking us to now get involved in

the judiciary and not trust them, it's a very, very dangerous precedent. You've made the allegations, folks. You've let them stand. Allow the courts to hear the evidence and make a decision.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): There is no doubt in most people's minds that this very serious issue is best served by establishing

a public inquiry.

I say there were three things that we were told at the time of the shooting death. One was that the First Nations had opened fire and the police had to return

fire. Second, there was no burial ground there; there's no reason why they would be there. The third thing was that the Premier said, and I'll quote specifically: "I determined nothing. I gave no

direction. I gave no influence on it. We left that entirely to the OPP. I assumed there would be negotiations."

This is what the judge in the trial of the OPP officer said about the charge that the First Nations had opened fire: "I find that Dudley George did not have any

firearms on his person when he was shot.... [T]he story of the rifle and muzzle flash was concocted ex post facto in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot." So

it was determined in a court that the First Nations people were not armed.

We were also told at the time of the shooting that there was no burial ground, and then subsequently found out that the province itself, here at Queen's Park,

had evidence of a burial ground.

The third thing we were told by the Premier was that it was left entirely to the OPP. This is why we need a public inquiry -- to determine whether or not that

was the case.

The Minister of Labour has just given some interesting testimony here which I think will be helpful. We do know from notes that have been provided to us by

freedom of information -- and the Premier has acknowledged this, by the way -- that there was a crucial meeting on September 6, the day of the shooting, and it's only recently become known that the

Premier was at that meeting, Minister Hodgson was at that meeting, two deputy ministers were at that meeting and two OPP officers were at that meeting. The one note that we have from that meeting

says that the Attorney General was instructed by the Premier that he desired removal within 24 hours. That was, I gather from the evidence, what the Premier said; he wanted them out of there within

24 hours.

I have never alleged that the Premier ordered them out by force. What I have alleged is what is in this document: that he did tell them he wanted them out of

there within 24 hours. I'm not sure the Minister of Labour has accurately quoted from the affidavits by the senior OPP officers. They're very careful. It's clear in what they say. This was the

question they were asked: "You were never directed or pressured by the defendant, Michael D. Harris, or other government defendants or any other member of the government to remove the occupiers

from Ipperwash Provincial Park by force prior to the death of Dudley George?" The key words here are "by force."

There also is a similar question asked to them: "Based on your knowledge or information, did Michael D. Harris or any other member of the government -- that

they did not have any input into or participate or interfere with in any way the command decisions?"

I believe the evidence is quite clear from the information we've been provided, and that is that the Premier was crystal clear to the OPP: he wanted them out

of the park within 24 hours. I'd also say that the OPP -- this is the communication at the command post just hours before the shooting, where two OPP command officers are saying, "Well, that

injunction surprises me. They went from that regular type of injunction to the emergency type which, you know, really is not in our favour. We want a little bit more time."

I would say that the affidavits from the senior OPP officers are crystal clear. The government didn't order them to use force and didn't interfere in the

command decisions. But I believe the evidence, based on what we have, is equally clear that the Premier made his intentions crystal clear, that he wanted them out of the park within 24 hours. That

contradicts what he said here in the Legislature: that he left it entirely up to the OPP, he had no influence and no direction.

Actually, just the other day in the Legislature the Premier said the OPP had no communication with anybody from the government prior to the death of Dudley

George. Well, we know that Mr Marcel Beaubien has acknowledged he was at the police command. A member of the Legislature, a member the government, was at the command post four different times

before the shooting death. So what's the public to believe in this? This is why we need the public inquiry.

The Minister of Labour today has put on the record some things that I think, when you look at the specific wordings, do not interpret properly the OPP

officers' affidavits. I have said forever, let the truth speak on this. There are allegations, there's evidence, there's information that needs an independent, public adjudication. The government,

and this distresses me to no end, has said, "Let the civil case handle it." The public should recognize that the civil case is being fought by the George family against the weight of the entire

government. The Premier has spent, just defending himself, well over $500,000 against the poor George family. If you had ever tried this in Walkerton -- the public would have an uprising if you

told the residents of Walkerton, "If you want to find out what happened there, sue us." The government was forced to do the right thing at Walkerton, which was to have an independent public inquiry

to get the facts out. So I resent strongly the Premier forcing the George family, on behalf of the public of Ontario, to try and get at the truth, and the taxpayers are using hundreds of thousands

of dollars to defend the Premier, when those dollars should be used in a public inquiry. The evidence, I think, is strong that there was inappropriate behaviour. But I'm very happy to let a public

inquiry fully explain to the public what happened.

I have some problems with the specific proposal before us, for three reasons. One is that this is clearly a provincial government responsibility. It was a

provincial park, it was the provincial police and it was the government of Ontario that were totally involved in this. It is a provincial government issue.

My second concern about the proposal is that one of the reasons we fought so hard for a public inquiry is that governments have to be held accountable. I do

not think it is responsible to divert our attention and try to get some other government to hold this government accountable; this government has to be held accountable.

The third thing is that in the end what I believe we need to do is to have a public inquiry that the public will have total confidence in. I think having a

federal inquiry runs the very serious risk that it takes on political overtones of one government going after another government, of one police force, the RCMP, going after the OPP, of a federal

government going after a provincial government. I think it sets, frankly, dangerous precedents and, furthermore, would undermine the credibility of the public inquiry.

I will continue to do what I've done all along, and that is to focus on the Premier and the province of Ontario calling a public inquiry. I have not called for

Premier Harris's resignation, because I think what we have to do is for the public to give them a forum where all the facts can come out, where they can judge for themselves what happened here. To

think that the government says the civil case is the appropriate route is a gross injustice to the issue and to the George family. If we want to do what's right for the George family, it is to call

a provincial public inquiry. I'll let the truth speak for itself.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I stand quite happily here in my place to support the resolution put forth by my friend Peter Kormos

from Niagara Centre, and would argue against some of the comments made by the member from Niagara Falls, the Minister of Labour, and I have some disagreement with my friend Mr Phillips in terms of

the final remarks he just made.

The member from Niagara Falls says that those calling for an inquiry don't want the truth. That's what he said. Is it possible that everyone from the

opposition calling for an inquiry would be asking for such a thing if they weren't interested in the truth? That is what this is all about: getting to the truth. The member from Niagara Falls says

that civil action is superior. He then argues that at an inquiry, in terms of the commissioners, the commissioner of the inquiry cannot find claims of wrongdoing. Therefore, he's saying, "Let the

civil suit go through its course and let's get to the facts."

But the point is that all we want is justice to be achieved and for the facts to come out. The George family is saying, "We will drop our civil action if the

government calls for an inquiry." So my point is if the family is saying, "We want an inquiry and we'll drop the civil action," why wouldn't the government facilitate such a move if, in their view,

all they want to do is get to the facts? They don't want to go through this civil action because, as the member from Niagara Centre stated earlier on, a civil action is designed naturally for

people to go after each other, and you use your best defence, your best armour and your best tools to defend your case versus the other. As the member from Niagara Centre said, it's very

adversarial.

We don't know whether the facts at the end of this are likely to come out one way or the other. It all depends on the case and who makes good arguments and

what tools each one uses. In the end, the facts may not be the ones that come out, which is all the family of Dudley George wants, what opposition members are asking for, what aboriginal people are

asking for and what other observers of this case are asking for.

So why would this government, through the benevolence of the member from Niagara Falls -- and presumably he's speaking for the government -- say that the civil

action is superior? Why would he benevolently say to the family of Dudley George, "You just don't know what you're asking for. The civil suit is better for you, but you just don't realize it"? Why

would they argue that way for this family? If in their opinion, and ours, an inquiry gets to the facts, please, let them do that. It's a matter of the cost of an inquiry or the cost of a civil

suit, which is already very, very high. I suspect that an inquiry is likely to be cheaper, if the members are concerned about cost, because that's all they ever talk about in any program that I've

ever been on. Michael Coren, with the Tory member, argued that they want to spend more money. I'm saying it's just a question of how you spend it.

If we're asking for an inquiry and everybody else seems to agree except you, something is wrong. The Minister of Labour says that the way to get to this is to

ask the officers who were present that day. He says the officers said they weren't politically pressured one way or the other to do anything. But that is clearly contradicted by an

article just

printed today by Harold Levy, wherein it states that an officer at a commanding post "wrote in his notebook about taking `heat from political side.'"

"Those comments about political `heat' were not included in a

summary of the officer's notes presented to defence lawyers representing native protesters

charged after the OPP operation...."

So the point is that heat from the political side exists. Stockwell said the other two officers say there is no political heat, but this memo suggests there

is.

The point of an inquiry is to get to those facts. That's what we want. That's what the family of Dudley George wants. The government should listen to them,

because they will drop the civil suit as soon as it agrees to that. The federal inquiry is something that would get to it, because the province seems to be refusing to do it. The federal

involvement here needs to be investigated, I say to Mr Phillips, because they have had a

part in this that I think we would like to investigate as well.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Let's remind ourselves what this is all about and why this resolution is before us today.

On September 6, 1995, Dudley George was the first indigenous person in this century to be killed in a land rights dispute in Canada. We know -- the evidence is

there -- that a treaty was signed in 1827, saying there was a burial site on the park grounds. A memo dated the day Dudley George was killed quotes OPP officer Ron Fox as saying, "Park is their

land, and there is a burial site there."

We know now that those people, including Dudley George, were unarmed. That's the background to why we're standing here again today with yet another resolution

to force a public inquiry into this matter.

I would say to the government members and also the Liberal members here today, let's be very clear on this: we, the opposition, have been calling for six years

now for a public inquiry. The government members who spoke made it clear again today that they're not going there, that they're relying on this civil suit, which is very expensive to the Dudley

George family and to the taxpayers of Ontario.

I understand the government has a clear motivation not to call an inquiry. They're not going to call an inquiry. They made that abundantly clear yet again

today. Let's review the reason I say this government is not going to call an inquiry, despite that we stand on our feet again and again and again calling for an inquiry. The motivation is there not

to call one by the Harris government because, let me remind people, of some of the facts we know.

These are notes taken at interministerial meetings on September 5 and 6, 1995: "D. Hutton -- Premier last night -- OPP only -- maybe MNR -- 'out of park only

-- nothing else.'"

"Larry Taman was also there and he was eloquent -- he cautioned about rushing in ... can't interfere with police discretion -- but Premier and Hodgson came out

strong."

"Premier is hawkish on this issue -- feels we're being tested on this issue."

"Hutton: Premier will take lead. Take this back to cabinet -- but suspect Premier will be pleased to take lead."

"Deb -- has MNR asked OPP to remove them? -- they could be formally requested to do so -- but how and when they do is up to Premier."

"Deb wants an emergency injunction -- doesn't want to wait two weeks."

"Deb -- but we could be seen as having control over this -- so ministers can't duck if scrummed -- and Premier not adverse to this being a provincial

government action."

"MNR stress no negotiations."

"Hutton: Premier is firm that at no time should anybody but OPP, MNR be involved in discussions, despite any offers that might be made by KPs (chief etc) --

get into negotiation, and we don't want that," and on and on and on.

We have the latest comment today: "political heat" was removed from the

summary of the police officer's notes given to the defence representing native

protesters.

I would say here today it is very clear, and there's a request from the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into Ipperwash. They want a public inquiry. We, the

opposition, want a public inquiry. The evidence and information are there to show that the federal government has the responsibility and can call a public inquiry.

I say to everybody here today that if we want to get to the truth of this matter, we must insist that the federal government call a public inquiry now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Response?

Mr Kormos: The capacity of the federal government to call an inquiry has not been contested in this debate. There's been a tacit

acknowledgement that the federal government has the jurisdiction, and indeed it does constitutionally. Subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, gives the federal government jurisdiction in

relation to "Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians." This is the clear legal capacity of the federal government to call an inquiry.

Is there a nexus; is there a connection? I tell you there is. Because indeed we know now that before and during the occupation of the park at Ipperwash, the

federal government had evidence that showed the validity of the park occupiers' claims. The question is, why didn't the federal government say something publicly? The federal government, the

minister, could have averted this whole tragic course of events. Why didn't the federal government say anything publicly? Why didn't it say something to the province? Why didn't it acknowledge the

right of those occupiers, those protesters, to be there on their Indian aboriginal land?

We have also learned that the federal government sent military equipment to the OPP, an armoured personnel carrier to be used against the park occupiers,

perhaps done extra-legally if not illegally. There is complicity by the federal government in the course of events that led to the death of Dudley George.

That in no way, shape or form relieves the Premier of his responsibility. All the evidence available clearly demonstrates that the Premier involved himself in

such a way that prompted the police to do what they did and resulted in the death of innocent, unarmed Dudley George. An inquiry has to be held. At this point it's clear that the federal government

has to be called upon to call for it.

The Deputy Speaker: That completes the time available for debating ballot item number 19. The question will be put at 12 o'clock noon.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I move that in the opinion of this House, residential rents, which in the city of Toronto cost the

average tenant almost $2,000 more this year than they did in 1997, must be reduced. The government should therefore introduce legislation, as recommended by the city of Toronto council, to roll

back rents for each rental apartment to their level of 1998 plus an annual increase equal to the rate of inflation. This rent rollback would apply to all rental units in the province to which rent

regulation legislation applies.

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

Mr Marchese: This resolution, in my view, is very, very important. In light of some of the problems we are experiencing in Ontario, we as a

government need to do something.

For the last year, we New Democrats have been calling for a rent freeze. Remember, there are 3.3 million tenants -- I suspect there are more. A third of the

population lives in rental accommodation. Many of them find themselves in economic hardship, find themselves unable to pay the rent and feel secure about their ability to stay in their homes, so I

say governments need to do something.

I say the rent freeze is not enough. We need to roll back rents to the 1998 level, which would save tenants approximately a thousand dollars, on average.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Of course, I'll be interested in listening to what some of my Liberal colleagues have to say about this, and my Tory colleagues,

although I think I know where they stand on this.

A rent freeze is not enough. While we have seen the profits made by landlords, and while we have seen the value of their buildings go up, which some estimate

at $5 billion -- that's why they're doing well in the stock market; I suspect possibly not so well these days, but they're still holding out better than most. But while they're doing well,

many tenants are not.

We say to the Tories, you listen to landlords and we listen to tenants. And why do we listen to tenants? Because there are more of them who have more needs

than the few landlords who are doing fine by this law, by the so-called Tenant Protection Act, which was designed to protect landlords and not the tenants. In their usual brilliance, they are able

to manufacture something which belies the title when you read its contents. But they're good at it. They've given the impression to tenants that the law was designed and created for them.

The fact of the matter is, vacancy decontrol was the first step toward the elimination of rent control. But vacancy decontrol has permitted the landlords to be

able to --

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Mr Sorbara probably asked, "Where are the tenants?" Is that it?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): That's what he asked. He's making fun of you.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): I said no one's listening, Rosario.

Mr Marchese: Mr Sorbara, who just got elected, a fine landlord, asked, "Where are the tenants?" That's why I'm waiting to hear Mr Sorbara and

other colleagues on my right, to see what they have to say. That's the brilliance of this government, including my fine Liberals here who are so well connected to the landlords. We've got a couple

here in the benches; fine cousins they are with the Tories. Mr Sorbara asks, "Where are the tenants?" The tenants, of course, are desperately trying to make a living.

I was talking about decontrolling of rents before I get to some of my other points. The decontrolling of rents means that when you move from your apartment,

moving to the next unit or to another apartment, that landlord can raise the rent --

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Is that in your resolution?

Mr Marchese: Hold on, Georgie, hold on. That landlord can raise the rent as much as he wants. And they've done that so effectively, squeezing

the tenants in order to make more money. That's decontrolling of rents. It permits the landlord to jack up prices as much as he can and as much as he wants. In a city where the vacancy rate is

0.6%, the landlord can do that and he can get what he wants because there's nowhere to go. So vacancy decontrol is a tool, out of that little toolbox these guys have, to help those poor, desperate

landlords who have been suffering in the last four or five years, not making enough money. With the decontrolling of rents, rents have been jacked up so high that many of the tenants can't afford

to stay in their units.

I met someone canvassing for my buddy Michael Prue the other day who said, "I make $13 an hour. I earn good money." That's about 26,000 bucks.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): It's $20,000.

Mr Marchese: Anywhere from $20,000 to $26,000, all right, Chris? He's earning good money and he's saying, "I can't afford to stay in my unit

if these rents continue to rise at this level." This guy is not making 20% increases every year. Unlike the landlords who are doing just fine, in the area of anywhere from 10% to 20%, some of these

guys don't get any increases ever. So they are at the mercy of the landlords, at the mercy of the markets, at the mercy of this Conservative government and, dare I say, they would be at the mercy

of the Liberal government should they get elected.

A lot of these people are simply looking for government help, from a government that says, "We are not here to govern. We are not in the business of governing.

We want to get out of the business of governing," although I think they are about to get into the business of governing as this economy slips. They're going to blame it on somebody. They can't

blame it on the NDP any more because we're no longer there, but they're going to have to blame it on somebody.

The tax cuts were supposed to have been the measure to have saved this province. They were supposed to have been the measure that made this province

recession-proof. Hey, Mr Banker, you might want to comment on that: "Tax cuts will make this province recession-proof." It isn't working, so I wonder who they're going to blame now.

When you leave the markets to take care of people-and in this case we are talking about tenants-there is no one to protect them from these devastating

increases they are facing. Social housing that New Democrats were building, and the Liberals before us, was an important competitive measure to make sure that people of modest means had a place to

go. Now they have nowhere to go except on the waiting list, where there are 90,000 people waiting to get a modest affordable unit. But because this government is not building and the private sector

is not building, there's nowhere to go except to line up.

Monsieur Leach, if you remember mon ami Monsieur Leach, said, "When we introduce this new Tenant Protection Act, we will have the private sector building like

you've never seen before. We will have 10,000 units being built by the private sector." The private sector is not building. Mr Sorbara is not building. They're not building because they can't make

any money in this market. We have a tight market where the landlord is able to squeeze by decontrolling of rents, whereby you move and the rent is jacked up, whereby in a tight market the landlord

is able to apply at the tribunal for increases on capital expenses that the poor folks have in this good economy, allowing them 4% increases on top of the guideline increases, including the

decontrolling of rent increases, and on and on it goes.

The Tories so smugly sit, saying, "The best protection the tenants have are the Tories." Imagine, 3.3 million tenants suffering like we've never seen before

under stagnating salaries where they can't keep up with the inflationary increases, the guideline increases. They can't keep up with the fact that there have been increases on the capital

expenditures side. They just can't keep up at all. They're looking for justice. They're looking for a government that's willing to help them. Some 3.3 million tenants are looking for help from

someone. They're not getting it from the landlords; they're not getting it from governments. I say to you, tenants, you have the power to make governments listen to you. You have the power of the

vote. You can show it in a way that will teach this government a lesson. I'm urging you to support our rent rollbacks, which is a way of helping you.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to be able to speak on this resolution put forth by Mr Marchese. Needless to

say, I do not support the recommendation for the province to enact legislation for a province-wide or city-wide rent rollback. Representing my riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, I think the issue to

be dealt with is to increase the stock of affordable rental units. That's the initiative that should be focused on by municipalities.

That's happening at this very moment. The other day the town of Newmarket indicated that for the public housing sector they are waiving or decreasing the DCA

charges, developmental charges, for public groups to get involved. For example, Habitat for Humanity is involved in some housing projects in the town of Newmarket. I know in the city of Barrie

there's a task force with respect to affordable housing looking at basement apartments, also looking at decreasing -- I should say that developmental charges is something that is also going to be

looked at, for example, in the town of Newmarket with respect to the private sector.

The solution isn't to roll back the clock and change the rules three years down the line. The rent rollback and/or rent freeze is not possible under the Tenant

Protection Act and is inconsistent with a system which promotes market rents. The Tenant Protection Act provides for strong tenant protection through the rent increase guideline while at the same

time promoting market rents through vacancy decontrol. A rent rollback and/or rent freeze would discourage investment in affordable rental housing and would create a negative environment for the

construction of new rental housing in Ontario and the maintenance of existing rental stock.

A rent rollback and/or rent freeze would take us back to the days of no new rental construction. We are beginning to see the industry build again after

previous governments' restrictive policies killed the industry. We do not want to go back to those days and we will not go back to those days. If you increase the stock of rental housing units,

then you're going to see the market fall in line with respect to rents.

A landlord, someone I know the member doesn't take into his equation in terms of consideration, has costs that must be covered in the operation of a rental

unit. They have the mortgage costs, they have the heating costs and they've got the maintenance costs that have to be taken into consideration. The costs of these commodities are not being rolled

back.

Since the implementation of the Tenant Protection Act, the amount that has been invested in additional repairs and maintenance in rental housing has increased

over 100%. Tenants enjoy a better quality of life when their buildings are well-maintained. That's just a fact. The Fair Rental Policy Organization has stated that an appropriate increase for this

year would be 7%. This would cover the increased costs of heating that were incurred last winter.

I would urge the member to take a hard look at his resolution in terms of how it applies to dealing with affordable rental units. For example, I don't know how

that would apply to my area, the city of Barrie, the town of Innisfil and the town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury, where we're seeing what I would consider very affordable housing being built

already. In fact, it's probably cheaper to buy a house than to rent, based on where the market is in terms of affordable units.

We're in a different situation than the city of Toronto; it's kind of obvious that we would be. How you can extrapolate and apply this resolution of rollback

to 1998 to the city of Barrie and the other parts of my riding I really don't know, and I don't think the member has even thought that through based on this sort of generic resolution that he's

putting forth.

If he has any constructive solutions with respect to dealing with municipalities doing something very constructive in terms of increasing the stock -- for

example, looking at municipalities waiving or reducing their developmental charges to encourage affordable rental housing, or other measures to encourage developers to get into this area, I think

the city of Toronto should be able to do that. They certainly are capable of that particular issue. I've said my piece and at this time I'll adjourn my speaking.

Mr Smitherman: Before I commence remarks on my own part, I'd like to bring the names of three colleagues of mine to this debate. They're not

able to be with us today because of their celebration of Yom Kippur. But they are each members who represent constituencies with a very high proportion of tenants and each of them has a record of

fighting on behalf of the tenants in their constituencies. My colleagues Michael Bryant, David Caplan and Monte Kwinter are not here today, except in spirit.

I think this is an interesting second phase of the NDP strategy of offering false hope. We saw an interesting display of the extent to which they're going to

try to win seats in the next election, and that is by going to any means possible. Both of the members who have led the strategies are with us today. The member in the front row was very involved

in that in the recent by-election and the member who is here today is offering a resolution that is flailing about.

This initiative that is before us ought to be at the start of what will be a very long and unrealistic and expensive list brought forward by the NDP as they

try to cobble together a coalition of the vulnerable by offering them every expectation, should they form government -- which we know will not happen -- that the world will be perfect as it was

from 1990 to 1995; this suggestion is just one more example of that.

We can find much fault with the government's legislation, the so-called Tenant Protection Act, and we will. We will move to restore a much stronger element of

meaningful tenant protection. But the suggestion that the way to go about that is offered in this resolution today demonstrates the extent to which those guys over there are vacant of any new ideas

in terms of getting at that.

And don't take it from me. A coalition of tenants in Waterloo, in a very well-written letter, which my friend from Trinity-Spadina has, pointed out many of the

failings with respect to this resolution, that the message of the resolution is fine, that is, that we need to work harder to enhance meaningful tenant protections. I would stand in support of

that. But I'm not going to support some resolution which offers to my constituents some sense that this is an appropriate way to proceed.

The people in Waterloo said, "Still, we have some concern of the potential effects of an absolute freeze to rents for a two-year period; rather, we would fully

support a freeze or prohibition on above-guideline increases for a two-year period." In that small, short paragraph, the tenants of Waterloo, an association of them, clearly recognize and show us

the way that they can come to a much better approach on this issue than the member from Trinity-Spadina has.

The tenants of this province have been burdened with a law which has not offered them meaningful protections. We have seen this. I have a constituency that has

the highest proportion of tenants in the province of Ontario. The member from Trinity-Spadina is often over in my riding, attempting to engage activists and others in his cause for rent freezes and

now rent rollbacks. But we saw with the earlier resolution today, and we see it here again, that the NDP cannot stick to any strategy for more than a week or two.

First it was a rent freeze; now it's a rent rollback. On Ipperwash it was a public inquiry here in Ontario, and then they run off, trying to focus this issue

at the federal level. This is what we can expect for the next 18 months from the NDP. I just want to say to anyone who's watching and anyone who's interested in the public debate that will take

place in this province: start to draw up the list today of all of the promises that they make and cost those promises out, because they will make them independent of any context that takes things

in their full view, and that is the responsibility of governing.

The Liberal Party will not do that. We'll be a party that brings forward a platform that reflects the needs of Ontarians and also reflects our commitment to

being able to govern Ontario in a way that is appropriate to the capabilities of the people of this province and to the government of this province.

The NDP demonstrates with this resolution today that they are on a track that is basically oriented toward offering a false sense of hope to people in this

province. This resolution is irresponsible, and I will not vote for it.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): It's certainly a privilege to stand and speak to this resolution. Rent control is certainly something

that all three parties and governments have tried in different forms, and it continues to exist in a form today. And it's always failed.

If you look at the previous governments, the Bill Davis government certainly introduced rent controls, causing a shortage in rental supply certainly some 25,

30 years ago. With the David Peterson government, that particular policy was replaced with a sort of bureaucratic form of -- if you had to spend a certain amount of money on refurbishing your

units, then you could go to the rent control board and get percentages above the rental guidelines. So what that forced every landlord to do was to show what they were spending on each unit or show

that they were losing money in the operation of the building and go before the rent review board, or the equivalent at that time, and they were awarded rents far beyond the legal amount that was

set by the province of Ontario.

In fact, what we were hearing from people at that point was, "This system just does not make any sense," landlords having to go through this extensive process,

hiring lawyers, just to show that they could not afford to operate a six- or seven-unit building. Those days came and went. Then the NDP took power, put an end to that process and just stuck to

certain percentages every year, with nothing allowed beyond that. What we saw at that time was units that deteriorated right across the province. No capital improvement had gone into any of these

units. Not only that, millions and millions of units across the country and certainly in this province had gone into receivership.

In downtown Toronto, the banks own them all. At some point these units were sold, at probably 20 cents or 30 cents on the dollar, and we started this process

all over again. That sort of helped in the short term because the new landlords, if you will, had purchased these units at very low cost compared to the overall market situation. Of course, that

has changed.

What has changed? Well, there are no new units out there. Speaking to landlords, and even mutual fund companies, no one will invest in new units. If you take

the Toronto situation and look at the property tax per unit in Toronto, I've heard from landlords who have to pay $3,000 per unit in property taxes, along with heat and hydro. That's $500 or $600 a

month per unit on rent, and we have people complaining that they have to pay $600 or $700 rent.

This is a problem we need to address and I think there are very innovative ways to do it. If governments want to get involved in this, it's not by capping

rents but by offering some ways for landlords to construct buildings, whether it's to do the capital depreciation in less than 25 years, along with the federal government, and work that into our

tax structure; whether it's reduced percentages, subsidized percentages on bank loans. These initiatives have been tried in the past by federal governments offering a percentage per unit. I think

there are many things we can do, but simply to rely on rent control and forcing someone out of business in the short term will not work. I will not support any such policies.

Mr Sorbara: It's been, my goodness, almost seven years since I had an opportunity to speak in private members' hour on Thursday morning. When

I came back to this place a few weeks ago, I thought nothing had changed. Something really has changed, particularly here in private members' hour, where we used to, as I recall, get resolutions

driven by an individual member's serious interest in furthering public policy.

In this first debate that I've participated in, what we get in the resolution standing in the name of the member from Trinity-Spadina is a two-bit, cheap

political trick which is not worthy of any party of this House and certainly not worthy of the NDP, which some of us once used to look to for new directions and new standards. That party is in such

terrible shape and on such a skid that no one looks to them any more, least of all tenants of this province. Certainly, this cheap little NDP fantasy, this lollipop, ought not to be supported in

this Legislature.

Our friend from Trinity-Spadina takes a cheap political lollipop from Michael Walker in the city of Toronto and seriously suggests in this Legislature that

somehow magically we'll just go back to 1998. We'll just say, "Roll back the clock." Well, Mr Speaker, I want to tell you and the members of this Legislature that we have serious, urgent, demanding

issues in housing, not only in the greater Toronto area but right across Ontario. We have done nothing over the past six years to provide for the increasing number of people for whom home is a

heating grate in the city or the protection of an elm tree in some park. That's the crisis that we have in housing.

Certainly the Conservative government is not going to address it. But the New Democratic Party, which used to have standards, and has lost those standards --

we saw that in Beaches-East York. We saw the loss of standards of that party in Beaches-East York. But on housing and on accommodation for tenants, we have serious problems. There is no industry

left in Ontario that builds, that constructs rental accommodation any more.

For six years, the Conservative government has said, "Well, we're going to do something about it." I want to tell that party over there currently in

government, soon to be in opposition, that the Ontario Liberal Party, when it presents its program to Ontarians, will speak to how we generate a new industry; because ultimately, if we're only

going to speak about tenants, we have to talk about creating an entire new industry that can profitably and effectively build new accommodation.

The crisis is not just in rising rents. We acknowledge there's a crisis in rising rents. The crisis is that in a metropolitan area which is growing faster than

just about any other on the North American continent, no one is building. There is no new construction. There are no new initiatives from the Conservative government to provide assisted housing.

You want a crisis in housing? The thousands upon thousands of people with disabilities, both mental and physical, whose names appear on waiting lists that grow to over 10,000 -- that's a

crisis.

If my friends in this party, this party that used to be a party of principle, think that with this cheap little political lollipop they're going to address the

real issues of tenants, they have another thought coming. I invite members of this Legislature to vote against this resolution, not because they have no concern for tenants -- we all have concern

for tenants -- but because this joke is not worthy of the respect of this Legislature.

Ms Churley: It's my pleasure to speak to this resolution put forward today by my colleague Rosario Marchese. It is a private member's bill

which I am supporting.

Let me start by saying directly today to the member from the Toronto Centre-Rosedale riding and to the new member from Vaughan-King-Aurora, we see they're

running scared today, that they cannot support this motion because they have too many landlords in their caucus and too many landlords that they get fat, big cheques from during elections. We know

they would like to support this motion today, but they can't. So what do they do? They get up and make cheap political shots against the NDP.

Because do you know what? They know that the Tories are no longer their enemy, but that it's the NDP, because they're getting greedy. They want to wipe the NDP

off the map, and that's their new line, but it didn't work in Beaches-East York.

Let me say directly to them: I'd be careful attacking my principles and my standards in this House, because people of this community and this province know me

as a principled person, a feminist, a woman who stands up against child abuse, sexual abuse, violence against women and children -- always have, always will. I will remain principled forever on

that point. Let's just make that clear. I would also say to the Liberals who spoke today, I wouldn't go there any more if I were you, because it could boomerang. Anyway, it's the Tories that are on

the skid right now.

Let's get on to the motion before us today. Let me say that when the Liberals were in a very partisan way making fun of this resolution before us today, saying

it's a "cheap political lollipop," I believe it was called -- you say that to the tenants out there who are on the verge of being kicked out of their apartments. You say that directly to them.

But what I want to remind you and I want to remind this Legislature is where this came from. It came from Toronto city council. The motion passed 30 to 8. That

means that a number of Tories who sit on Toronto city council voted for it and -- dare I say? -- some of the Liberals' colleagues on Toronto city council voted for it. They voted for it 30 to

Interjections.

Ms Churley: Let me tell you why, if we can get off these partisan, what shall I call it, disturbances that we have here today. As I said to

the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, don't go there, because if you want to match your principles and your standards against mine, I'm game. Let's go there, if that's where you want to go.

Now, coming back to the motion, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

Ms Churley: The Tories are loving this. You're setting it up. We're the enemy now --

The Deputy Speaker: I think it would be helpful if we remembered that only one member at a time has the floor and that the member would

address her comments through the Speaker.

Ms Churley: The reason why for quite a while this party was supporting a rent freeze, a motion put forward by my colleague Rosario Marchese,

is that Toronto city council is seeing a crisis in this city. It's right across the province. It is quite true that until this government came into power, successive governments -- including, as

has been pointed out, a former Tory government -- brought in rent controls. The Liberals followed up on that. Then, when the NDP was in government, there was such a crisis in rental housing that we

brought in the toughest rent control legislation, I believe, in North America. The Liberals voted against that tough new rent control. Why? They said it went too far. I expected it from the Tories;

at least you're consistent. They voted against it because it wasn't balanced enough.

But let me tell you why we are proposing this today. We're proposing it today because we genuinely have a serious housing crisis in this city, and indeed

across the province.

Because of rent decontrol, when somebody moves out of an apartment for whatever reason and they move into a new one, their rent for a one-bedroom apartment,

for instance, is jumping, we are seeing, from 30% to 50%. There has not been a minimum-wage increase in this province since this government came into power in good economic times. We are seeing

thousands and thousands of people who are on the verge of being homeless. We are seeing seniors on fixed incomes terrified that they're going to lose their homes.

There is no new affordable housing being built in this province. The federal Liberals have been playing around for some time. They got out of building housing

as well. The Liberals in Ottawa got out of building affordable housing, as has this government.

We have a serious housing crisis in Ontario. That is what we're trying to address today. The reason why 30 members, with only eight opposed, voted for this at

city council -- and we're carrying on that fight for them here -- is because, you know, people say that they are the closest to their constituents. I see a lot of people in my constituency office.

I don't know if you do or not, but I do. We've become almost a housing office for my riding. Every day we have crises coming to us in my office. You know what, Mr Speaker? Generally we can't do

anything for them any more. There is no safety net for them any more. The waiting list is so long for affordable housing that there isn't any any more, even for those in the biggest crises.

What I would like to address here today is, if people are opposing this motion, moving aside the partisan attacks, what are you offering today that's going to

alleviate this crisis? Is the government going to announce that it's getting back into providing resources for affordable housing? It's clear to the city councillors, and indeed across the

province, that rents have gone up so much over the last few years that a freeze now -- it might have worked a couple of years ago, but because no freeze was put on, rents have continued to go up

and up and up, and people can't afford to pay the rents as they stand now. They are too high.

Some people aren't eating. And we're not just talking about the lowest on the economic scale; we're talking about the middle range. Mr Marchese referred to one

in particular. There are thousands out there who have the same problem. They not only cannot afford a rent increase; they cannot afford the rents they are paying now.

This is a solution that was put forward by Toronto city council. Let me tell you that tenants across this city and indeed across this province support this. So

I advise the members in this House today to support the motion and work with us and with city council to find ways to make it work, and I advise the government to bring in real rent controls.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It is indeed a pleasure to respond to the resolution. It's been quite intriguing listening to the

debate, particularly from the various members of the two opposition parties. A very different perspective taken, I would have thought, historically, would have been a common litany of complaints

about what has happened in this province in the last six years.

Leaving aside the stark reality that in the five years the NDP had the ability to make the difference not just in rental accommodation but in all aspects of

the lives of the people in this province, they put in place rental guidelines that increased rents for tenants in this province 26.5%. That's the incontrovertible fact. To compare apples with

apples, in our first five years rents for tenants increased 15.3%. So if the suggestion from the member opposite is that somehow things have gotten worse, I might suggest, with the greatest

respect, that his math skills are somewhat lacking.

Before we hear any kind of interjections from the official opposition, particularly Mr Sorbara, who played a key role in the government between 1985 and 1990,

rents in Ontario went up more in those five years than in any other five years in the history of this province: over 40% average rent increase in your riding and my riding.

The reality is that we have a systemic problem, and the member has offered as a simplistic solution -- and in this I would agree with one of the Liberal

members -- a very unrealistic solution of simply saying that we turn back the clock. Let's just pretend none of the other costs exist for landlords, none of the other external pressures from other

governments exist. Let's just be blind to the reality of the world around us.

In fact there are solutions. My colleague from London offered a couple of examples. Let me go further. Our government has eliminated the provincial sales tax

on building materials used for the construction of new affordable housing, up to $2,000 per unit, which, by the way, is about the total PST load on the construction of what is considered affordable

housing. Within weeks of the government giving that tax relief, the city of Toronto -- yes, the same people who were the authors of this resolution, the same people who tell you and me how much

they care about tenants, how much they want to be part of the solution to this problem, how compassionate they are -- applied a $2,000 development charge for the first time in the history of the

city of Toronto. On what? On new apartments. So at the same time this Legislature gave $2,000 in tax relief, the charlatans at the city of Toronto stole that $2,000 back and put up one more barrier

against the development industry, which wants to build, which desperately wants to build.

They own the land. The apartment builders in Toronto alone own land, have the zoning and the money to build 75,000 apartment units. They've shown me the stats,

and I'm sure they showed them to the members of the official opposition and the third party over these last few years. What is preventing it is the pure economics. Our government has eliminated the

tax. The city government has added a new tax. The federal government continues to say, "If you build a high-rise building in Toronto and call it a condo, we're going to give your 7% GST back" --

thousands and thousands of dollars per unit. In fact, for the average condo built today, over $10,000 is handed back by a very grateful federal government that no doubt has received many charitable

contributions from those same developers. On the other hand, if you call the building an apartment building, those compassionate federal MPs have said, "You don't get the rebate."

So when we talk about why there are no new apartments built in the city of Toronto, it is purely and simply because there is no developer who is so stupid that

he or she would eschew a $10,000 grant, a gift from the federal government, if he or she builds something else. That's the reality. Other government have to get on the bandwagon, other governments

have to cut taxes like we have and the city of Toronto has to stop charging four times as much property tax -- $300 a month more on the average tenant -- than they charge single-family homes. That

will create new demand and new construction for apartment buildings in Toronto and across Ontario.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It's a bad day for tenants all around, and we've seen in the last two speakers some of the reasons

why. These have been the governments for the last nine years now, and they're the bookends of bad management, the bad people in terms of being able to actually give honour and respect to -- the

only reason we're talking about this subject in the first place, and the only reason it's the business of the Legislature and not just the marketplace is because in certain areas, and certainly in

Toronto, the markets need a referee, and neither the NDP nor the Conservatives get that. They don't understand when there is a need for appropriate response on behalf of people who find themselves

in difficulty through no fault of their own.

Let me remind this House that the difficulty is pronounced, that as badly phrased as this recommendation is and as exploitative -- and I have to say to the

member for Trinity-Spadina, who will get a chance to respond, that I am disappointed. I've been on platforms with him, and I say to him, you are saying something to people that I don't believe,

even if you were elected government, you have any intention of carrying out: a sweeping rollback of rents. You hold it out to them, though.

The one thing I would say to the members opposite is that people in this city need to be able to live with some level of affordability. I say, as the Minister

of Community and Social Services walks into the House, this is a government responsible for the deterioration of conditions for the most vulnerable people in the city. I'll just give you some very

quick indications of that.

In the spring of this year, the amount of money for people going to food banks in this city was reduced to $4.55 a day after their rent is paid. That's what

they have to cover everything in terms of food, clothing and whatever, and that compares to $7.40 when this government came into office. The number of children who go hungry, who go without the

basic elements of food and nutrition, has increased such that the number of children who are assisted in poor families who go without, who actually miss meals, even though their parents avail

themselves of all their own resources and all the help they can get from their families, their neighbours and finally have to beg for food, they still go without in this modern province that has no

excuse, and they do it more frequently because of the indifference of the government across.

If we had to depend on what is being put forward by the third party, they would be worse off, because the third party has decided, as has been very accurately

mentioned in this House today -- in Beaches-East York they have their priorities. I would say to the people in my riding who need realistic measures to help them, if you look very carefully at the

comments of the member who introduced this motion, you'll hear him talking more about what damage he hopes to do to the Ontario Liberal Party than any benefit he hopes to bring to people who are

disadvantaged in this city and in this province.

There is an honest question to be answered here. In the last three years since this government brought in its tenant rejection act, when it said to tenants,

"We care nothing about you," in this city alone there has been at least $37 million captured in rental increases, $25 million of it above inflation, and we have no new buildings, and we have no new

apartments, and we have higher rents. The question that should have been put is, what's happened to that $25 million? Who benefited?

I can tell you that in my riding, this government awarded rent increases of 35% at Triller Avenue. They permitted an average increase of 50% at one go at West

Lodge, harming some of the most vulnerable working families in this province. People who scratch out a living now live on Kool-Aid or less, thanks to this government.

I refuse on behalf of the people in my riding to be flip with this particular subject, but I do understand that we need to send a message to them that there is

a direction the Ontario Liberal Party needs to take. I, as one member of that party, make the pledge in this particular House, in this particular debate, that we will put forward proposals that

will have the effect of bringing relief directly to the people who need it, that we will not play games with their lives, we will not fool around with their everyday experiences, which nobody in

this House, with all due respect, can necessarily relate to, because we live it differently and we have made sure that we live it differently.

This private member's hour should serve instead as a reminder of an unmet need, not of an unrealistic solution based on the frustration of Toronto city council

or the exploitation of people who deserve better.

Mr Marchese: I've got to tell you, I'm smarting from all these Liberal attacks. It really hurts. I've never seen so many attacks and insults

on our party as today. I've never heard the Liberals whine so much. My God. Then to hear my good buddy from Vaughan-King-Aurora, who just got elected, using words like, "This resolution is cheap,"

that we should take this place seriously and this resolution is not serious, that this is a cheap --

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): It's a stunt. It's a cheap stunt.

Mr Marchese: Yes, I know. I'll get to that. Yes, Dominico. Dominico, calm down. "Cheap fantasy," "lollipop." Dominic Agostino: "cheap stunt."

Man, I tell you. Mr Kennedy from High Park: "exploitative," "playing games with their lives." I tell you, I don't know. I am hurting.

The member from Vaughan-King-Aurora says so dismissively that the NDP takes the resolution from Michael Walker -- poor Michael Walker. This man has worked so

tirelessly for his tenants in his ward and he introduces a resolution -- by the way, Mr Walker is a Liberal. I hope he doesn't feel badly about the attacks that I think he has had to endure as a

result of these remarks. But, Michael Walker, I am on your side and all the tenants in your ward are on your side, and most of the tenants in the downtown area, I know, are on your side. You've

taken a position that I believe addresses the needs, the real needs, of people who happen to be called tenants, but they are people who have lives and who are having a difficult time surviving this

government and the Tenant Protection Act.

They're real lives. It's not a cheap trick asking for rollbacks so that people get a break, a real break. That's a trick, a lollipop, to people who are

suffering? It's not a real resolution? That people might lose their homes and become one of the many homeless in this good economy that we've had for five years is a cheap lollipop, a political

trick? I am trying desperately to understand them. I'm sorry; what we're dealing with is very serious. It's not a laughing matter. It's not a joke. You can attack us, Dominico, all you want, and

you, George, all you want, but this is a resolution that's serious. In a similar way, our rent freeze was serious and doable. The rent rollback, as much as it is unacceptable to you -- I understand

-- and as much as it is unacceptable to Tories -- I understand that too. It may be unacceptable --

Mr Agostino: You had five years in power.

Mr Marchese: Dominic, hold on. My God.

Mr Agostino: You had five years to do it. Why didn't you do it?

Mr Marchese: Speaker, control that man.

Mr Sorbara: Where are the tenants?

The Deputy Speaker: I'll remind members that one member has the floor at a time. At the moment it's the member for Trinity-Spadina and he

knows he will address his comments through the Chair.

Mr Marchese: It's my time, Speaker. This is a serious, serious issue. Tenants are looking for some sign from any political party. They're

saying, "Help us."

We are the party that is there on the front lines saying to tenants, "We want to help." The Liberals are saying, "No, that's a cheap political trick." They

don't have any tricks for you but what they've got for you is something -- just wait for them to get elected and then they will introduce meaningful rent control, they say.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: You see them, Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: I'm having great difficulty hearing the member for Trinity-Spadina. Order, member of Vaughan-King-Aurora.

Member for Trinity-Spadina.

Mr Marchese: We have a crisis on our hands. We've got a housing crisis. The Liberals understand that. We understand it too. We have a housing

crisis that needs to be dealt with. New Democrats speak about the need to create housing. We have been pushing federal Liberals to go out on their own and do it if the Tories don't want to do it.

They've downloaded housing in the same way that the Conservative government has downloaded housing, and I say that is a tragic, stupid political move. You don't download housing the way the federal

Liberals have done and the way the provincial Tories have done. It's a fundamental mistake. Attack that.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: We support the creation of housing, Mr Sorbara. Why? Because people are looking for affordable housing. They're not looking for

condominiums. The ones who can afford it, your clients, perhaps can afford the condominiums, but the majority of people I know want affordable housing that you're not building, that the federal

Liberals are not building, that these people are not building.

You want affordable housing, and we have spoken, as New Democrats, to that. This is one specific resolution that says to the tenants, "We are on your side."

You're looking for something at a time when you are desperate, and these are desperate times. The tradition of eviction is a result of the new Tenant Protection Act. We are living in that reality

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad the Speaker is helping me out to calm down my Liberal friends. We're living in a tradition of eviction. We're living, as

Michael Walker says, in a tradition of hardship and in a culture or tradition where homelessness is growing and has become acceptable to these Tories.

We say this status quo cannot go on. We argue that change is necessary, and that change at this moment for New Democrats is a rollback and then rent

control.

We're saying to the Liberals, all right, if you don't like it, come up with something that we can debate. Don't just say to the NDP, "What you're proposing is

not serious, is not real, is cheap." I say to you that I don't mind debating a resolution or a motion that you want to bring forth for us to debate. I'm willing, I'm ready to debate, but please

don't just dismiss our suggestion as not being serious. It's serious for tenants, and there are 3.3 million tenants who are desperate.

I just met someone the other day, saying, "I can't find a good, decent apartment for less than $900, a one-bedroom unit in downtown Toronto." She said, "You

can get something for $850, $900. You can get it but it's" -- she used a very difficult word that perhaps is not nice to mention. She's single. She's got to pay $950 for a one-bedroom apartment in

downtown Toronto, where the vacancy rate is 0.6%. It means that private developers can do what they want. They can squeeze the tenants, as they do to make money so that they can enjoy the profits

Interjection: Big profits.

Mr Marchese: -- big profits, so that the value of their buildings can stay as high as it has been in the last five years. Five billion dollars

of value has been added in the last couple of years. They're doing OK. Tenants are not doing OK.

We're saying to you, tenants, that if you agree with New Democrats, you need to let us know. If you disagree with the Liberals and the Tories, you need to let

them know. But we can do this together, and you can bring the government to its knees. You can bring the Liberals to their knees too if they get elected or if they think they can get elected; you

can bring them to their knees. You can, but you just have empower yourselves with it. You've got to make them accountable and make the Tories accountable, because your needs are real. The city of

Toronto recognized it; 30 to 8 was the vote. It wasn't one man, Walker -- 30 to 8. Make them listen to you.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for debate on ballot item 20 has now expired.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I will now place the question on ballot item number 19. Mr Kormos has moved ballot item number 19.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

RENT REGULATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Marchese has moved ballot item number 20. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion

carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will call in the members for a vote on ballot item number 19. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Order. Will members please take their seats. Mr Kormos has moved ballot item number 19. All those in

favour will stand and remain standing until the Clerk calls their name.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will stand and remain standing until the Clerk calls their name.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are nine; the nays are 64.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

RENT REGULATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 20. I will permit the doors to be open for 30 seconds.

Order. Mr Marchese has moved ballot item number 20. Those in favour will stand and remain standing until their name is called by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bradley, James J.

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel,Shelley

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 9; the nays are 63.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The continuous attack on our purse and those of seniors is evidenced by the numbers of calls and visits I receive

in my constituency office, from the delisting of drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan to other health services being considered and being delisted by our own government. The last letter I

received is not from one of my own constituents but, most strikingly, comes from a 91-year-old woman who is very much concerned about the delisting of podiatry services now from the Ontario health

insurance plan. This is a concern of not only this particular 91-year-old Ontario citizen but of many other concerned citizens as well.

She also mentions to us that her community care access centre time has already been cut by over 50%, and that the message being sent to us and to the Premier

and to the government of Ontario is that the bit of home care service she gets is costing a lot more than the $200 she received last September.

I hope that the government and the Premier will listen to her message today, which is this: consider very carefully the cost to our seniors in Ontario when

dealing with health care and the delisting of services which our seniors are now receiving and accustomed to receiving. I hope the Speaker hears that.

MARTYRS' SHRINE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'd like to add a little bit more information on the Martyrs' Shrine Day Act that I introduced

yesterday.

In the summer of 1615, the first French missionaries and traders, led by Samuel de Champlain, arrived in Huronia, at the village of Cahiague, on the shores of

Georgian Bay. Soon after, in 1639, the French Jesuits erected a central mission residence called Sainte-Marie Among the Hurons. It became the focal point of contact between the First Nations and

the French. It also marks the beginning of Ontario's francophone community.

The Martyrs' Shrine in Midland pays tribute to the heroism of the early French missionaries and the hundreds of First Nations people who worked with them and

welcomed the missionaries to this country. These are the French martyrs: Jean de Brébeuf, Isaac Jogues, Gabriel Lalemant, Antoine Daniel, Charles Garnier, Noël Chabanel, René Goupil

and Jean de la Lande.

Joseph Le Caron, who conducted the first Christian religious service in Ontario, Giuseppe Bressani, the first Italian to come to Ontario, François

Gendron, the first medical doctor known to have lived here, and many others are also included among those remembered at the shrine.

Among the First Nations people honoured by the shrine are Kateri Tekakwitha, Joseph Chiwatenhwa, Therese Oinhaton, Joseph the Algonquin and many others. Along

with Sainte-Marie Among the Hurons, restored by the government of Ontario in 1968, the Martyrs' Shrine continues to this day as a living reminder of these heroic beginnings of Ontario.

This year marks the 75th year since the opening of the shrine in Midland, Ontario. The shrine continues to promote historical education and awareness of events

of the 17th century in this province. It witnesses to the spiritual testimony not only of the early missionaries and First Nations people, but now as well to the multicultural and multi-faith

celebration of that heritage.

REGENT PARK COMMUNITY

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I want to stand today to tell the citizens of Ontario and the members of this House about the

spirit of the people of Regent Park. The Regent Park community, in my riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, has had a very challenging year, but they're coming back strong.

I want to talk today about an initiative called Pathways to Education. It is an initiative that has been brought forward by the people of Regent Park, strongly

supported by the Regent Park Community Health Centre. At its heart, it's an initiative that is designed to keep kids in school and to encourage excellence in education from the standpoint of those

kids by making the connection in their minds very clear: that we need them to go on to post-secondary education.

I've made a very serious commitment to raising $375,000 this year for that initiative, and I'm very pleased to say that distinguished Ontarians -- people like

Michael Adams, the pollster, Eb Zeidler, the architect, Dianne Poole, a former member here, and her husband, Richard -- have offered their personal support, not only in terms of the cash they can

offer but also the willingness to participate in helping to raise additional funds.

This summer I was confronted by a sense of powerlessness that sometimes we face, In association with a community that also needs to work hard sometimes to find

its own voice and its power, I am very pleased to say that we're coming back, on behalf of the residents of Regent Park, to make that community and the city of Toronto a healthier, safer place for

all the residents.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The Campaign Against Child Poverty, in collaboration with faith communities across Canada, is engaging in a

campaign beginning today, September 27 through October 4, to end child poverty. In the pursuit of that goal they are encouraging people to engage in this week of prayer, a week of fasting and a

call to political conscience. New Democrats join with these faith communities, social justice movements and individuals across Canada who understand that children in this country, and certainly in

this province, have been left far behind.

As Shelley Martel, our youth and children's critic, has had occasion to note more than once in this House, this government is so obsessed with corporate tax

cuts that it has abandoned children, and we're witnessing this increasing and dramatic and so tragic growth of child poverty that this government has done nothing to abate.

We call on people to join with each other to call upon their government MPPs and to embarrass or cajole in any way they can this government and its members to

confront the tragedy of child poverty. This government is one of the authors of child poverty. We call upon this government to be one of the solutions to child poverty. They've got the resources.

Forget your corporate friends. Pay attention to our children, for once.

MORDECAI RICHLER

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): The world of Canadian letters suffered a huge loss on July 3, 2001, with the passing of Mordecai Richler.

A talented writer, commentator and humorist, his Canadian legacy will live on worldwide.

His own words speak to why he pursued his passion for writing as his profession. These musings are from a 1983 edition of the New York Times: "The truth is,

everybody I knew in my Montreal high school who wasn't going to be another Ted Williams or Barney Ross or Maurice (The Rocket) Richard was willing to settle for being a writer. As far as we could

make out, Hemingway set his own hours. He seemed to go fishing whenever he felt like it. He was on first name terms with Ingrid Bergman and Marlene Dietrich. It had to be a good life."

throughout the country. In his lecture entitled Canadian Conundrums, delivered at the University of Waterloo in 1999, he chided then Deputy Premier Bernard Landry for exaggerating the negative

aspects of life in Quebec. Mordecai Richler wrote, "We haven't lost our heads, only our apostrophes. It isn't Belfast. Life goes on. Montreal, however diminished, is still to my mind the most

agreeable city in Canada. And this is because the two cultures not only confront but also continue to enrich each other."

Mordecai Richler put on paper a continuous quest for honesty and left Canadians with a smart, yet unpretentious sense of life that lives on through his written

legacy.

Our sincere condolences are extended to his wife, Florence, and his family that he adored so much.

HOME CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Like all my colleagues on this side of the House, I spent much of the summer break speaking

with scores of constituents about how this government's unconscionable cutback in funding to the home care sector is devastating their lives. While it is bad enough that hundreds of people in my

riding remain on a waiting list for services, a number that increases monthly, it is equally appalling that numerous people who were receiving the help they needed to stay in their homes have now

had their hours cut back to such a degree that many of them may not be able to stay there.

To say that the government's actions are cruel is self-evident. Entire families have been thrown into disarray as they scramble to maintain their loved one's

independence while they painfully ponder how their government can justify these cutbacks in service.

What makes this so troubling is that this determination to cap the funding simply makes no sense. Does the government believe that proper home care support

will reduce people's need to access hospitals or nursing homes, which will then further reduce financial pressures in these more expensive sectors? I am sure the finance minister would say yes.

Does the government also acknowledge that the need for home care support will continue to increase as the population ages? Again the answer is clear: yes, they

do. So I say to the Minister of Finance and his government today, do the right thing, provide the needed funding to the Thunder Bay and district home care sector and all across the province, so

that people can continue to live with dignity in their own homes, but also because it simply makes sense.

Minister, your determination to maintain a hard line on this issue is hurting too many people. We beg you to reconsider this heartless decision.

HATE CRIMES IN LONDON

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to pay tribute to the many thousands of people in the London area who have worked so hard since

September 11 to promote respect, understanding, tolerance and unity among Londoners. From a city-sponsored meeting at Victoria Park to an individually initiated gathering at the London Muslim

mosque, to literally dozens of other initiatives throughout our community, the overwhelming majority of Londoners have come together to say that everyone belongs and every Londoner counts.

From the time of its founding over 200 years ago, Ontario has always been a province of people with diverse backgrounds, and a fundamental reason for our

success has been our ability to include all in the life of our province. We note, however, that a small number of people have attacked Muslims, people of Middle Eastern or Asian heritage and

others, apparently because they think the perpetrators of the crimes of September 11 in the United States were of similar backgrounds or affiliations. Such an approach is of course irrational,

counterproductive and wrong. Such ideas have always existed in Ontario and have always been rejected by the great majority of Ontarians.

I strongly commend Premier Mike Harris and Attorney General David Young for their firm statements that hate crimes will not be tolerated. Sir Wilfrid Laurier

said that the 20th century would belong to Canada, and he was substantially correct. The 21st century will belong to us even more, because we will continue to attract many talented people from

around the globe and will continue to give every person the opportunity to fully participate in our national and provincial life.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN LONDON

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to raise an issue that requires immediate attention: the potential of London losing its

pediatric cardiology program.

On November 1, Dr John Lee, a world-renowned physician and London's only pediatric heart surgeon, is leaving for Halifax. Dr Jane Gillett, a pediatric

neurologist, is 95% sure she's leaving for Hamilton. Today London's sole pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Andrianna Ranger, says she's disillusioned and unsure about her future in London.

Tomorrow parents of sick children will be marching at Children's Hospital in London. They fear that London's world-class, state-of-the-art pediatric services

are going to crumble. With Dr. Lee's departure, 15 to 30 premature babies requiring life-saving surgery each year are being put into jeopardy by this government. Hundreds of children, from Windsor

to Thunder Bay, are at grave risk because Mike Harris and his government callously turn their backs on funding specialized services in London.

This government just doesn't get it. There's more to this province than Toronto. In the past five years -- primarily in the past year -- more than a dozen

respected medical specialists have left London. This is intolerable and a dangerous situation that's putting lives at risk.

The Minister of Health must put an immediate stop to this deterioration of London' s world-renowned medical status. We need a funding commitment. We need the

voices of the three London MPPs on that side of the House to speak up. I urge them to speak up on behalf of their constituents, because you are abandoning your constituents and you're putting lives

at risk. Speak up, London members.

CARL BREWER

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to a hockey legend, Carl Brewer. Carl Brewer was a great NHL hockey player who was

generous to Georgina, a town in my riding of York North.

The former NHL defenceman, known for his scrappy play, died in August. He helped the Toronto Maple Leafs win three consecutive Stanley Cups in the 1960s and

gained notoriety off the ice for his battles with the NHL to regain pension contributions made by players.

Many local Georgina councillors spoke of Brewer's generosity and his personality, a nice guy who played a big role raising funds for the building of Georgina's

Ice Palace. He was instrumental in getting the NHL old-timers to play a game in Keswick.

Ted Schmidt, a friend who paid tribute to Carl Brewer, said we will "miss his gentleness, penetrating wit and great laugh; his legacy, however, abides: an

appreciative army of old players who now walk with more dignity because of the magnificent, misunderstood fanatic, Carl Brewer."

TRAGEDY IN SWITZERLAND

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the tragic event that occurred this morning in Switzerland in

the provincial Parliament in Zug I wonder if we could have a moment's silence for our colleagues in Switzerland.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.

Would all members and our friends and guests in the galleries please rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: I thank all members and our friends in the gallery.

SECURITY

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was wondering -- I beg the indulgence of the House -- if we could have a

report to every member of this Legislature in terms of security and updates on security in light of the horrific events that are happening around us.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just to respond, all three parties indeed discussed this at

House leaders today. The Sergeant at Arms has assured us that in the event of something like this happening anywhere else, they review procedures here in the building. If there are changes they

wish to recommend, based on that review, those go to the all-party committee that deals with security matters. They would then make recommendations to you, sir. It's my understanding that indeed

will occur. If anything needs to come out of that, we would proceed.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further to that, I know the Sergeant at Arms would be pleased to meet with any member, group or caucus to go

through it specifically. I know he met today with the House leaders, but by any means, any member who would like to discuss any issue can speak directly to me and the Sergeant at Arms, together or

individually. I also will say that any of those members are free to participate in the security committee. If the members are not aware of it, their House leaders certainly are.

I thank the member for his concern.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss a new vision for transit investment and

expansion in our province. Our government recognizes the need for a balanced, integrated transportation system where both highways and public transit play a key role. This 10-year, $19-billion plan

underscores our leadership role in transportation.

The plan includes a $10-billion target for provincial highways and a $9-billion target for transit expansion and renewal. I am pleased to announce the province

will invest $3 billion over 10 years for its share of transit funding.

For every dollar the province has put into funding transit since 1995, the federal government has not even put in one cent -- not one cent. At 0.2%, their

contribution isn't even a quarter of a penny. Clearly, the federal government needs to do more.

This is no small-scale endeavour. We are taking a leadership role, not only in terms of funding but also in the integration of public transit and highway

systems and the coordination of long-term transportation planning and traffic demand management. To that end, the province will provide operating and base capital funding for GO Transit and will

create an operating authority for GO Transit that reflects a broader regional representation. We will consult with stakeholders to coordinate transit planning and services throughout the Golden

Horseshoe area.

The province, municipalities and the federal government need to work together to make this vision a reality. So I am issuing a challenge today to my federal

counterpart, Transport Minister David Collenette. Over the past year, he has stated numerous times that the federal government "will co-operate with provincial and municipal partners to help

improve public transit infrastructure."

Well, Mr Collenette, the province has made its commitment. Now we need a commitment from you.

Clearly, this government is doing everything we can to ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, one that will be key to the long-term prosperity of

our province. Ontarians deserve no less.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): This is a great day in Ontario. In May, when I presented my first budget to the

Legislature, I spoke of the need to address gridlock and improve our transportation systems. I spoke of the need to continue building on the superior quality of life we enjoy in this province.

Today I am pleased to share with the House details of our plans in this regard. Through the Ontario SuperBuild Corp, we will invest $9 billion over 10 years in

the development of public transit across Ontario to be used to expand and renew facilities and vehicles. We will take back responsibility for GO Transit, which will relieve municipalities in the

GTA of $100 million a year in direct costs, money that we expect will be reinvested in public transit.

We will cost-share with municipalities across the province for as much as one third of the eligible costs of replacing aging public transit fleets, and we will

consult with municipalities and work together with them to help meet their regional transportation needs.

We need and expect Ontario's partners at the municipal and the federal levels to participate fully in developing a better transportation system, one that

guarantees our economic prosperity, one that ensures Ontario will remain what it always has been: the best place in North America to live, work and raise a family.

I challenge the federal government to contribute to this important initiative. With the new investments I have announced today, Ontario is contributing more to

transit and transportation than any previous government. In contrast, the federal government has repeatedly hinted that it will fund public transit and has repeatedly disappointed the people of

Ontario when those hints fade into nothing. It is time now for them to follow through. Ottawa takes about $2 billion a year from Ontario motorists and returns virtually nothing for transportation.

We think it is time they started to give something back. Our money is on the table. Now we want to see theirs.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The Minister of Transportation has just told the Legislature about the

government's plans to invest in transportation and transit. It's very important that we be sure to invest in the right ways, and in the right places. That's why I am also announcing today our plans

for five or six Smart Growth management councils.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Obviously, the Liberals are not supporting this initiative, but I can tell you that the people of Ontari