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

November 27, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L252 - Thu 27 Nov 1997 / Jeu 27 Nov 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

HOUSEHOLDER MAILINGS

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

HOUSEHOLDER MAILINGS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

EDUCATION REFORM

GABRIELE ERASMI

SPECIAL EDUCATION

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

EDUCATION REFORM

FESTIVAL OF TREES

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE BON SAMARITAIN

GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF CREIGHTON-DAVIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CANTON GÉOGRAPHIQUE DE CREIGHTON-DAVIES

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160 / BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997

BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160

LOI DE 1997 ABROGEANT LE PROJET DE LOI 160 / BILL 160 REPEAL ACT, 1997

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

ACADEMIC TESTING

EDUCATION FINANCING

CLASS SIZE

EDUCATION FINANCING

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

CLASS SIZE

EDUCATION REFORM

TVONTARIO

EDUCATION FINANCING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

ABORTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Morin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société des loteries de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Morin moves ballot item 107. According to the rules, the member has 10 minutes.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I would like first of all to thank my colleagues the members for St Catharines and Essex South. They have done an excellent job in fighting the government on the issue of legalized gambling in Ontario.

I know we are expressing the opinion of many Ontarians concerned about a province becoming more and more dependent on gambling revenues. The bill we are debating today addresses just a small portion of a larger issue that has troubled the majority of Ontarians since the government introduced Bill 75 in June last year.

My bill, Bill 163, would ban the use of instant ticket vending machines as an outlet for the purchase of lottery tickets. The purpose of the act is essentially to eliminate part of the troubling problem of under-age gambling. It is time to consider the consequences of the use of these machines. The figures on adolescent gambling are very disturbing. By limiting their opportunities to gamble, I believe we can reverse the trend toward gambling addictions among young people.

ITVMs dispense the scratch-and-win tickets. These tickets are strongly associated with the promotion of compulsive gambling in that they provide instant gratification for players. In the hands of children they send the wrong message of easy gain for just a few bucks. Adolescents understand the rule of odds even less than adults do. They don't understand that no matter how much they win, they will always lose.

The Ontario Lottery Corp is a good corporate citizen, to be sure. We can't forget, however, that they are in the business of profit, and as such, their promotion of ITVMs represents yet another scheme to part people from their money at an unwelcome and often terrible social cost. Lottery tickets cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 18 since the passage of a bill initiated by the former Liberal member of Mississauga West, Steve Mahoney. However, anecdotal evidence exists to show that this prohibition is not working and that heavy government fines are useless because there is no meaningful enforcement.

My colleague from Essex South has evidence of a 14-year-old boy who was able to buy tickets at four establishments without being asked his age. The member for Ottawa South had his 13-year-old son asking him for money to buy a lottery ticket from an ITVM at the airport in Ottawa. Jamie casually informed his surprised dad that was not an unusual transaction among his peers.

I know that none of us want any harm done to our children. Regardless of the trouble adults can get themselves into, we all believe we have a responsibility to protect children from the dangers of unrestricted access to activities for which they are not prepared, and in that sense we share the responsibility with their parents.

I am asking you today to take that responsibility in order to do the right thing and remove ITVMs from this province. Under the OLC's instant ticket vending machine placement policy, each ITVM must be placed "where retailers and staff can see it easily at all times," presumably to make sure the machines are properly monitored.

However, the retailer reference guide for ITVM contracts states: "ITVMs can help to increase ticket sales for high-traffic retailers who simply do not have the time or resources to handle selling instant games manually. By installing an ITVM machine in a high-traffic area, in plain view of customers, retailers can be successful in selling instant lottery games with little or no staff time required." How much plainer can it possibly be that the OLC is promoting these machines precisely because they don't need to be monitored the way counter sales do?

Although Bill 75 introduced stiff penalties for retailers who sell lottery tickets to minors under 18, the enforcement of those penalties is practically non-existent. The Ontario Lottery Corp, which takes in some $700 million in revenue on $2 billion in sales, relies completely on local police to follow up on complaints while the Ontario government itself spends nothing on enforcement or investigation.

The Ontario Lottery Corp denies that under-age use of ITVMs is a significant problem. However, unless regular spot checks are conducted, a low level of reported incidents is meaningless. Our problem is not with penalties but with the lack of enforcement, and ITVMs make enforcement next to impossible. Due to this vacuum in enforcement, retailers have no meaningful incentive to prevent kids from purchasing tickets directly from them, something which happens all the time.

Studies from other jurisdictions have shown that the legal age limit for buying lottery tickets is nowhere being strictly enforced. It is therefore logical that retailers are even less compelled to monitor lottery ticket sales from automatic ticket vending machines. Existing studies that have looked at adolescent gambling point to some very disturbing trends.

A 1994 Ontario study found that 65% of Ontario adolescents had gambled in the previous 12 months. In its survey, it identified 37% of all adolescents as problem gamblers compared to 8.6% of the adult population. Gambling problems also increase as kids grow older. The percentage of kids with gambling problems rose from 27% among 12- to 14-year-olds to 35% of 15- to 17-year-olds and to 40% of 18- and 19-year-olds. These figures are both shocking and unacceptable.

Adolescent gamblers use their allowances and lunch money to feed their habit. They may steal money, or borrow it and not pay it back. They are also more likely to skip school or miss work due to gambling. They lie about winning. They deceive their parents and friends. They are subject to temptations that even some adults cannot resist, and their self-esteem is damaged as a result. I find this incredibly sad. We want them to grow up strong and confident because of their positive earlier experiences, and instead, they are defeated even before they begin.

Other jurisdictions have rejected the introduction of ITVMs for the reason of their easy availability to children. It is now our turn. We have done what we could to prevent kids from having easy access to cigarettes. The previous government introduced the Tobacco Control Act in 1993 to ban the sale of cigarettes from cigarette vending machines. Let's stop sending the wrong message to kids in letting lottery tickets remain freely available to them. We have repeatedly called on the government to address this problem and they have not yet done so.

It is not enough to make the right kinds of noises and then do nothing, or to hear about problems with compliance and then make half-hearted attempts to follow up.

I hope that with Bill 163 we can finally act on our opposition to the exploitation of our children for profit. Of course, this bill will not eliminate the growing problem of adolescent gambling in all its complex dimensions. However, IVTMs impact directly on kids who are vulnerable to gambling and addictions. I think we are justified in prohibiting their use as soon as it's feasible. This bill represents a small but significant step in the right direction. I hope it will receive the support of all the members here today. I look forward to your comments.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I am very pleased to rise today to have the chance to address the private member's bill that has been brought forward my good friend the member for Carleton East. I have had the privilege of serving with him in this Legislature since 1990 and I know very well of his distinguished record of public service in this House, I think dating back to 1987, if I'm correct.

I know that over the years the member for Carleton East has on quite a number of occasions demonstrated his concern for the most vulnerable in our society through private member's bills that he's brought forward. It is no surprise to me that he would bring forward legislation today that aims to protect our children, and I would commend him for that.

The member is not alone in his concerns about access to gaming by minors. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, I am very pleased to have this chance to address some of the concerns about access to gaming by minors that the member has raised.

In my review of his bill, I am pleased to see that there are many points of mutual agreement between the government and the member for Carleton East. The government takes the matter of lottery sales to minors very seriously, so seriously that it brought in Bill 75 some time ago, the Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, the toughest legislation in the country, in order to prevent the selling of lottery tickets to minors.

Provincial law and the Ontario Lottery Corp corporate policy prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to minors. An individual found selling tickets to minors -- people under 18 -- can be fined up to $50,000 and corporations up to $250,000, a very heavy fine.

The Ontario Lottery Corp places vending machines in locations that are licensed or where machines are in direct supervision. It also removes lottery products from retailers who have sold lottery tickets to minors and, looking at their record, you can see that the corporation has done this at least 10 times since 1992.

In the spring of 1997, the Ontario Lottery Corp was asked to review all the locations where there is any doubt whatsoever about supervision. Instant ticket vending machines at that time were removed from the Ottawa airport and from laundromats across the province. The Ontario Lottery Corp recently made recommendations to the provincial government on its instant ticket vending machine program. The government has received these recommendations in the last two weeks and I'm sure the member will understand that the government needs a little more time to review these recommendations and to make decisions on them.

I think it is important to point out that it was the previous government, the New Democrats, that brought the instant ticket vending machines in when they were in government. No penalties were put in place at that time for selling to minors except for the removal of the vendor's licence to sell tickets. The government plans to direct up to $9 million to problem gaming research, development and delivery of assistance programs, again underlining its concern about people who have problems with gambling, who are addicted to gambling.

The Liberals earmarked no funding to problem gaming. The NDP, as I understand it, allocated only $1 million. The government will spend 60 times more on problem gaming than the Liberals in Newfoundland, 180 times more than the Liberals in New Brunswick and millions more than the Ontario Liberals did when they were in power.

Like the member for Carleton East, this government is committed to protecting our children and ensuring that minors are restricted from gaming.

It is my intention to support the member's bill in principle and I want to congratulate him again for bringing this forward today.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I am pleased today to stand and speak in favour of Bill 163, a bill that would effectively ban instant ticket vending machines, otherwise known as ITVMs.

First of all, I would like to thank my colleague Mr Morin from Carleton East for introducing this bill, as it addresses a very important issue with regard to under-age gambling in Ontario.

Quite simply, ITVMs are machines that dispense scratch-and-win tickets. On September 9, 1997, I asked the then Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to remove ITVMs from locations across Ontario because it had been brought to my attention that under-age persons had easy access to and were purchasing scratch-and-win tickets illegally. While Minister Saunderson agreed with me that under-age gambling should be stopped, he refused my request to remove these ITVMs. Instead, he promised an investigation that's been referred to by my colleague from Wellington. Subsequently, nothing has been done to stop minors from purchasing lottery tickets like these that I have in my hand.

Fellow members, this morning we will have the chance to send a strong message that we in the Legislature, regardless of party affiliation, are against under-age gambling and are willing to take important steps to prevent it from occurring.

At present, the only requirement for retailers to have these ITVMs in their establishment is that there is a line of sight. This means that someone in the store can watch and see the machines at all times so that minors don't use them. But it begs the question, if this were the true intent, to prevent minors from buying lottery tickets, then why doesn't the retailer sell them in person? The answer I received was that ITVMs are to make the purchase of these tickets more convenient because employees were often too busy. Too busy to watch the ITVMs at all times to prevent under-age purchases? I think the answer to that question is yes.

Quite simply, the current situation is unacceptable. There is absolutely no guarantee that minors will not use these machines and, as I pointed out, I have proof of it right here, where a 14-year-old was able to buy these tickets with no questions asked. I might point out that it's not illegal for children to buy the tickets; it's illegal for them to be sold to them. While all lottery ticket sales to minors cannot be totally prevented, steps and measures can be taken, such as banning ITVMs.

These ITVMs remove the control aspect that I think is so very important. Would we sell beer from vending machines in a retail establishment, even if it were in the line of sight of an adult at all times? The answer is no, because there isn't anything preventing a 12-year-old from using the machine, and secondly, there are no controls to prevent this from happening. These are the same reasons why my colleague from Carleton alluded to the fact that cigarettes are no longer sold from vending machines in Ontario.

While minimum funds are spent to prevent gambling in Ontario, removing these ITVMs will be a step in the right direction. Seven hundred instant ticket vending machines are found in laundromats, bowling alleys and donut shops, places where young people frequent and have easy access to the machines. We all share the responsibility and have both the obligation and the moral duty to remove these machines to protect our youth.

By not having an adequate control system, we are saying to minors, "No, it's wrong to buy lottery tickets and gamble, but here is an easy way to do it." It sends a mixed message and a wrong one at that. Currently none of the other lottery jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of Loto-Québec, is using ITVMs, and for the same reason -- why Mr Morin has presented this bill this morning -- because ITVMs, instant ticket vending machines, allow easy access to minors and therefore must be stopped.

I'm sure all members will agree the sale of tickets to minors is worth the cost of inconveniencing a small percentage of people who want to buy these scratch-and-win tickets. This is an issue that is straightforward and very clear-cut. If one is truly against under-age gambling, then steps must be taken to prevent it. Today we have an excellent opportunity to do so. I hope each of the members in this Legislature will make your voice heard on this issue and vote for Bill 163.

If you're really opposed to children having access to gambling, then I think it's very simple that this bill be supported, that it be sent to committee, that it be debated. Reviewing the sales, as my colleague from Wellington has suggested, has gone on long enough. It was earlier this year that we asked the minister to do that. They merely sent a message out to the retailers to be more vigilant, and that's been proven to not be successful enough. We have to take a positive step in this direction.

We don't sell cigarettes from vending machines, as has been pointed out, because they were too accessible. Then what we see is, as my colleague from Carlton has said, that the retailer reference guide for ITVM contract sales says that it can help increase ticket sales for high traffic retailers who simply do not have the time or resources to handle selling instant games manually. That very simply points out the problem. If the retailers are too busy and don't have the resources to sell them manually, how then can they possibly have the resources to monitor the machines that are in their line of sight?

The reference guide goes on to say that by installing an ITVM machine in a high traffic area, in plain view of customers, retailers can be successful in selling instant lottery games with little or no staff time required. What we are saying is that, unfortunately, they can also be successful in selling tickets to kids. I ask that all legislators this morning support this bill. Thank you.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to commend the member for Carleton East for bringing this bill forward to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets through instant ticket vending machines. The member has been consistent with respect to his approach respecting young people and the opportunities they have to avail themselves of things that perhaps they shouldn't be. I commend him for that as well.

This is one of those experiments, the introduction of instant lottery ticket vending machines. There was an opportunity to try it, see how it worked. It seemed as though it may have been a good idea at the time to try to make the sale of these tickets more convenient in areas where it was felt that the supervision of that activity was going to be enough to prevent the sales to young people. But obviously, based on the anecdotal evidence we've heard and the evidence we've heard from the member for Essex South, the supervision isn't close enough.

It's probably easy for all of us to understand that young people wouldn't have any problem buying lottery tickets. It was a Liberal member several years ago who, I recall, introduced a private member's bill to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to minors, and that was a bill that was supported by all parties in the House at the time and has become the law in Ontario. But we know that just passing laws isn't going to be enough to affect the behaviour of persons who seek to buy lottery tickets even though they're under age.

I recall as well the debates we had within our caucus and in the Legislature with respect to the banning of the sale of cigarettes in vending machines. I know that was a controversial issue at the time. It affected the rights of property owners, the persons who owned those vending machines and the locations they were placed in. However, all of us agreed that we should try to do what we could to reduce the incidence of smoking by young people. That was one of the simple ways we were able to do that. That's something that governments, both provincially and federally, saw fit to devote resources to, to ensure that we try to reduce the incidence of young people smoking.

My wife is an environmental health inspector with the Essex-Windsor district health unit. She refers to herself on occasion as one of the tobacco cops. She's a provincial offences officer, does undercover surveillance work, monitors vending locations and store owners in areas around schools on occasion and actively is involved in the enforcement of the law that prohibits young people from purchasing tobacco products if they are minors and prohibits vendors from selling to young people who are minors. She has been very effective in that work, and they've charged numerous vendors and young people and persons who have supplied tobacco to young people as part of her efforts.

If we recognize that that's an important allocation of resources because it is in the interests of the health of our young people, I would hope it's a program that this government, as part of their downloading exercise, would ensure continues to be undertaken by local health units in our province. If that's something we recognize is important for the health of our young people, I would hope we also recognize the importance of trying to reduce the incidence of young people purchasing lottery tickets as well.

I recall as well the debate we had with respect to Bill 8, which was permitting casino gambling in Ontario. That was a bill where the age restrictions for persons to go into casinos in Ontario and gamble was the subject of some debate at the time. It was agreed then that casino gambling should be restricted to persons who are at least 19 years of age and over. I think all of us in this House agree on the importance of having a law that takes that approach.

Of course, we have a casino in the city of Windsor, and it has a very effective security and surveillance system. They really have the resources available to enforce that restriction, with respect to prohibiting young people from gambling. I haven't heard this morning of members being aware of under-age persons who have been at a casino and have been able to gamble.

It's that level of security and surveillance that's necessary, obviously, to prevent young people from being able to gamble contrary to the law. It's also obvious that that's not something that is available, or it's not working if it is available, with respect to these lottery ticket machines. It's clear that this is the sort of activity that needs to take place only in a closely supervised environment. That environment doesn't seem to be present in order to prohibit young people from buying lottery tickets. I agree with and will support this initiative to try and remove instant lottery vending terminals from Ontario.

However, I want to mention the importance of having gambling opportunities in closely monitored and supervised areas like casinos. If we're going to have gambling opportunities, let's have them in casinos. Further to that, I think we should do what we can to make sure we have the availability of craps in the Windsor casino. I know that's been mentioned here on occasion, and it will be important in the Windsor area to ensure that we can compete with the three casinos that have been announced for the city of Detroit in the near future.

There was an

article in the Windsor Star that said that the former minister, Bill Saunderson, had written a letter to the federal minister asking that the Criminal Code be amended to permit craps. It said that letter was written on September 11. However, an

article in the Windsor Star on November 26, just yesterday, said that the new minister, Palladini, was in Windsor on Tuesday and said that he expects the letter to be sent in the next couple of days making that request. I don't know why the letter hasn't been sent requesting that craps be permitted in Canada and in the Windsor casino, but I would hope that the members present here would urge Minister Palladini to make sure the letter gets sent. The postal strike isn't an excuse. If they'd like me to deliver it myself, I'll be more than happy to do that.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm pleased to speak on this bill. In introducing this, I wonder if the member for Carleton East is thoroughly aware of the implications of his own party's position on gambling, however. As you're aware, Mr Speaker, our government has taken the position that we are going to ban the roving Monte Carlo casinos that blight our society, and of course our position is being opposed by the Liberal Party.

The Monte Carlo casinos are supposed to be in the interests of the charities, but the charities are telling us daily that they are not getting the proceeds that they believe they should be getting. They know the number of people who are coming to the casinos, they know how much is being gambled, they know how much they're supposed to be receiving from the operators of the Monte Carlo casinos, but they're not receiving those funds.

It reminds me a little bit of Prohibition, Mr Speaker, when there were blind pigs being operated. I know you're aware of what a blind pig is, but for the benefit of those who don't know what a blind pig is, they were these little clubs, and behind the one-way glass the operator of the club could tell whether the police were coming in. If the police came into the premises, all the booze was put away. But of course when the police weren't there, it was operating fully and the sale of booze was wide open. You couldn't control the illegal sale of booze during Prohibition, just like now you cannot control the illegal VLTs or the illegal gaming proceeds from the Monte Carlo casinos.

We want to bring in legislation to put this under control. The Liberals oppose it, and now they're introducing a bill to bring in prohibition on instant ticket vending machines -- not consistent at all. But that shouldn't surprise you, Mr Speaker, and it shouldn't surprise anybody else in this House, because that party has a history of flip-flopping. That party flip-flopped through the campaign. That party flip-flopped on a recent illegal strike by teachers. The leader of their party in 1992 --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Who was that?

Mr Wettlaufer: Who was it? I say to the member for Cochrane South, that was Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party. In 1992 he brought in a bill banning the right to strike for teachers after October 31. But who was out on those picket lines with the teachers, encouraging them to continue to strike? The same Dalton McGuinty, the same leader of the Liberal Party -- flip-flop again. They just carry on this way.

I want to say that I support the efforts to control illegal gambling. Our government supports them. We are planning on putting $9 million into gaming research and development of programs to control gambling addiction. I want to point out that the Liberals never earmarked any funds for that when they were in power. Another flip-flop? Yes, probably.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I think members know of my great concern about the escalation across this country and North America of gambling opportunities and that those are encouraged by governments. The most insidious and the latest, I guess you could say, although they are not as recent as many would like to think, are the video lottery terminals around the province. They are electronic machines which are what you and I might call instant automatic slot machines. The reason they are so alluring is that they are like a computer game.

They appear to be modern, and there's an instant hit from video lottery terminals. I see all these gambling opportunities being expanded as presenting some genuine social problems for our society.

I know that governments all over are greedy for money and they think this is an easy of getting money. Ontario is not the only jurisdiction where this is the case. We have many jurisdictions and we have many people, from many different political parties, across the country and in the United States who are in favour of escalating gambling opportunities.

But I think we have to remember that it preys upon the most vulnerable people in our society, often the desperate people in our society, who are addicted to gambling or who believe that with the background they have -- perhaps they haven't had the same opportunity for a good education or perhaps they're not well connected within their community so they have easy access to jobs. Sometimes those people, in desperation, will turn to gambling as that opportunity to enhance themselves financially, to help themselves out financially. I am very concerned when I see any of these escalations taking place.

We have established opportunities now. We're not rolling back the clock on those. We have a casino which was established in Windsor, one in Niagara Falls and one in Rama. We have three of those in existence at the present time. I don't think this Legislature is looking at heading out to close all those down, despite some difficulties out there. My friend from Niagara Falls and I would know that almost daily now we have stories of people abandoning their children and heading into the casino. There are some problems, but we are not looking at this time at turning back the clock on those. What we're looking at is an escalation of opportunity for gambling purposes.

My fear is that with the video lottery terminals or the electronic slot machines, for instance, if we follow the present course in this province -- and I am sure there are members in all parties who are concerned about this -- we will end up with them in every neighbourhood. The reason we'll end up with them in every neighbourhood is because there are bars and restaurants in many of the neighbourhoods in this province, and people will have easier access. It means many of the funds that might go to something more beneficial, to families in this province, go into these machines. There is an increasing number of people addicted to them.

What the member for Carleton East is looking at is yet another machine that would make access easier. I think his concern is again one which we would all share, and that is that under-age people might have access to these machines, machines which would dispense instant winning tickets in this particular case. It's very hard to police that. Once you have them in operation in various places, it's hard to police that.

As long as you have an individual selling, there's an individual who has liability, an individual who must exercise her or his conscience in selling a ticket to an under-age person. But the machine does not have that same conscience, so we're liable to see a proliferation.

The good thing about private members' hour is that I look at this issue as one which is, if not non-partisan, multipartisan, because I can't help but believe that there are members on all sides who have some genuine concerns when they watch governments head in the direction of more and more gambling revenues.

I remember Premier Harris, when he was leader of the third party, and Ernie Eves, who is now the Minister of Finance, both genuinely expressing concern a couple of years ago about this escalation of gambling opportunities. Our Premier said on that occasion that he didn't really want these revenues for government, that he wasn't interested in these revenues for government. I agreed with the Premier, who was leader of the Conservative Party at that time, on that particular issue. I thought there was a pretty good coalition of people in the House who had some genuine concerns.

The government of the day was embarking upon casinos. One was established in Windsor and there was one headed for Niagara Falls. But even members of the government caucus -- I think one member resigned from the Legislature or turned into an independent, largely over that issue.

I don't condemn any political party, because all parties have been part of the escalation of gambling opportunities. What I'm saying is that we as legislators, as individual and independent-minded legislators, have a chance through this avenue, through private members' hour, to give an expression of our concern about the escalation of those gambling opportunities.

Yes, funds have been raised for some good causes, and yes, governments welcome revenues which can be derived in what they consider to be a painless way, but I think we pay far too great a social price for the continued escalation of gambling opportunities. That's why I'd like to see us put a halt to that escalation and evaluate where we are and, if necessary, scale back from where we are at the present time.

The charity casinos that are going to be in about 44 communities in my view will simply suck every last dollar out of those communities, won't help other businesses and will channel money in a direction which isn't necessarily good for society.

I commend the member for bringing forward this resolution, and I know there's a lot of support among members of the assembly for it.

M. Bisson : Premièrement, j'aimerais indiquer que moi et le restant de notre caucus NPD, on veut donner du support à ce projet de loi 163. On trouve que le projet de loi prend en bonne direction, comme la direction que nous avons prise comme gouvernement dans plusieurs situations faisant affaire avec les jeunes de notre province ayant l'habilité d'aller rechercher des billets, comme on voit, que M. Morin voudrait faire arranger.

Je vais partir un peu du thème de ce matin pour dire qu'une affaire qui me frappe comme député ici à l'Assemblée, c'est comment avec tous les gouvernements ce n'était pas mal la même affaire, le gouvernement de M. Peterson, le gouvernement de M. Rae et de même et le gouvernement de M. Harris, que des fois on est un peu trop pressés, comme législateurs, de passer des projets de loi. Quand on passe ces projets de loi, des affaires comme celles-ci arrivent. Pourquoi ? Parce qu'on n'a pas pris le temps de vraiment regarder les implications du projet de loi quand il était mis à travers la Législature.

On voit ces jours-ci à l'Assemblée des projets de loi, tels que la Loi 160 sur l'éducation de quelque 260 pages, qu'on passe avec un processus législatif d'environ deux ou trois jours, trois jours à la deuxième lecture avec une journée à la troisième lecture, et puis peut-être quatre ou cinq jours en comité. Le point que je fais c'est que, quoi qui arrive, comme législateurs, députés locaux et comme citoyens, on n'a pas dans ce processus vite l'opportunité de vraiment regarder les implications de la loi, de donner au public la chance de regarder et de digérer ce que ça veut dire, pour voir s'il y a des problèmes tels que M. Morin soulève sur les distributeurs automatiques des billets.

Quand un gouvernement a dit durant les années passées qu'on allait allouer la vente des billet dans la province, et ça date de beaucoup d'années et sous gouvernements successifs qu'on fait des changements avec des lois sur cette question -- parce que le processus est assez vite, je pense qu'on n'a jamais vraiment regardé : _Mais c'est quoi, l'implication pour les jeunes dans notre province, d'avoir l'accès à des billets à travers ces machines-là ?_ Le point que j'essaie de faire est simplement que, si on prenait notre temps ici à la Législature premièrement, quand on commence avec un projet de loi, on pourrait faire une bonne consultation publique, même avant que le projet de loi soit écrit.

Par exemple, dans la question du projet de loi 160 sur l'éducation, le gouvernement Harris aurait pu, avant même d'amener la législation directement à l'Assemblée, faire une bonne discussion publique pour que tout le monde ait la chance de parler un peu sur ce que cela veut dire, ce que le gouvernement veut, c'est quoi les thèmes généraux et comment pourrait-on être capable de faire ça pour accomplir les buts du gouvernement ; et là, quand on commence le processus législatif ici à l'Assemblée, qu'on aurait assez de temps comme députés de traiter de la question.

Le point que je fais est que, si c'était arrivé pendant les années passées quand on a commencé avec toute la question de ventes de billets en Ontario, avant de passer le premier projet de loi, si on aurait pris le temps législatif et le temps en comité pour vraiment regarder la situation, faire la consultation publique avec la population, c'est très possible que cette question-là aurait été soulevée durant le processus public et on ne serait pas ici aujourd'hui avec le projet de loi 163 pour essayer d'arranger le problème.

On a besoin en Ontario, et possiblement dans d'autres juridictions, d'être capable de trouver une manière de ralentir un peu le processus législatif pour qu'on puisse prendre le temps de bien étudier la question ici à l'Assemblée, donner au public la chance de vraiment discuter et de digérer ce que le gouvernement propose, et dernièrement, prendre assez de temps de faire ça pour que, quand on passe un projet de loi, on ait regardé tous les aspects pour s'assurer qu'on n'a pas causé des problèmes qu'on ne voulait pas.

Je pense que c'est ce qui est arrivé dans la question des distributeurs automatiques. Dans mon comté, comme dans le comté de M. Morin, il y a beaucoup de fois où les jeunes ont un couple de piastres à dépenser et ils s'en vont pour acheter un billet. C'est contre la loi à cette heure à cause d'un projet de loi que le gouvernement NPD avait passé pour qu'on ne soit pas capable de vendre les billets directement aux jeunes, mais ils prennent l'argent puis ils s'en vont à un distributeur automatique pour l'acheter. Ça, c'est un problème.

On ne veut pas que nos jeunes, premièrement avec les sous qu'ils ont, dépensent l'argent de cette manière. Il y a de meilleures manières de dépenser leur argent. Mais plus important, on ne veut pas que les jeunes commencent à prendre l'habitude de jouer des jeux de chance à un âge très jeune parce que ce n'est pas une bonne manière pour commencer une habitude. S'ils vont commencer ça très jeune, les chances, quand ils commencent à grandir et deviennent plus vieux, d'être poignées dans tous ces jeux de chance d'une manière possiblement -- ce serait très négatif.

C'est avec plaisir que moi, député de Cochrane-Sud, et le restant des députés du Nouveau Parti démocratique allons voter en faveur de ce projet de loi. On demande au gouvernement conservateur d'adopter ce projet de loi à la deuxième lecture et de donner la chance au projet de loi de passer au comité, où on pourrait regarder cette question-là et donner la chance au projet de loi de passer.

Je veux faire seulement un point en finissant. On trouve chez ce gouvernement une habitude envers les projet de loi privés des députés comme M. Morin et autres. Le gouvernement conservateur n'est pas très fort quand ça vient à adopter ces projets de loi. J'espère que le gouvernement conservateur ne continue pas cette habitude avec ce projet de loi pour dire Oui à la fin de la journée, parce que c'est un projet de loi qui aurait dû être fait il y a longtemps. Merci.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise to support this bill which would prohibit the sale of lottery tickets through vending machines and would prohibit owners and operators from having or keeping such machines in public places.

Many members of the House will be aware that I am not a great enthusiast of the expansion of government-sponsored gambling activities. While many people view various kinds of gambling, including playing the lottery, as a form of entertainment, the fact of the matter is that in order to generate higher profits, the industry must create more losers. Ultimately most people will lose much or all of the money they wager.

I accept the fact that a certain amount of legal gambling must be permitted in order to avoid creating revenue sources for criminal enterprises, but surely all members of the House would agree that the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that, as with tobacco and alcohol, access to gambling by minors is legally restricted. That is why I support this bill.

Gambling is not something we should encourage among our young people. Independent studies show that teenagers are two to four times more likely to develop problem and compulsive gambling habits than adults, even when access to many forms of gambling is legally restricted. Passage of this bill would be an effective step in restricting access by minors to the most widely available form of gambling, while still leaving legal vendors with adequate opportunities to sell lottery tickets to adults.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to address this bill. I commend the member for Carleton East for bringing this bill forward. I agree in principle with his intent and I will be voting in favour of this bill.

All too often government is left to deal with the symptoms, the fallout of societal issues and I think many times we are left dealing with legislation that allocates additional dollars, allocates programs to solve some problems that are symptoms of real root causes. I think we have an opportunity here in this House today to deal with a piece of legislation that goes to the root cause and to prevent some problems that could face us in years ahead.

I look forward to seeing this bill go forward and I hope that it goes to committee, that we have an opportunity to have some further discussion and perhaps some amendments to this bill which may make it practical in terms of implementation.

Certainly with regard to cigarettes, as the member points out in his letter to me, we have made illegal the sale of cigarettes to minors, and that perhaps one variation of this bill, an amendment that may be considered, is that these tickets be restricted for sale in licensed premises where under-age children do not have access. That's one possibility. I can tell you that personally I am very much in favour of doing what we can to protect the young people in our province, the most vulnerable. We, as a Legislature, I believe, have a responsibility to deal with these kinds of issues and this is our opportunity to do so.

I will be voting in favour of bill and I again commend my colleague from Carleton East for bringing it forward.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): First of all, I'd like to commend the member for Carleton East for bringing this forward. I think it's a topic that needs to be discussed and should be looked at in a very serious way.

Also the member for Essex South mentioned how we don't have machines that distribute beer. However, there are machines that distribute beer in certain locations. I have a student from my riding here this morning, Kierstyn Ellis, and I welcome her here. As Kierstyn mentioned, she's never seen one of these machines. However, I myself have seen them in certain locations that, yes, would cause me concern. I think, though, that what should be looked at is possibly having them in certain locations where individuals have to be of age, such as in legions or licensed establishments and things like that. Quite possibly those are the areas we should be looking at.

I will be supporting this motion that has been brought forward by the member for Carleton East so we can look at it further and possibly refine it through a committee process, should it reach that stage, where we can address that particular issue.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Carleton East has two minutes to respond.

Mr Morin: For my concluding remarks, I will quote Dalton Camp:

"There is anecdotal evidence of winners at VLTs, but the winners inevitably become losers. No one has yet retired on the earnings, but thousands go broke every day.

"Everyone knows small-time gambling has brought big-time profit to government, and ruin to the sad sacks who play the machines. Described as the crack cocaine of gambling, VLTs are any government's preferred method of raising revenue -- a sucker tax on gambling addiction.

"The decision to take the cash -- and duck the discredit and cynicism that come with it -- befits the libertarian spirit permeating government today. Amorality has become an instrument of policy-making.

"One must always assume, in government, that doing what is right is indistinguishable from doing what is profitable, or what is least expensive.

"This balance sheet mentality conveniently overlooks -- where it does not entirely omit -- the collateral costs of revenues, rents from the marginally poor, or addicted, or from those simply witless enough to fall prey to the son et lumière of an infernal machine designed to fleece all those who play it.

"Despite widespread opposition to VLTs, politicians hesitate to act.... Gambling has always been a racket -- a business that appeals largely to the larcenous, as a business, and to the weak and those of lesser means, as a game.

"Governments that need the proceeds from gambling to stay afloat have no more moral purchase on public opinion than addicts who blow their paycheques at a VLT.

"The profits taken from human misery and folly are not only unbecoming, they are also further evidence of a painful truth -- that governments today are determined to represent what is worst in all of us, and all for the cosmetics of the balance sheet."

Let's show the citizens of Ontario that we will have a unanimous vote on this issue, that it's for the benefit of all that it should go to the justice committee.

HOUSEHOLDER MAILINGS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I move that in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should request the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to petition Canada Post Corp to treat under

section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act members of the Legislative Assembly and municipal councillors of Ontario in the same manner as federal members of Parliament and request the Canada Post Corp exempt them from the ban of economy unaddressed ad mail and allow delivery of not more than four householder mailings per year.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mrs Elliott moves ballot item number 108. Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Elliott: It is my pleasure to move ballot item 108 this morning with respect to the inclusion of all elected officials for household mail delivery.

Several months ago, an issue was brought to my attention that I believe requires address and requires discussion in the House. Last July the Canada Post Corp established a new policy and began a program called Consumers Choice. This is a project that allows constituents the opportunity to obtain a sticker from any post office, place it on their mailbox, and in so doing signal to the mailman by way of this sticker that they do not wish to receive bulk ad mail, or what's commonly called junk mail.

It's not a new idea. In fact this has been happening in Guelph for several years. The city of Guelph, particularly through the waste management department, has offered similar stickers. It's a voluntary program and citizens are making a very clear choice when they put the sticker on their mailbox that they want less advertising in their homes. In Guelph the ad mail has been so significant that there is more than one household that actually has a blue box not far from their front door.

For most of us, it was a decision based on environmental views, wanting less waste, and if we missed out on something, perhaps a great deal at the grocery store, we were willing to accept the consequences and, further to that, maybe pay a bit more for the sake of saving a few trees and creating less landfill.

What many people may not have realized is that ad mail includes unaddressed bulk mail or mail addressed to the householder, the box holder, the occupant or resident, and that they were inadvertently signalling to the mailman that mail of some import should not be delivered.

The type of mail I'm referring to today is what we here in the House would often refer to as a householder. Periodically, members of the Legislature create publications to distribute to our constituents. It might be a newsletter, it might be a flyer, it might be a booklet, it might be something for seniors, it might be a community directory. It could include updates on the latest legislation. It might include notes on upcoming legislation, perhaps invitations to meetings and community events. It might contain congratulations or all sorts of pieces of information of interest to our constituents.

These are opportunities for us to remind our constituents of where our offices are, what our hours are, that we're here to help them and offer different ways that we can help them. It's important to remember that these flyers, newsletters and so on are non-partisan and reflect the needs of the whole constituency.

Canada Post has indeed recognized that non-partisan information pieces such as I've described should be delivered to constituents. There are certain pieces of information that people need to know, so Canada Post has passed two exemptions to the Consumers Choice sticker program: The chief electoral officers of Canada and the provinces are exempted, and the members of the federal House of Commons are exempted.

I would draw your attention to the fact that while electoral officers in the provinces must be exempted, members of Canada's provincial legislatures have been overlooked and ignored. Elected members of all municipal councils have also been overlooked and ignored. I ask you this: Are we not all duly elected? Do we not all have important issues to share with constituents? And do we not also have not only the right but in fact the obligation to keep our constituents informed? I am appalled at the attitude that this exemption displays.

Several months ago I wrote to the minister responsible for Canada Post and asked why other elected officials were unfairly treated. He informed me that the reason federal members of Parliament were exempted from the ban was because of an existing clause in the Canada Post Corp Act,

section 35.3, which indicates, "Subject to regulations made pursuant to

section 36, in any calendar year a member of the House of Commons may transmit by post free of postage to his constituency up to four mailings of printed matter without further address other than `householder,' `box holder,' `occupant' or `resident.'" He also wrote that consequently an exemption to the program was required.

To my mind he added insult to injury -- no mention that any thought had been given to the matter or consideration for us or for those interested in what we might have to share. He says: "The importance of unaddressed reports and communications from elected officials at the provincial and municipal level is appreciated and Canada Post will always be pleased to deliver these items."

Let's get this straight. We can buy from Canada Post the service of delivery of mail to be delivered to every household in our riding, but if there is a Consumers Choice sticker on the mailbox, we have just paid for something that cannot be delivered. And if you think about it, it gets worse: Provincial taxpayers have just paid the federal government for a service that's impossible to deliver.

I draw your attention to another part of the clause that I referred to earlier, "by post free of postage to his constituency of up to four mailings." As an aside, as a woman legislator, I would note that it could say "her constituency," but anyway. Not only are federal members of Parliament exempted from the ban of unaddressed mail; Canada Post pays for the postage. This situation is unacceptable. Provincial legislators and municipal councillors have a ban imposed upon them, we must pay for mail that our federal counterparts get free, and then we pay for mail that may not at all be deliverable.

Why is it that MPs get free postage in the first place? The corporation that is responsible for the mail is a federal crown corporation that gives federal members of Parliament free service. If you follow that principle, would it not mean that here in Ontario, because Ontario Hydro is an Ontario crown corporation, Ontario MPPs should then get free electricity? Of course not.

Constituents have a right to be informed of legislation, whether it be at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level, and we as elected officials have a duty to inform our citizens. The level of government should be irrelevant.

I know that in each one of our ridings there will be constituents who would say that anything from a politician is automatically, by definition, junk mail. But at least they should have the opportunity to see it before they make that decision. In Canada, the opportunity to be informed and to inform must be fair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this issue before the House today. I ask all members to write to their members of Parliament and to the federal minister responsible for the Canada Post Corp on this matter.

Today I am asking for unanimous support from the members of this House to press the Canada Post Corp to treat elected members fairly. It is only right to exempt municipal councillors and provincial legislators from this ban, and either give none of us free mailings or give all of us free mailings.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I rise in support of the honourable member's motion that we are discussing today. As a matter of fact, as we look at this I am somewhat disappointed that it does not cover official mailings or notifications coming from either the provincial government or municipal government. I am going to support this. I think this is an important issue, especially in terms of accountability of elected representatives to the taxpayers of their community, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal.

The resolution deals with, as the member mentioned, the Consumers Choice program which Canada Post has put in place in response to the concerns raised by many people in Canada. We see it whenever we go door-knocking as politicians, "No Junk Mail, Please." "Save Our Trees." Indeed, that is a very noble thing to support. The issue is, what is junk mail? This is where we have the difference of opinion with Canada Post.

It's interesting that the Canada Post program exempts not only federal members of Parliament householders -- the postmaster general hides behind a specific

section of the legislation governing Canada Post -- but also community newspapers, which was apparently brought in at the insistence of members of Parliament when this regulation was going through, and also mailings coming from the chief electoral officer of Canada and the provincial chief electoral officers. That of course is a recognition that to ensure that people are fully aware of their democratic rights to participate in election, they get the appropriate information.

To my mind, it is extremely shortsighted. When I was a member of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and we became aware that the federal government had taken this initiative, I immediately brought it to our council and our council passed a motion asking Canada Post to reconsider. There are many times when a municipal government must communicate with their electorate, and of course it behoves that government to do so in the most cost-efficient, effective manner.

We can put ads in the paper and we can put ads on television and ads on radio, but that's very expensive, and in many cases you need constant repetition to make sure you get the coverage you want. There is nothing like getting direct mail from your local municipality telling you about a rezoning, telling you about changes in water quality, telling you about a public health issue.

I can recall that in Ottawa-Carleton we dealt with a meningococcal disease situation where there was a requirement for public vaccination. How to get that information out? It was cost-effective to use Canada Post. You cannot call those mass mailings to deal with those issues not in the public interest, and you certainly can't call them junk mail. For example, the government of Ontario has just mailed out Ontario Speaks. We want every citizen in Ontario to have the opportunity to participate in a very important issue of the day, which is how to keep this country together when faced with the divisive forces that we find residing in the Péquiste government in Quebec.

How can we provide that opportunity? The "No Junk Mail, Please," and "Save Our Trees" stickers that we see many places are designed for those advertising inserts. That is what we're looking at: the pizza inserts, the latest ad from your shopping centre, what have you. The kinds of communications that should be going to each and every resident which come from their government agency I believe should be exempt from that kind of ban.

This motion that's being presented to us here by the member opposite simply petitions Canada Post to treat, under

section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act, members of the Legislative Assembly and municipal councillors of Ontario in the same manner as federal members of Parliament. I support that. It's important for taxpayers to know what their government is doing, what their elected representative is doing. Certainly not every municipal councillor does that, engages in a householder. Many of us here do, because we're trying to show our taxpayers what we are doing in terms of representing their interests and how their tax dollars are being spent.

I can think of no better time to ensure that this right is there, that everyone has the ability to receive this information and therefore make judgements and participate in the discussion of the issues of the day if they get the information. They have to get the information to be able to participate and make sound judgements. When that route of providing information is deprived, we are not helping the operation of our community very well.

The exception that is being made -- and I read here the letter that came back from the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada, in response to a letter our Speaker had sent -- opened the door to using community newspapers as a venue to communicate with the public. Of course we do, but community newspapers do not cover every community; we all know that. There are some parts in the province where community newspapers do not use ad mail, do not use Canada Post and cannot get out and deliver our message.

I believe all members are aware that our Speaker, on our behalf, wrote to the minister on September 30. He wrote both as Chair of the Board of Internal Economy and as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to express our concerns regarding the decision by Canada Post to include provincial member householders as ad mail, the effect being that we would be excluded for those residents who participate in Consumers Choice. Therefore, we are considered as junk mail, and those who do not wish to receive junk mail would not receive our material.

I just want to quote: "I am sure you are aware that these types of publications are important for some members to communicate with their constituents. To curtail the distribution of these mailings would be extremely unfair to these members. Allowing federal members' mailings and not mailings from other levels of government appears to me to be discriminatory. Furthermore, I fail to understand how a newsletter from any of our members can be viewed as any less important than a newsletter from a federal member. I have received many calls and letters from our members, who are hoping that the decision is reconsidered.

I urge you, on behalf of the 130 members of the Legislative Assembly, to do just that."

I would ask the member opposite and my colleagues here to consider expanding the scope of the resolution to include official communications from levels of government -- municipal, provincial -- because there are matters of important public concern, and I've outlined a few, it is necessary to communicate. Yet we are all husbands of the taxpayer's dollar. We must make sure we find the most cost-effective way, and if this very efficient means of delivering information to our constituents is being removed from us, often the choice is, how do we get this information out, what is the assurance of our coverage, and can we do a good job of doing it.

I am delighted to stand and support the honourable member's motion today.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I support this resolution. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a Tory counterpart. I welcome the opportunity to speak to it and to make note of our solidarity in this caucus with postal workers, CUPW members who have been forced into a strike situation. We want to take this opportunity to condemn even the contemplation of use of scabs to replace the work that postal workers do.

In case there are folks watching this on black and white television sets, my pocket handkerchief is green, for very obvious reasons.

I am confident that, further to the matter of the solidarity with CUPW workers, folks can come out here in front of Queen's Park at 12 noon today, in just about 45 minutes, and join working people and their leaders as delegates from the Ontario Federation of Labour mass here at Queen's Park in protest of this government's attacks on democracy, in protest of this government's attacks on workers, and in protest of Bill 160: the scuttling, the evisceration of public education as it has been built in this province over so many years with the sacrifice of so many people.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise to address this resolution on behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This resolution is timely. I recall when I first became aware of this change, which changes how we, as members of this Legislature, and other elected officials across the province at the municipal level are able to communicate with those who elected us. It changes that as of July 2 of this year.

I have to believe this was an oversight on the part of the federal government. I cannot for one minute believe that this was intentional: to equate correspondence, communication, from elected members of the Legislature or of municipal councils across this province with ad mail that comes out from retail chains. The member's initiative in bringing this to this House, seeking the support of this Legislature and bringing this to the attention of the federal government, as I said before, is certainly timely.

No one likes junk mail belabouring our mailboxes, but I can tell you that, particularly over the last number of weeks, given the important pieces of legislation we're dealing with in this province, the recurring theme from my constituents has been, "Help us with more information about the legislation you're bringing forward."

I think fundamental to democracy in this province, in this country, is the ability of elected officials to communicate with their constituents. I think we should all be optimistic that when our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs formally brings this to the attention of the federal government, we will see their reconsideration and their quick action in response to the member for Guelph's resolution this morning.

I commend her for bring this forward, and we look forward to the opportunity to having this right of communication restored not only to members of this Legislature but members of every official elected body in this province.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I also welcome the opportunity this morning to speak to the resolution of Mrs Elliott, the member for Guelph, and to support her in her resolution.

I would just comment initially that although it would be nice if our mailings could be treated exactly the same as those of our federal members, that being that they be delivered without cost, I don't wholeheartedly support that; in other words, if we can get our householders delivered, and the fact is that they may have to be paid out of our budget, so be it. I think the important thing is that we be treated, along with our municipal representatives, the same as those in the federal government.

I think householders can be of some value. I didn't realize before I came here that, particularly in opposition, there are limited ways in which we can communicate with our constituents. I can tell you that my householder -- I have sent one a year. I point out that part of it is a view from the opposite side, and that is to give another view of any particular piece of legislation we may choose.

I think it's good for opposition members to be able to communicate that way. At the same time my householder has contained I think good information on government legislation that informs our constituents of that legislation, how they can access the things that government can and should do for them.

I try to keep that householder kind of in two sections, where part of it may be somewhat of a partisan nature but only to give a view that may be different from that of the government so that at least our constituents can then make up their own minds. I don't think any government document or any document sent out, like a householder, from any member of the Legislature, should be of too partisan a nature. It should be as much informative as, or more informative than anything else.

Therefore, I can see no reason why we shouldn't be treated the same as our federal counterparts, and if the only result of this will be that they don't agree with this, we will have to go to the cost of addressing each piece of mail, which is possible, and go to the cost of first-class mailing, I suspect, or at least a mailing cost that will be in excess of the normal, most economical way to do it.

I certainly want to add my voice to that of the member for Guelph and add it in a way that emphasizes the fact that these mailings should be used to inform our constituents. Although some of us may not use up to four a year, certainly if we only use one, that goes a long way to having a better informed constituency. Therefore, I would certainly stand in support of this resolution, hope that it passes, and will do what I can to support the position of the member for Guelph through my own member of Parliament in any way I can.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm going to bring a bit of a different perspective on this particular motion, and I would say at the outset that there might be a very good reason why the Tories, the federal government --

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): The Liberal government.

Mr Bisson: The Liberal government, as he says, yes, but let me start it all over here again. It ruined the delivery.

There might be a very good reason why the federal government is not allowing junk mail to be sent out on behalf of people who are members of provincial parliaments; that is, quite simply, that they're trying to protect us from the Tory propaganda. Because if it's stuff coming from the Tories it truly has to be junk mail. So maybe there's a good reason why the federal government has taken the position it has, because we certainly know the government is --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: You've got to look at all angles; that's what you've got to do.

The member brings forward a point, in all seriousness, that is a good one. There's obviously an oversight in the legislation, something we need to take a look at. I would say, given that there is a postal strike on at this particular time, in solidarity with the CUPW people I would urge that the government members do not allow junk mail to be delivered by scabs, at any particular time, because --

Mr Lessard: Or utilizing them themselves.

Mr Bisson: And utilizing them themselves. In solidarity with the CUPW people, I will keep my comments short and view this as a support to the CUPW people.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm entirely pleased to commend the member for Guelph's resolution this morning dealing with Canada Post's unilateral move to not equate provincial and municipal information, in householders or whatever type of communication you refer to it as, on the same level as material sent from federal members of Parliament. It leads me to ask the question on several grounds what is going on regarding this particular situation from Mr Gagliano, the minister responsible for Canada Post.

It seems to me that when all the premiers met in Calgary back in September and promoted the Calgary declaration about the role of Quebec in Canadian federalism, the Prime Minister of Canada, M. Chrétien, praised that particular declaration in terms of its equity of all the provinces, because that's one of the key fundamentals within the declaration.

If the federal government regards the Calgary declaration as being as favourable as he pointed it out to be and as all the premiers who participated in that situation regarded it to be, why is it then when we translate that principle into action that Canada Post, as a monopoly, is able to operate in complete disregard of that principle, particularly in respect of the minister who is responsible for Canada Post?

If provincial and municipal information, as householders or whatever phrase you want to use, is regarded as junk mail under the

section Canada Post and the minister are hiding behind, then I guess one has to ask what constitutes criteria that elevate members of Parliament federally for their householders as not junk mail? What specific criteria elevate it higher?

It smacks in the worst sense of a sort of Liberal élitism regarding their views on the country. It may be a minor issue to us as politicos and how we communicate information to the public, but certainly it points it out in terms of the motivation. One has to ask why they would do this.

It has been suggested by my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie that it was probably an oversight. I'm wondering if it might be insensitivity to other levels of government. I wonder if it might be incompetence. They were so quick to get it through in the middle of the summertime, July 2, that in point of fact perhaps -- everybody wants to talk about motivation around here -- that might be some of the motivation.

Regardless of the situation, this is an intolerable and outrageous practice. If one level of government can do this, then it points to sort of an ongoing unilateral federalism: We know best. We saw it pointed out in terms of the Prime Minister's approach to youth unemployment in this country when this was brought up at the Calgary meeting of the provinces.

I would urge all members of the House to support the member for Guelph's resolution, that the resolution be taken to the federal government by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mrs Cunningham. I'd also urge that the Speaker once again join with other Speakers of provincial legislatures across Canada and ask that this particular selective monopoly be ended and that we get back to some equity in this practice: Treat all political communication on the same level, that it's all exempt from the practice of postage, or put postage costs on it, not, "You're select and then this group is the other way." Where are the criteria? We need some equity back into this.

I commend the member for Guelph for bringing this subject to the attention of the House and I hope we can get some action on it and not another letter from Mr Gagliano that says, "We appreciate your business but we may not even do it under the Consumers Choice program." It's sort of a confusing message from him. I hope we get it finished and resolved quickly.

Mr Lessard: I want to express, along with my NDP caucus colleagues, our solidarity with the CUPW workers who are currently in a dispute with their employer at Canada Post and express our wishes that this dispute they have is going to be settled in the near future, so that if this resolution does pass today, CUPW workers will be able to deliver mail that's sent out by members of the provincial Legislature.

As you know, I was elected on September 4 and noticed that there was a substantial change in the ability of members to communicate through the mail with their constituents, very severe restrictions. This is a dangerous trend, in my view. Those mailing and budgetary restrictions on communicating with constituents were imposed by the Mike Harris Tory government. We see the federal Liberal government as well further trying to restrict the ability of members of provincial Parliament trying to communicate with their constituents. This is a trend that must be reversed.

I want to congratulate the member for bringing this resolution forward today to try and address those restrictions on members of provincial Parliament to communicate with their constituents.

I hope this request that's in the resolution, that the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs petition Canada Post, is going to be more effective than the request that was made to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to request the federal Liberal government to change the law with respect to craps being permitted in casinos. Let's hope that communication takes place a little bit faster.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to rise today in support of Mrs Elliott's resolution calling upon this House to "request the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to petition Canada Post Corp to treat under

section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act members of the Legislative Assembly and municipal councillors of Ontario in the same manner as federal members of Parliament" with respect to householders.

I commend her for bringing this forward because, as she so rightly mentioned, we as provincial members would be paying for a service and would not be able to know if our communications with our constituents would be delivered,

whereas our federal counterparts aren't paying for theirs and have the assurance that each and every one of their householders would be delivered. I do commend her for bringing this forward.

Really, what is the difference between an elected member at the federal level, at the provincial level or at the municipal level?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): They get paid more.

Mr Newman: The Liberal members say pay. Perhaps that is, but the real issue is that every one of those elected representatives is there on behalf of the taxpayers of their area, and taxpayers deserve that right to hear from their elected members, whether they send them here to Queen's Park, to any of the provincial capitals, to Ottawa or to their local town or city hall. They deserve that right to hear from their MPPs and MPs and other elected representatives just what is happening.

I think that it probably was an oversight on the part of Canada Post and I'd like to think -- maybe I'm an optimist -- that they would reconsider. Perhaps it is as the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale said, insensitivity towards other levels of government, that only the federal government should be able to get its communications out to its constituents. I think that would want to be looked at.

I ask the Liberal members here today, you have some connections in Ottawa, your federal cousins are the government in this country. In fact one of your former members of caucus sits in the government caucus at the House of Commons, the former member for Oriole, the now federal member for Thornhill. I'd ask you to ask her to fight on behalf of all elected members in Ontario, not just at the provincial level but at the municipal level, and to see that their communications are brought forward to their constituents, that they're able to see that.

I notice with interest that the member for Windsor-Riverside talked about having a problem with the reduced budget, that we've actually reduced the budgets of members of provincial Parliament in Ontario by some 20% and, yes, there have been restrictions on the amount of communications that have gone out. But you have to ask yourself why. Why were there reductions in place on communications?

Because the previous government allowed members to send out virtually an unlimited amount of mail and the actual cost of an MPP's office when all the costs were brought into place was almost $240,000, $250,000 on the part of many members who were sending out, I would think, excessive mailings. We have brought that back into line so that constituents across Ontario are able to receive communications from their elected representatives but not to the extent that they once did.

Perhaps the federal government and Canada Post, when this decision was made, decided that federal ridings and federal members would be allowed to do this because their ridings were larger. I say to you, if that was their reason in doing it in Ontario, our provincial ridings will be exactly the same size and have the same boundaries as our federal counterparts during the next election. At the start of the next election we'll have the same number of elected representatives here at Queen's Park, and that would be 103, as Ontario has at the House of Commons, which would be 103.

That's a reduction of 27 elected members here in Ontario. If it is on the basis of geography and size of the riding that they're allowing federal members to continue to do this, then they ought to extend that same privilege to people who are elected to represent them at Queen's Park and at the municipal level.

Especially at times when there's a lot of restructuring going on on the part of municipalities, people want to know from their elected representatives at that level just what is happening. I know many people in Toronto are interested to see how our new city of Toronto will work and they want to hear from the 57 people who were elected on November 10 in this city and perhaps right across the province who were elected just what's happening in their communities, so I feel they should have that right as well.

Maybe Canada Post's motive in doing this is to make sure that everyone has a Web site so that is the way people are going to have to communicate with their constituents if Canada Post continues down the path that it's on right now, to not allow elected members at the municipal and provincial levels to effectively communicate with their constituents.

If Canada Post did continue down this path, many of the constituents wouldn't have the opportunity to know that this government has cut taxes 30 times since taking office, that they've had several cuts to personal provincial income tax in this province, that they've cut the employer health tax in this province with the goal of reducing it to zero for those small businesses with payrolls under $400,000 and effectively removing it from larger corporations with payrolls over $400,000 but actually exempting the first $400,000.

They wouldn't know that we've reduced the deficit in this province, that we've cut red tape or that there are 250,000 more people working in this province today if Canada Post didn't allow those householders to go out and have those communications done at the economy rate from members.

Other members spoke as well about Ontario Speaks. I think it's very important that literature like that be able to be distributed to every single person in this province so that they have an opportunity to respond on the issue of national unity from this province.

As people indicated, newspapers are being asked to pick up the slack, that people would take out ads as a way of communicating with their constituents. The point was brought up that community newspapers aren't in every community and, for that matter, not everyone has a chance to leave their own home, to get out and purchase a newspaper or to pick up a free copy of a community newspaper. I think it's important that they are able to have those communications delivered right to their door.

In closing, I just want to say to the member for Guelph that I support her resolution. I think she should be commended for bringing it forward and that all members of the House should support her on behalf of the taxpayers of this province and indeed the taxpayers of Canada.

Mr Miclash: I rise to as well support the member for Guelph's motion. She has certainly brought forth a matter of inequity here when we take a look at the principal component of her resolution regarding the householders going from a federal member or a provincial member.

The member for Scarborough Centre brings up an important point and it's a point that has certainly had a great influence on how we as northern members are going to be able to represent our constituents, that being the Fewer Politicians Act which enlarges a riding in the north, which is certainly going to have to have the distribution of householders and material throughout one third of the provincial land mass. We will have one out of 103 members representing one third of the provincial land mass, so of course householders and mailings at that point will become very important.

It was Mr Harris who brought forth the Fewer Politicians Act to limit the representation from northern Ontario, a very vast region of this province, by one third. We are dropping our northern representation and we are certainly going to have to have every means available to us to reach those constituents in that 337,000-square kilometre area of northern Ontario.

I applaud the member for Guelph for bringing this forth. I go back to the importance of information getting out to my constituents. As you will realize, to cover an area going from Rainy River all the way up to Fort Severn, is almost going to be impossible to service our constituents on a regular basis, as northern members do now. Knowing that riding is going to be enlarged by an enormous amount, I go back to the fact that mailings are certainly going to be very important.

I think of the number of things I do through either my householder -- as we know, the calendar is referred to as a householder as well -- and the number of important phone numbers that I get out to my constituents through this mailing. It is one I know they look forward to because there is some very valuable information contained in a good number of those mailings to let constituents know how they can get hold of provincial government agencies and, more important, how they get hold of me representing them here in the Legislature in Ontario.

It is a very important aspect and a very important service to our constituents in such a large geographical area and one that we need to service those constituents.

As I have indicated, I will certainly support this resolution.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I too am pleased to support this resolution that has been brought forward by the member for Guelph. As she will know, I rose on a point of privilege in the Legislature and raised this issue with the Speaker, hoping that representation could be made from the Legislative Assembly on behalf of all members to the federal government and to Canada Post to understand the impact of this decision they had taken. I am very pleased the member has taken the initiative to bring forward this resolution and I look forward to voting in favour of it.

I think there are times when perhaps people don't understand how important the MPPs' budget is with respect to communicating with their constituents. I know we've had a bit of that debate in here and we have seen restraint across all government budgets. We've seen restraint of MPPs' budgets as well. I know, for example, in my own riding that I am not able to communicate to the same degree that I did in the past as a result of those budget cuts.

Now some might say perhaps they got too much information from me in the past, I don't know, but most of the feedback I've received from my constituents is that people appreciate being kept up to date with respect to what's going on and being kept up to date with respect to their members' opinion of that, because it is on the basis of your record, the positions you take, the information you put forward that people will judge in the future whether they continue to have political support for you.

That kind of communication back and forth with constituents, where you're providing them with information and where they are responding to you and giving you feedback so that you come here to this Legislature in order to all the better represent your constituents, is a very important two-way flow of communication.

Of course, with the issue that is at hand in this resolution, we know we cannot afford to have direct-address mail to all of our constituents. It would be next to impossible for us to afford from our budgets. The most cost-effective way for us to communicate using the taxpayers' dollars is through unaddressed mail, and you've heard other members here speak about householders and the kind of distribution of that, where it goes out on a postal walk as unaddressed mail.

The problem with the Canada Post decision on this, of course, is that it discriminates against different levels of governments and politicians not just in terms of their ability to communicate but also in terms of the individual residents themselves and whether they will receive very important information from either municipal or provincial government.

By virtue of being environmentally conscious, of not wanting to support junk mail and additional wastage of paper, if you take that position, which I do personally, then I, as probably one of the people who would most want to hear from my elected representatives at all levels, would be denying myself the opportunity to get that information, so there's a bit of irony in all of this.

I think it is an issue that should be able to be resolved fairly quickly. I'm quite amazed at the insensitivity of the federal government and Canada Post in the decision that has been taken here. It seems to me that once it was drawn to their attention, it would have been fixed very quickly. I know that's not the case, because it was first drawn to my attention, actually, by a member of provincial Parliament from one of our western provinces. We know that approaches have been made, and no fix has been found at this point in time.

I think the member's resolution is both important and timely. Hopefully, with a joint expression of the members of this Legislative Assembly we will see a response to the concerns not just of provincial politicians and their ability to communicate with their constituents but certainly at the municipal level as well. I think the ability to have participatory democracy is dependent on the ability of constituents and their elected representatives to communicate with each other. In this case the decision that has been taken at the federal level is one that would hamper that.

I see there is about five minutes left on the clock, which I'd be delighted to share with my colleague. At this point in time, I'll just indicate my support for the member's resolution and thank her for bringing it forward.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine for giving me some time to participate in this debate and indicate that I too, along with I think all of the members of the House frankly, support the resolution brought forward by the member. All of us who have concern for the environment and for conservation would understand the wishes of people to avoid cutting down more and more trees in order to produce more and more junk mail. Now we have the additional problem of junk faxes that are becoming a nuisance to people and of concern.

But having said that, it is central to our democratic political system that the elected representatives have the responsibility to inform their constituents about the issues of the day and to seek their input, so that the MPP or the municipal politician as well as the MP can be informed about what the constituents think. Without that kind of exchange of ideas and views, it is impossible for MPPs, any elected representative, to properly represent her or his constituents.

It is most unfortunate that the federal government, Canada Post, would determine that the corporation would agree not to provide junk mail to any household that wishes not to have that mail but would include MPPs and municipal newsletters while protecting MPs' newsletters. There is some discrimination here, which is not acceptable, and I'm sure that the members of Parliament in Ottawa, once they are aware of this through the passage of this resolution today, will do everything possible very quickly to rectify this obvious problem.

People must be informed of what their MPs are doing in Ottawa, but they must also be informed about what their MPPs are doing at Queen's Park, just as they should be informed about what their municipal representatives are doing and what the issues are in each area.

I would guess that there are certain kinds of mailings that are done by provincial governments that could be considered indeed to be junk. For instance, the recent advertising about teachers and teachers' federations and teacher union bosses I would indeed classify as junk. If there's anything Canada Post can do about that kind of junk, I would be certainly in favour of it. I would support it all the way.

Having said that, I think it's important that we ensure that Canada Post and the members of Parliament in Ottawa are sent a message by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that we believe we have a responsibility to inform our constituents and to seek their input about issues that are important at the provincial level.

I congratulate the member for bringing this forward. I know of her interest in the environment and her concern about ensuring that we do not waste paper, and that we enable people who don't want to receive endless brochures and advertising to be able to get Canada Post to agree not to deliver it to them. But that must not include newsletters from MPPs or, for that matter, leaflets from municipal representatives who are elected and who must communicate with their constituents.

Again, I support the resolution. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward. I hope that the member will receive unanimous consent and agreement from the members of the assembly for the support of this to send a message to Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Guelph has two minutes to wrap up.

Mrs Elliott: I'd like to first of all thank my colleagues from all the parties for their support in my resolution today. We've touched on a number of different topics and each person seemed to look at this issue from a slightly different perspective.

In a sense, what we're faced with today is an issue of an inability to communicate not only out to our members but, as the member for Algoma just mentioned, an inability to in a sense receive feedback from our constituents. It's really important that we are able to share those kinds of information so that we can provide the kind of leadership they expect us to provide, whether it's at the municipal level, at the provincial level, or indeed at the federal level.

It really doesn't matter why this happened, whether it was an oversight or whether it was deliberate. It really doesn't matter. The fact does remain that we are about to have ridings in Ontario that will be exactly the same size as our federal counterparts' ridings. We will be serving exactly the same number of constituents. Many of our issues will overlap. They will range from everything from finance to transportation to environmental issues.

My colleague from Algoma mentioned the stickers. In fact at one time when I had my environment store I used to give out these stickers. I agree with him; there are many, many people who believe that in refusing junk mail they save trees and they save landfill, and in fact they do. It's a very good thing to do from that perspective. But it's so important that our constituents are informed, that they understand what their elected representatives are doing and are about to do, and they have an opportunity to have input into those decisions. It's absolutely essential to our democratic process.

I say to all my colleagues today here in the House that I appreciate their support. Through this action we will make it very clear to the federal Parliament what we want, and I will commit to our colleagues to pass this message to other provincial legislatures across the country.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private member's business has expired.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 107, standing in the name of Mr Morin. Mr Morin moved second reading of Bill 163. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill be referred to committee of the whole?

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Mr Speaker, I would like the bill to be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Morin has moved that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice. Agreed? It is agreed.

HOUSEHOLDER MAILINGS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 108, private member's notice of motion number 83, standing in the name of Mrs Elliott. Is it the pleasure of the House that this resolution carry? It is carried.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1158 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): One year ago tomorrow, my school bus safety bill, private member's Bill 78, received the unanimous consent of this Legislature and was referred to the standing committee on resources development.

It was a proud moment for Larry and Colleen Marcuzzi, who were sitting in the gallery that day and with whom I have worked to bring forward meaningful legislation that will protect children. My bill was dedicated to their daughter Ryan who was tragically and needlessly killed by a driver who illegally passed her school bus when its warning lights were flashing.

Parliamentary tradition and the democratic system require that my bill be brought forward to be heard in committee. The government has refused to allow that to happen.

In June of this year, my bill forced the government to introduce its own school bus legislation, which is totally useless, to protect children. It has no mechanism for conviction. Colleen Marcuzzi said, "Palladini did the political thing, not the right thing."

I urge the government to call my bill to committee so that parents, bus drivers and other experts can come forward to tell you that Bill 78 will give the law the mechanism to convict guilty drivers who endanger the lives of innocent children. Do it now to protect the children.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This Harris government's vilification of principals, of teachers, of school boards, indeed of any others -- and there are hundreds of thousands of others, millions in this province -- opposed to this government's demolition, its evisceration of publicly funded quality education exemplifies the demise of democracy here in Ontario.

The government's demonstrated lack of respect for its citizens and for their contribution to the democratic process is a dangerous warning sign. It is a warning sign that this abandonment of democratic principles, this abolition of democratic process is being witnessed not just across this province but across this country and indeed throughout North America.

The eyes of North America are on this government as it dismantles publicly funded quality education here in Ontario, as it engages in the biggest power grab that any democratically elected government ever has in this province, indeed in this country, as it slams the door shut on the views and opinions of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of citizens of this province.

This government's motive is but to consolidate power in the back rooms of its corporate buddies and to engage in a money grab to the tune of, in the first year alone, over two thirds of a billion dollars to pay for its phoney tax break, the likes of which the people of Ontario want nothing to do with insofar as it is going to be funded on the backs --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

GABRIELE ERASMI

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last Saturday I was pleased to join with the Sons of Italy, Trieste Lodge, as they honoured one of their own as Hamilton's Italian-Canadian Citizen of the Year.

Dr Gabriele Erasmi was this year's recipient and is an outstanding individual worthy of such a distinguished honour. Born in Trieste, Italy, in 1942, Dr Erasmi completed his studies at the universities of Trieste, Yale and Minnesota, where he received his PhD in 1975. Dr Erasmi has been at McMaster University since 1972, where he is currently an associate professor in the department of modern languages.

Dr Erasmi is the author of two books and many articles and research papers on the Italian presence in Canada. His involvement with the Hamilton Opera Guild and Opera Hamilton is well known. He has a tremendous love of classical music and has organized and coordinated at least 30 concerts of Italian classical music and is now for the second time president of the Dante Alighieri Society. I am told that it is not unusual to hear Dr Erasmi burst out with song as you travel the hallways of McMaster University's modern languages department.

Dr Erasmi's family and friends were justly proud as Gabriele humbly accepted this very prestigious award. On behalf of Hamilton, congratulations to Dr Gabriele Erasmi.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): In the members' gallery today are Anna Germain and Robert Perkins, two parents of children with Down syndrome. They are members of a special education advisory congress in my riding of Downsview and elsewhere and members of various associations which advocate for children with disabilities.

They have come here today in a desperate attempt to ensure that their children and the many, many children with disabilities receive quality education. Their experience is that education under the Harris government is already suffering. Their children have little or no support in the schools. The funds to assist them are shrinking. With Bill 160, they fear that these children will be ignored, will be dumped into segregated classrooms with minimal supports and little possibility to learn and improve.

These parents are tired and frustrated. They are forced to lobby for essentials which should be a right for all children. Mike Harris is ignoring the very vulnerable group among the most vulnerable of all children. Bill 160 will make matters worse.

Parents are concerned. They are concerned enough to fight this draconian piece of legislation. They are concerned enough to come down here. They want to ask this government to consider that education is a right for all children, not just the rich and able-bodied. They want to tell you: Don't bully these kids as well. Don't make them the victims of your tax cuts. Do the right thing. Pay attention to the needs of these children with special needs and withdraw Bill 160.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Opposition to Bill 160 and this government's destructive education agenda is growing. This is happening because people know that Mike Harris plans to take another $667 million out of the education system next year. Parents, students and teachers have already seen the effects of the cuts to the classroom, with the $800 million the Conservatives have already taken out. They know the publicly funded education system itself is at risk in the face of another $667-million cut.

A parent in my riding called yesterday to ask me to ask Mike Harris how another cut to the classroom will possibly help his eight-year-old son. The son has attention deficit disorder and must take medication to control his behaviour. He has been seen by a psychiatrist and does require one-on-one supervision in the classroom, but the school board can't afford a full-time aide for the boy.

Since September 1997 he has only attended school on 16 days. There was no support for him in the classroom, so when his behaviour got out of control the school called the parents to come and take him home. As both parents work, they finally had no choice but to place him in the care of his grandmother in another community until the situation could be resolved.

Yesterday, at a school board meeting held with the parents and psychiatrists, no solution was found. The only option put forward was to possibly find some parents who would volunteer to come into the school to supervise this boy and other children who also require close attention.

My constituents' eight-year-old son remains out of school and unable to access an education he is entitled to receive in Ontario. My question to the Premier is simple: Explain to my constituents and their son how another $667-million cut will help this boy get a quality education.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise to demand that the board of directors and commissioners of the Toronto Transit Commission recognize the serious safety problems on Toronto's subway system.

As the trial continues in an assault that occurred at the Kennedy Road subway station where a victim had his legs broken, an 18-year-old OAC student is thankful she survived a push into the path of a subway train last Monday.

Two months ago 23-year-old Charlene Minkowski wasn't so lucky and was killed as she was pushed in front of a subway train. Fourteen-year-old Guy Ambus was mugged at the Kennedy Road subway station four weeks ago. His father, Louis Ambus, was murdered by two young offenders at his uncle's store nearly two years ago.

Tom Ambus started the Kid Brother Campaign and collected nearly one million signatures to change the Young Offenders Act. Tom was incensed at his nephew's mugging. He couldn't understand why three of the four newly installed video cameras weren't working, yet the TTC commissioned a wall mural in the Kennedy Road station to make it more attractive.

Almost two years ago 17-year-old Ishmail Spence had his throat slashed at the Kennedy Road station and died. A year and a half ago 17-year-old Michael Imam Ewaschuk was murdered at the Main Street subway station, and two years ago TTC ticket-taker Victor Trajeski was slain at the Victoria Park subway station.

Mugging, swarming and robbery are now common on public transit. Our families and kids use the subway. Mr Howard Moscoe, councillor-elect and vice-chair of the TTC, you must by now recognize the gravity of the safety problems on Metro subways. My family and my constituents do not want wall murals at the expense of safe subways.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): As Bill 160 moves closer to reality with the vote on Monday, I urge all parents, students and partners in education to make every attempt to contact their MPPs, especially their government MPPs, telling them to vote against this bill which is bad for students and bad for education. Make sure you call or visit your MPP over the next three days to take one last stand against this bill.

Centralization of the power of this magnitude reminds me of newspeak in George Orwell's world of 1984, where war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Similarities abound with the Common Sense Revolution government of Mike Harris, when in Harrisspeak of 1997, cutting is quality, less is more, hearing is not listening, representation is regulation and, saddest of all, democracy is dead.

This experiment ought to be stopped. Take another stand this weekend, teachers and parents and students. Take a stand in Sudbury and in Thunder Bay and in Windsor and Toronto and in the 905 area and say, "Enough is enough of this nonsensical revolution, of this centralization of power, of this cut to our schools on the heels of cuts to health care." Let's take back Ontario and let's take back a progressive and positive future for all the people in this province.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "We, who are called to love and respect God and our neighbours, are very concerned and unsettled with the level of rancour, anxiety, concern, sadness and anger unleashed in the people of this province as a result of Bill 160." This is part of a statement made by the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada, November 12.

"Before you vote on Bill 160 in its present form, we think you are entitled to understand the level of frustration and grief we White Pines C and VS teachers are feeling as a result of your government's intransigence in forcing Bill 160 on Ontario's public education system.

"While we are not opposed to a reasonable approach to educational reform, we are appalled by your government's attack on public education, and specifically, the dishonest badmouthing of teachers for the alleged improvement of education."

"I am a grandmother. My children were able to complete their education and find work in the careers of their choice. One is a teacher, one a nurse, one an electrician, one an executive secretary. I have grandchildren who are willing to work just as hard.... With all the downloading and restructuring," do they have a chance? This is Katherine Punch, Sault Ste Marie.

How many more people is it going to take? Some 126,000 teachers, some 1,000 more parents? Gary Connolly and his friends are still on a hunger strike at Trinity-St Paul's United Church at 427 Bloor Street West. Anybody who's concerned should join that --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Oshawa.

FESTIVAL OF TREES

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It's with great pleasure that I rise today regarding the Durham region Festival of Trees.

Tomorrow will begin the gala opening of the first annual Durham region Festival of Trees at the historic Parkwood Estates and Gardens. The Festival of Trees will feature beautiful, professionally decorated Christmas trees, centrepieces, wreaths and much more. The two-day community event will display and sell a variety of items which are artistically decorated for Christmas.

The proceeds from this event will be used to support the Chaplaincy Association at Oshawa General Hospital, Hospice Durham and Hearth Place, to name but a few.

This first annual Festival of Trees is made possible by a large number of dedicated volunteers contributing their time and effort to provide an event for the whole community to enjoy and benefit, and I congratulate those for their commitment.

The Festival of Trees is an event which individuals, families, local businesses and community groups can all participate in as volunteers, sponsors or simply coming out to enjoy the festival. The festival not only presents an exciting holiday event for the residents of Oshawa but also for the entire region of Durham and the province of Ontario.

This Friday, November 28, from 7:30 to 11:30 pm, the event will open with a mix and mingle, where residents can view the Christmas displays and items to be auctioned. The festival will offer choirs, auctions and raffles for the professionally decorated Christmas trees and Christmas crafts on Saturday, from 9 am to 5 pm.

I'd like to invite all members of this Legislature and citizens of Ontario to start off their holiday season by visiting Durham region's Festival of Trees.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'll be brief, since I believe there's a great deal of debate to take place in the House today and I don't want to delay.

I do, however, want to speak on a second point of order that has relevance to the point you heard yesterday and that you gave your undertaking yesterday to report back on at the earliest possible moment. You'll recall that was the point of order that Bill 164, introduced by the Minister of Finance two days ago, served to amend Bill 149, and Bill 149 had already gone through a due amendment process.

A similar concern exists in relationship to Bill 160, which we are to debate today. Bill 160 again has gone through a due amendment process. The deadline for filing amendments to Bill 160 was November 5. The amendment process was completed.

Bill 164, which was tabled two days ago, very specifically amends Bill 160, should Bill 160 pass. It amends subsection 14(4), subsection 14(5), subsection 16(1), subsection 16(3), subsection 16(4), subsection 16(6) and subsection 16(8) of Bill 160.

I raise the same concern that was raised by my colleagues yesterday, that it is very difficult for us to proceed to debate a bill which has gone through an amendment process which, in my view, was already rather abortive but which is now already being amended by a bill which was introduced two days ago. I don't know whether those amendments are substantive or not because we simply have not had an opportunity to review them, but they clearly affect in some way the bill that we are about to debate this afternoon and that will be voted on before that next bill can be considered.

I appreciate your considering that as you consider the point of order raised yesterday.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I was listening carefully to my friend from Fort William, and I agree with her that the point she's raising is related directly to the point of order I raised regarding Bill 164 and its introduction when I rose yesterday.

We found that the government held off, to be blunt, on Bill 149's debate yesterday afternoon because of the problems raised by their introduction of Bill 164 and the fact that it amended Bill 149. The government and this House are presented with the same problem today in that Bill 164 also amends substantive parts of Bill 160, a bill which has received second reading but is still before the House for third reading, a bill that was also time allocated. The time allocation motion clearly stated that a particular date was the final date by which amendments could be put.

You will perhaps recall, Speaker, that at the time we were about to reach that date, as per the time allocation motion, we in the New Democratic Party suggested to the government that the government might be prepared to bring in a new time allocation motion extending the deadline for amendments. The government House leader at that point refused and remained adamant that the deadline, as per the time allocation motion, stood.

As a result of that, ironically his own Minister of Education and Training ran into problems in that he didn't get in by the deadline all his own government amendments that he wished to introduce. We also found that he introduced the wrong draft of the amendments he did introduce.

The upshot of all of this is that if there is a deadline for amendments and the government wouldn't move that deadline as per the time allocation motion, the government can't now slip in new amendments by pretending they're introducing new legislation. They can refer Bill 160 back to committee of the whole by moving a new time allocation motion to allow for amendments to be done in the proper way.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker , I will be brief. On this same point of order, my friend from Algoma has just laid out for you a bit of history with respect to the tabling of amendments to Bill 160. I would point out specifically that we believe there were five amendments in particular that the government tabled after the 5 o'clock deadline. Those amendments were returned to the government by the Clerk's office.

It is our contention that those amendments have now been embedded in the bill that is before us and is the subject of this challenge, Bill 164, and that they seek to amend bill 160, which has not been passed by this Legislature. That is directly the point that was raised yesterday by my friend from Algoma with respect to Bill 164 seeking to amend Bill 149, which has not yet received passage in this Legislature.

In discussions with the government, I believe the government has virtually conceded, with respect to Bill 149, that there are significant problems in Bill 164. This new issue is of even more importance to have a timely ruling, because the government has informed us that it is their intent to proceed with third and final reading on Bill 160 this afternoon. We think these issues must be determined. In fact, it may need to mean a delay in the proceeding with Bill 160, as it meant a delay yesterday in the proceeding with Bill 149. We would ask you to look into that immediately.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm rising on the point of order by Mrs McLeod, the member for Fort William. I'm asking you to look at this in terms of the fact that it is going to set a precedent, I believe, under the new rules of the House. We have new rules that govern this House now. Is this going to set a precedent that whenever the government is dissatisfied that it has been unable to bring forward all the amendments it wants to a bill, for any reason, it is simply going to come forward with some omnibus bill which contains amendments to several previous bills?

The problem is that the government is simply trying to avoid, in our view, going to committee of the whole, which is provided for in this House. That's what the committee of the whole is supposed to be for: to try to correct any of the mistakes that it has made in terms of submitting amendments.

I believe that if on this occasion you allow the government to bring in amendments through the backdoor, that is, by means of another bill, indeed we're going to be setting a precedent. We're going to have sloppy legislation brought forward on an ongoing basis and people are really going to be wondering what they are debating when the day is over. For instance, when we debate Bill 164, are we really debating Bill 160? It appears from the contention of Mrs McLeod, the member for Fort William, who raised this matter in the House this afternoon, that this would be exactly the case.

We hope you will see the virtue of our arguments we have put forward and rule in favour of Mrs McLeod's contention.

Mrs McLeod: Just building on the points that have been raised by my colleague further to my point of order, there was a further amendment that was to have been presented on Bill 160. It was an amendment relating to a concern of the Urban Development Institute, and indeed of concern to the government. They had inadvertently submitted only one page of a two-page amendment affecting educational development charges in the bill.

There was an agreement on the part of both opposition parties that we would entertain a friendly amendment to allow both pages of the amendment to proceed, since we were in fact, believe it or not, in support of that amendment. Unfortunately, the government found that procedurally, according to its own time allocation motion, it could not entertain even a friendly amendment that would allow both pages of the amendment on educational development charges to proceed. As a result, they had to withdraw the first page because it was irrelevant without the second page.

Given the confusion -- and we have a letter from the Urban Development Institute expressing its great concern with the confusion that's been created and the lack of consultation and the hasty proceeding with this bill -- I'm wondering, Mr Speaker, if it is in order for us to agree through unanimous consent to allow the government additional time to revisit and amend its time allocation motion and go back to complete its own amendments properly. Is that in order, unanimous consent to allow the government to amend the time allocation motion so that it can complete its amendment process?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe that a valid concern over the orders of our House has been raised. I am prepared and will make the arguments necessary to show that Bill 164 is in order in its present form when the time comes for that to be done.

I think it's clear from the precedents which I have read and your ruling yesterday that this issue becomes important when in fact either 149 has been passed or 160 has been passed, and received royal assent; I think that is necessary as well. I will make a proper presentation as to whether or not 164 is or is not in order. It's my firm belief that it is in order, but I am interested in making those submissions at the proper time.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you to the members. Let me just be clear about the timeliness of this and the orderliness of what it is we're seeking, to find out what is in order and what isn't in order.

First, I will take that into consideration as well with the submissions yesterday. But really what we're talking about is the orderliness of Bill 164. It's not 149 or 160; it's the orderliness of Bill 164. I don't have anything to rule on until either 149 or 160 passes third reading. Royal assent, I don't know; I haven't examined that yet. But right now it seems to me it's third reading.

It seems to me I may take the same arguments you put out today and seize them and study them carefully, but again, the government House leader does have a point: He is allowed to make the submissions when it is in fact before the House. Until 149 or 160 is passed, really 164 is not out of order. But I certainly hear what you say and when I do review it I will take these notes with me as well, upon reviewing that comment.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, my further point of order related to the fact that there was clearly an error made by the government in relationship to the educational development charges in the bill. I fully expect the government has to bring in further legislation in order to amend Bill 160, which we've not yet passed, in order to correct the error it made in the education development charges.

My concern is, are we going to go into an extensive process of amending a bill we haven't yet passed? It's with that in mind that I suggested that we would, by unanimous consent, agree to allow the government the time now to complete a full amendment process -- bringing its own amendments forward, having them considered and voted on and