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

April 17, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Apr-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 17 April 2008 Jeudi 17 avril 2008

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE

RED TAPE AND REGULATORY

REVIEW ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RÉVISION

DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ET DES DISPOSITIONS RÉGLEMENTAIRES

STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE

RED TAPE AND REGULATORY

REVIEW ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RÉVISION

DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ET DES DISPOSITIONS RÉGLEMENTAIRES

STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE

RED TAPE AND REGULATORY

REVIEW ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RÉVISION

DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ET DES DISPOSITIONS RÉGLEMENTAIRES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROBERT SHERWOOD

HAMILTON EAST KIWANIS

BOYS' AND GIRLS' CLUB

WILLIAM PATERSON

GEORGE MCCAGUE

BAYCREST

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

JAY FEDOSOFF

MANUFACTURING JOBS

CORNWALL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

WEARING OF PINS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL DAY

ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLODOMOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE

CONSERVATION AMENDMENT ACT

(DOUBLE-CRESTED

CORMORANTS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DU POISSON

ET DE LA FAUNE

(CORMORANS À AIGRETTES)

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

WORKPLACE SAFETY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ROAD SAFETY

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MANUFACTURING JOBS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

LANGUAGE TRAINING

PETITIONS

HOLODOMOR

LORD'S PRAYER

DISABLED PERSONS

PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM

LORD'S PRAYER

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GO TRANSIT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

POPE JOHN PAUL II

FIREARMS CONTROL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SPEED-LIMITING SYSTEMS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SYSTÈMES LIMITEURS DE VITESSE)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario Liberal government should immediately enter into negotiations with the city of Ottawa in order to provide assistance to finally build the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. MacLeod has moved private member's notice of motion number 3.

Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I rise today to fight for my constituents. The people of Nepean–Carleton returned me to Queen's Park because they know that I mean what I say and I say what I mean. They know that I will fight tooth and nail for them in the Legislature, and they know that their priorities are my priorities. That is why I brought forward this resolution today, calling on the Liberal government to listen to my constituents and negotiate with the city of Ottawa, so that we can get the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge built on time and on budget.

We need that bridge in Nepean—Carleton. Just yesterday, the city of Ottawa staff agreed, when they approved that bus rapid transit should run across that bridge.

I've raised this issue—the need for the bridge—in the Legislature many times. In fact, since December, I've introduced thousands of signatures on petitions, calling for this bridge to be built. I've also written several letters to the Premier and the Minister of Transportation on this important infrastructure investment—unfortunately, to no avail.

I'm disappointed that the Liberals have been ignoring my residents, my city and our local politicians because of their rigid position on transit. It is essential for members here to realize that a suburban rural riding like Nepean—Carleton needs both transportation and transit options. Our eggs can't be placed in only one basket; we need roads, bridges and transit to best serve the people in Nepean—Carleton.

Beyond that, the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge itself will be a most important link between the Rideau River communities of Riverside South and South Nepean, two communities that are joined within a city ward, but that are disconnected by the mighty and historic Rideau River.

It will also be an important link for those living in the village of Manotick and those who reside near the Hunt Club bridge. Right now, the capacity of both Bridge Street in Manotick and the Hunt Club bridge is unsustainable, and the much-needed Strandherd-Armstrong bridge would alleviate traffic congestion during rush hours in these two communities. This, by the way, would really help out the member for Ottawa South, our Premier, whose riding would directly benefit from the decongestion on the Hunt Club bridge, which straddles the line between his riding and mine.

Not only that, but the proposed bridge will be an environmentally friendly infrastructure addition to my community. This, of course, is what makes a transportation initiative that much more appealing. It will get people out of their cars quicker. Instead of a 25-minute commute across the Hunt Club bridge or the Bridge Street bridge in Manotick, we will see my residents in their cars for five minutes, if at all. That's getting the majority of people who need the bridge out of their cars for an average of 20 minutes a trip. What's more environmentally friendly than that, I ask? I'll tell you.

The bridge will make it that much more appealing to put either light rail or bus rapid transit on its surface. That means that not only will we have people driving their own cars far less, but it also means we're going to get more people out of their cars.

As I wrote to the Premier on November 25, 2007, "We both know that any rapid transit plan that deals with the southwest end of" the city "must at some point include a crossing of the Rideau River from Riverside South to South Nepean for safety reasons, environmental concerns and to ease traffic congestion." I further said to him, "I know that you understand that without the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge, any rapid transit plan that involves the southwest end of the city is irrelevant."

The case for the bridge has been made in my community since the early 1990s. In 1993, a Rideau River bridge feasibility environmental assessment study was undertaken by the former region. At the time, it pointed out that "As development commences in the new growth areas, there will be a higher rate of east-west travel, which can only be satisfied by the construction of a new east-west arterial, including a new crossing of the Rideau River."

When you think of the growth of this community—what we know as ward 22, or South Nepean and Riverside South—you will note that according to a city of Ottawa report, census data from 1991 to 2006 shows that South Nepean has grown from 22,000 residents to over 57,000, and Riverside South has grown from 710 residents to 7,600. You will agree with the same city of Ottawa study, which says, "Implementation of the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge presents opportunities for new travel patterns…. It would reduce current and future traffic demand on the existing Rideau River crossings … and free up capacity to address future demand."

As you can see, the case for the bridge has been made. But now it needs to be funded. I am concerned about politics being played to the point that this bridge will not be built. Without even batting an eyelash, the Premier has refused to fund this bridge. His spokesperson, Jane Almeida, told the Ottawa Citizen that the Premier did not see the bridge as a public transit option. This is despite the fact that the city plans to unite two urban communities with this bridge and use the link for some form of rapid transit. She then says in the same paper, "We will not be funding this bridge."

Of course, that is quite brazen, considering that the Premier once endorsed the bridge and his community would benefit enormously from the bridge, since it would take traffic off the congested Hunt Club bridge. But Citizen columnist Ken Gray offers his reasoning for Mr. McGuinty's objection to the bridge: "A Conservative who has been a burr under the Liberal saddle would add to Mr. McGuinty's strong objection to the project." That's just plain wrong. More than that, in 2005, the Premier, along with the MPP for Ottawa—Orléans and the Minister of Community and Social Services, was only too happy to support the bridge when it was part of the now-defunct light rail plan.

As I will outline, the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge is good for transit, good for the environment and just plain good for our community. As my local community paper, the Manotick Messenger, says, "Bridge Should Connect Communities Not Divide Political Camps."

So here we are. The city has identified this as an infrastructure priority, not just in the initial feasibility study in 1993, but as recently as last year, and the federal government has ponied up their $35 million.

A comical quote in the Ottawa Citizen says this about the federal announcement: "Steve Desroches and I said if the federal government gives us the money we'll kiss Stephen Harper right on the lips"—quoting maverick city councillor Jan Harder. Funnier still, though, is that when MP Pierre Poilievre actually delivered the funds from existing transit money, Liberals started to backtrack on whether or not they would support the project. It's unbelievable: They put politics before people. Liberals are good at making promises and then breaking them. The two of them, Councillor Harder and Mr. McGuinty, have given flip-flopping a good name. But I digress.

You will see why we need the bridge. On July 13, 2007, a city report recommended that a detailed design and preliminary study be undertaken. On June 20, 2007, Transport 2000's David Jeanes said the Strandherd bridge is important to developing the south end community. On August 29, 2007, the city supported the Strandherd-Armstrong as a priority in its top 20 list. On October 23, 2007, the city voted to request federal and provincial funding for the bridge.

The next day, October 24, Councillor Harder said, "The Strandherd-Armstrong bridge is an especially important project for the residents of the south end," while Councillor Desroches said, "The bridge will be an integral piece of the overall transit and transportation puzzle." On November 2, the city manager and the mayor of Ottawa wrote to the Minister of Transportation: "The Strandherd-Armstrong bridge is one of the city of Ottawa's most important transportation and transit network projects."

Just yesterday, April 16, 2008, the city of Ottawa identified it in its new $4-billion transportation and transit plan. Ottawa will decide in May whether or not they will proceed with this plan. But that shouldn't stop us from affirming in this Legislature today whether or not we support this bridge, regardless of the outcome in May.

Again, the city has requested $35 million for the bridge from the provincial government. Local councillors have put together an argument for the bridge, and they say they've never received a response from the Minister of Transportation. Of course, despite this, I will acknowledge that the province did invest $35 million into the city of Ottawa in the last month and a half; $20 million of that went to another infrastructure project and $14.9 million of it went instead to snow clearing rather than infrastructure projects. So the city does bear a little bit of the blame here.

But I'm going to tell you, we still need to do it, because if you're doing the math, the city councillors for Barrhaven and South Nepean have passed up the opportunity to fund the bridge with existing provincial money.

In any event, there is another opportunity. Last night at a city committee, they voted against accepting $40 million in committed provincial funding for Highway 174. They said it was not a priority. The city said the Strandherd bridge is a priority. I would urge councillors Harder and Desroches, as well as the Liberals in this place, to strongly consider transferring the funds from the highway to the bridge. The bridge is more environmentally sustainable than a highway, and it is an identified city priority. Now it's up to us to make sure that the bridge is built.

Under a Progressive Conservative administration, it already would have been, because we would have committed all revenues from the gas tax to municipalities for roads, bridges and transit.

This is the crux of a philosophical divide between my party and theirs. We believe in funding infrastructure and transit; the Liberals only believe in funding transportation. My colleagues from Wellington—Halton Hills and Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke agree. They both have motions before this House which would help municipalities with their infrastructure deficits. Mr. Arnott is appealing to the Legislature to upload all municipal bridges, and Mr. Yakabuski is reintroducing his idea of putting gas tax revenues toward what they were intended for: roads, bridges and transit.

Today the Liberals can right the wrong. They can negotiate with the city of Ottawa for the $35 million the city has requested for the bridge in their November 2 letter, or they can ignore the transportation needs of the fastest-growing community in Ottawa.

I will be watching the debate unfold today, and my constituents will be watching this debate unfold today too. We are all asking that politics be put aside so that we can move forward and build this bridge. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: First of all, I have to say how much this House and certainly this particular member admires the passion and the integrity of the member from Nepean—Carleton and, of course, the zeal with which she defends the interests of her own riding and constituents, which is always a good thing to see in this House.

Having said that, I have to say that the New Democratic Party of Ontario supports both infrastructure funding and transportation funding, both of which the McGuinty government underfunds. We've heard our member from Timmins—James Bay speak about the lack of infrastructure funding for bridges in his communities. We've heard this as a regular theme in this House.

This week, of course, it's centred on the infrastructure funding for recreation and sports facilities across the province; the pools in Toronto being one example of that, where millions and millions of dollars are about to be lost—a former infrastructure investment—because we don't see the money to keep these infrastructure investments up.

So it's a general and a huge problem, not just in Nepean—Carleton, but right across the province. In fact, we're looking at a $65-billion deficit in infrastructure spending, and it's piling up year to year to year.

Again, the McGuinty government, with its head in the sand, is not facing this huge and growing problem. It's not doing anything about it, and that's a serious problem.

I know, from a Toronto perspective, we're looking at a problem with infrastructure expenses and, of course, operating expenses in the city of Toronto, to the tune of over $700 million a year that this province shortchanges the city of Toronto. That's year to year to year, and it piles up and piles up and piles up, and the government doesn't address it, doesn't do anything about it. This is a question of political will.

Of course, we have a political spin, as well, coming from across the aisle on this very subject. We saw an example of that with Bill 35—what we call the slush fund bill over here—which was supposed to help fund infrastructure, which was supposed to help fund municipalities. In fact, the two words "infrastructure" and "municipalities" don't appear anywhere in that bill, and even if they had, all that that bill would have accomplished was the crumbs left over after the meal is finished. Because it looks like there will be no crumbs left over, according to the budget that was delivered, with a proposed surplus of $600 million. Again, this is a problem that compounds year to year.

You heard the member from Nepean—Carleton who talked about the impacts on her community. Personally and politically, the New Democratic Party would rather see money go into transportation in Ottawa, which by all accounts has a pretty poor public transportation system.

Surprisingly enough, when we hear the grand announcements of Move Ontario, huge amounts of money promised—of course always sometime in the future, never today—that money is for the GTA. None of that money was directed to the Premier's own city. One has to wonder why his own riding doesn't experience the zeal and the passion and the commitment that the member from Nepean—Carleton brings to hers. If it did, perhaps some of that money for public transportation might have been directed there. So I would wonder at his own constituents and them watching this debate.

Perhaps they would like to contact their member of provincial Parliament, the Premier himself, and demand some action on behalf of his constituents around the issue of public transportation and infrastructure development. Again, those are two words that never appeared in Bill 35 and actually, quite frankly, don't fully appear, except in spin, on the government's agenda.

I'm going to share my time with our member from Beaches—East York, so I will leave him time. As a former mayor of East York, I'm sure he has a great deal to say about investment in municipalities and infrastructure, something we don't see from across the aisle.

Again, just to reiterate, it's good news when a member stands up for her community. It's bad news when she has to stand up and take private members' public business time to ask for something as simple as the fixing up of a bridge, the matching of federal funds with provincial funds. It's sad news when the Premier of a province can't fund public transportation in his very own riding. It's sad news when infrastructure and municipalities don't appear in the bill that purports to help both.

It's sad news to have to witness private members' public business again being used for a simple request for a simple municipality funding issue, and not for the broader issues with which I think this Legislature should be concerned.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this private member's motion. The Strandherd-Armstrong bridge, of course, is an important crossing in the city. It's a priority amongst many priorities. I was a member of Parliament representing Riverside South, which is the east landing of that bridge.

I worked with the Premier and with other members of the Legislature from Ottawa, in order to have the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge in that original transit project, which was so important to our city. We know the history of that transit project; it was approved. The contract, I believe, was signed. And it was a minister—I think the minister from the riding where this member from Nepean—Carleton lives now—a Mr. John Baird, the minister of increasing greenhouse gases. I think we know him.

It was meddling by this federal politician in a very important project to the city of Ottawa, a project that our Premier supported, where there was $200 million from this province allocated towards public transit—it's still there—that meets the business case for ridership etc. But that project was signed, and now we're facing lawsuits over that project—and no Strandherd bridge. This member can go and talk to her federal cousins to find out why.

When we're looking at that project, we have to look at other projects in the city of Ottawa. Certainly a much bigger project which has been around much longer is an inter-provincial bridge to relieve the trucks and high traffic in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier, one that was pushed by Minister Meilleur for many years when I sat with her on council. That's a project that has much more importance to the province, and we're participating in that environmental assessment study. That's moving ahead well.

Ottawa—Orléans hasn't been well looked after in transportation. We have a real project that sits on Highway 417, a part where the province would naturally have a share in the cost. That's the Hunt Club extension, the interchange with 417. There's a dangerous problem on 417, so we're looking at priorities for provincial money. We certainly can put the municipal project down the line. When there are other programs like the MIII program, they took $20 million and used it on the archives in Nepean.

The archives are good for the whole city of Ottawa, but again, the Hunt Club interchange would have been a great project for that money: 60,000 vehicles through the split on a daily basis, much higher traffic.

What we have to look at in Nepean and the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge is this: They've allowed a lot of growth on both sides of that river without providing for transportation. Where were the planners in the city of Ottawa when this was being done? Are there development charges that will pay for that bridge? It's not a provincial responsibility.

I was reading what an alternative for this member might be. In the Globe and Mail today, it says: "A Flavour of Pork. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has an unfortunate habit of taking disproportionate care of his riding and his political pals. Pork-barrelling provisions are sprinkled through his budgets."

I suggest to the member that she write a "Dear John" letter. Maybe John can talk to Mr. Flaherty, and maybe they can come up with all of the funding. The federal funding they've put there—maybe they can come up with another third and that project could proceed.

I think that with the meddling that was carried on with that contract and with the significant losses for all the taxpayers of the city of Ottawa, it's time that that debt be paid by the so-called Minister of the Environment. I think that's where the dollars would come from, and if there's $40 million of provincial money that the city wants to transfer, I think that's not their job to transfer that. I think they can look at the east end of the city of Ottawa and say some dollars should be left there. That $40 million there—just to transfer it to the Strandherd bridge?

That's the normal way that Nepean carries on business in the city of Ottawa. We just lost a thousand RCMP jobs in the east of the city; again, a John Baird decision that's going to cause transportation problems throughout the city of Ottawa. The Strandherd bridge is important, but it has to be placed with other priorities in the city of Ottawa. Certainly we have to consider the east of the city as being very important as well.

I would just read that the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing have consistently stated that this province has committed $200 million for rapid transit to the city of Ottawa. This money is for rapid transit and not projects including the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge. That's pretty clear. That's what the dollars are for.

I feel that's important because in Ottawa—Orléans, we have ridership on public transit at 35% now. I would like us to take that up to 50%. We're talking about this part of Nepean that's been less developed. I think they have about 9% or 10% ridership or maybe slightly higher.

So I agree with the Premier, I agree with the Minister of Transportation, and I agree with the Ministry of Housing. This money must go for a project that will get more people out of their cars and get them onto public transit. That's not what bridges are for. Bridges are good projects, and you need bridges as well, but this is not a place to be putting part of our $200 million which we have given to the city of Ottawa.

It's for those reasons: This is one project among many. It was already planned for, it was going to happen, and somebody sabotaged the agreement for the light rail in Ottawa. So I don't think that this government, who supported that project, should be in any way supporting a transfer of dollars that can be used for other, more important, projects. I think this is a federal problem. I would suggest that the member for Nepean—Carleton call up John Baird and Jim Flaherty, and see if they've got any more choo-choo trains that they could use in Nepean.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm very pleased this morning to have this opportunity to speak briefly in support of my colleague's resolution on the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge in her community. I want to congratulate the member for Nepean—Carleton for bringing this issue forward in the House this morning. Private members' time, I believe, Mr. Speaker—and I know you would agree—is an important opportunity for MPPs to bring forward issues that otherwise perhaps wouldn't be on the agenda of the government. That's why it's so important, and that's why we want to preserve it as an essential and important part of the Ontario Legislature's week.

The member for Nepean—Carleton has eloquently and passionately explained the reasons that she needed to bring forward this resolution this morning. She talked about the city of Ottawa's support. She reminded us of the many times that she has raised this issue in the Legislature in petitions and the times she has written the government in support of this bridge, to emphasize the need for it.

She talked about how important it is to have a balance of transportation facilities in her riding, including roads and transit—not one to the exclusion of the other—and she talked about the environmentally responsible aspects of this proposal and why it's important. I certainly agree with her and express support for her resolution, and I hope that the government members will support it as well.

The member for Nepean—Carleton talked about the resolution that I put forward in the Legislature, calling upon the government of Ontario, over a 12-year period, to assume responsibility for all the municipal bridges in Ontario, ensuring that these all-important links between communities are properly maintained. This is an idea that was included in our party's 2003 election platform. We knew it couldn't be done overnight, but we talked about doing it over a 12-year period. There are approximately 12,000 municipal bridges in the province of Ontario, and it could be done.

In our community of Centre Wellington where I reside, we have over 100 municipal bridges, because the Grand River and its tributaries go through our community and a number of the communities around Centre Wellington, in Wellington—Halton Hills, and some of the adjacent ridings have the same challenge to maintain these all-important structures and ensure that they are safe. They can't do it alone. They need substantial provincial government financial support to make sure that this happens.

That was the point I was trying to make when I brought forward that resolution right before Christmas, and I would continue to draw attention to the need for the provincial government to assist municipalities with the bridges and their other basic and important infrastructure needs.

As I said earlier, I think that private members' bills are important, and that's why I was extremely disappointed to read the Hansard of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

When they met on April 10—I'm pleased the Chair is in this House, and I hope he's listening—to discuss a subcommittee report on a private member's bill that was brought forward by the member from Burlington, Bill 42, that was passed by the House, referred to a standing committee of the House, a subcommittee took place to determine how the bill would be considered, and there was a decision by the subcommittee to put forward a motion to the full committee authorizing the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to meet today, this morning and this afternoon, to allow for some public discussion of an important private member's bill.

The government members who were present at that committee that day voted it down so as to ensure that there couldn't be a reasonable discussion of this private member's bill. That, to me, says something about the government's lack of respect for the private members' bills that are passed by this House. There is no reason why that bill couldn't have been discussed today at the finance committee.

The government members had a number of excuses, talking about pending government legislation and business that might have been referred to that committee, but as we know, the committee is not sitting today. The committee could have sat today and discussed that private member's bill, and yet it would appear that the government shot the process down.

I'm most disappointed in the members who voted against the motion of their own subcommittee. Obviously they were whipped to do so, but if they continue to allow the powers that be in the Premier's office to dictate private members' business, we are in serious trouble here and there are going to be serious consequences, I'm sure, for the House going forward.

And, of course, today we see in the orders and notices paper the new standing orders that the government is proposing. I would implore and urge all government members to consider the fact that these standing order changes were not included in your platform. You have no mandate to do this, and I would urge the Premier to allow a free vote on this motion and release his efforts to whip his members to vote for it. This is important for all members of this House, not just the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Wellington—Halton Hills, I think we're dangerously close to debating a motion that is on the order paper. I'd like to get back to the motion that we're debating this morning.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and of course, included in this motion is what we would be doing on Thursday, which is moving private members' business from Thursday morning as we have now, as we've had for all the 18 years I've been here and many years before that, moving it to the very last item of business in the week, which I suspect means that there will be very few members hanging around. What it does is trivialize the private members' process, and it's most unacceptable to me.

It's offensive to me as an MPP who, in the past, has brought forward numerous private members' bills and resolutions, because I believe in the process and I believe that it's important that we allow for a meaningful discussion of these items. It is unacceptable that the government is bringing forward this motion to relegate private members' business to the very last Thursday of the week, where it will be neglected and overlooked.

I would encourage all members of this House, especially the government members, to think about these issues as they relate to parliamentary democracy and give those ideas consideration as we move forward with debate on this government motion.

I want to congratulate again the member for Nepean—Carleton for bringing forward this resolution today and urge all members to support it.

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise to speak to this bill on the construction of the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge in Ottawa. I had the privilege, as a much younger man, to live in Ottawa for about a year when I went to Carleton University. I lived in several parts—

Interjection: A fantastic university.

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm hearing from one of my colleagues that he thinks it's a fantastic university as well.

I had an opportunity during that year to live in several locations, both in and around Ottawa, first of all downtown for the first few months, then out into Nepean for the next while, and then finally across the river in what is greater Ottawa, which was then the little hamlet of Aylmer and which is now part of the much larger Quebec city. So I think I understand, in part, what is going on here and what is happening in Ottawa, because I do get to go back to that city at least once or twice a year to visit friends and to do government business or whatever. It is a bustling metropolis and it is really starting to pick up.

It is, unfortunately, in my view—and I'm sure that some people in the suburbs don't like this view, but I'm a downtown guy. I would like to see the downtown of Ottawa rejuvenated a little more. I have to say that the last time I was there, it was kind of disappointing. Some portions of Bank Street, some portions of Bronson Avenue that I saw, even Elgin, which once had such vibrancy, appear to be gone.

And that is moving out into the suburbs of Ottawa, much the same as the phenomenon that happened in Toronto many years ago with the expansion of Toronto beyond its normal boundaries, out into the suburbs of Mississauga, Peel, Brampton, York region and Durham. The same thing is happening to Ottawa.

The question that has to be asked by all of us: Is this what we want for our cities? There's no doubt that there is a demand for people to live outside the city cores, and there's no doubt that there is a demand for larger homes that can be built outside of the city cores in ways that they cannot be built in an urban environment, in places like Toronto or Ottawa or Hamilton. That is the question here: Does the government, or any government, want to fund sprawl and expansion and suburbia, or do they want to compact the city cores and, in so doing, help to preserve the environment and help to make urban cores transit-friendly?

This is a question of infrastructure and I guess it's a question of what should be done, given the limited circumstances of the present government of Ontario and the even more limited circumstances of the present government of the city of Ottawa. It is a question of infrastructure that all municipalities have to face. My own is not immune here in Toronto, nor are any of the 480 municipalities in Ontario immune to this. All of them have infrastructure needs. In fact, it is estimated by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that in Ontario alone, there is about a $65-billion infrastructure deficit and that municipalities do not have the money to do what they need to do.

I listened intently to the member as she presented her bill, and I listened intently to the member from Ottawa—Orléans as he debated the merits of the bill vis-à-vis other things that, in his belief, the city of Ottawa needs more of. We know that the infrastructures are in bad condition, not only in Ottawa but even in Essex. I believe the member from Essex is here today.

We need to find a solution to this, and I am not convinced that the solution lies within the four walls of this bill. I admire the member for bringing it forward because she's fighting for her constituents and for what her constituents want. There is no doubt about that. But is it found within the four walls of this bill? If this bridge is built, it is built at the expense of what other infrastructure needs in Ottawa or elsewhere? If the money is to come, it is to come at the expense of what place?

How much of a priority is this vis-à-vis the priorities of rebuilding the bridges in Essex, both of which have been declared unsafe? My colleague in Timmins raised the issue of a bridge that's down to one lane connecting major highways in the Timmins area. How much is this a priority? Of that, I am simply not aware. I don't know. I don't have a handle on those books. Even if I am the finance critic, the finance minister certainly won't let me see them and certainly won't let me sit around the cabinet to discuss the priorities.

I've listened to only one Liberal speak, but I would hazard a guess that we can expect that most of the members sitting opposite will not be in support of this bill.

What I'm going to talk a little bit more about is the need to help the municipalities to decide what they want to do within the monies and the jurisdiction that they have. The municipalities in this province are hamstrung and remain hamstrung because there is a $3.2-billion download that has not been uploaded. I know the government in the last campaign said that sometime in the four years, they're going to upload a portion of it. I'm still waiting to see that happen, because it didn't happen in this budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm hearing catcalls here saying that they've started. They can start with little tiny steps, which is all Liberals ever do. They can start with those little tiny steps and say, "We're making progress." But $3.2 billion is a lot of money, and when that comes off the backs of the municipalities, surely the municipalities will be in a much better place to be able to deliver the goods and services that they need to deliver, and not having to fund the government here in Ontario. I'm looking forward to that happening. I'm looking forward to the government putting down a realistic plan how the money is going to be spent across Ontario on infrastructure such as this.

It was laughable, absolutely laughable, when Bill 35 came before this House. It does not deal with infrastructure and it does not deal with municipalities. We saw that a mayor, a councillor and the head of AMO were brought forward—the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; I shouldn't be speaking in jargon—to say what a wonderful bill it was. But I haven't heard a word from them since they've actually seen the bill, which, if it does not preclude them, certainly allows the government to choose any other group other than them should there be any slush fund monies available at the end of the year.

That is not the way we need to deal with municipalities. They need firm, on-time funding each and every year to set their own priorities. That has not been done. That is what I'm hoping that this government will do so that a member like the member for Nepean—Carleton won't have to stand here and make her individual pitch for something that is needed in her riding. It needs to be on a grid. We need to see where it fits vis-à-vis all the other requirements of the province of Ontario, and then we need to make realistic assessment and realistic apportioning of monies to which is the highest priority and in which year and which time frame.

I feel very sadly for what is happening in the city of Ottawa, which I think has precipitated all of this. First of all, the whole plan for light rail has been cancelled in Ottawa. The whole city and the city council has been set into disarray now that the transit system in downtown Ottawa is no longer there, or may no longer be there. The city council is also in disarray over the legal difficulties and challenges that the mayor is encountering and the infighting that has subsequently taken place within that council.

And there is the added difficulty of the suburbanization of what used to be a fairly compact little city that is causing this tension. So you have the three things: the light rail that's been cancelled, a council that is partially dysfunctional due to court cases, and the increasing suburbanization of Ottawa, all coming into play and coming to this motion that we have here today.

I do not support the ad hoc way that the members opposite and the government deal out infrastructure money and, because I do not support that, I would find it difficult to support ad hoc for one municipality. But I do commend the member for standing up for her residents. She is fighting for what her residents want and for what she believes. For that, I give her credit.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion. At the outset, I will state that I will be voting against this motion. I will be voting against this motion based on facts, not based on political rhetoric, which has been talked about by the honourable member from Nepean—Carleton, and not based on politics, which is played through the city of Ottawa when it comes down to issues relating to public transit.

The facts are simple. This particular bridge is not a priority for the city of Ottawa. This particular bridge does not help with creating an effective public transit system in the city of Ottawa, which is very much needed at this particular time.

This government believes in working in partnership with municipalities, unlike previous Conservative governments, where decisions were being rammed down the throats of municipalities. What this government believes in is working with the municipalities, and the way one works with municipalities is by discussing projects with them, by ensuring that the dollars for municipal infrastructure resources are there, so the municipalities can make decisions as to how they are going to invest those funds.

Let's look at the facts in Ottawa alone. Most recently, in the spring 2008 budget, almost $15 million were given to the city of Ottawa for roads and bridges in the city. Did the city choose to use that money for the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge? No.

Let's take the MIII investment. The city of Ottawa and all of the municipalities in this province had the opportunity to apply for grants for one particular infrastructure project. Did the city of Ottawa apply for project funding for the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge? No. In fact, they applied for a project to build Archives Ottawa and they received $20 million for it.

I'll go on. In 2006, under the Move Ontario project the city of Ottawa received $32.9 million for various municipal infrastructure projects. Did the city decide to use that money for this particular bridge? No.

It was the same thing with Millennium Partnerships: $45 million. There are nine roads and bridges projects under that particular initiative that are taking place in the city of Ottawa. Once again, the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge is not on that particular list.

Lastly, I will mention the OIPC, the Ontario Infrastructure Projects Corp., which provides various municipalities with affordable loans for municipal infrastructure. To this day, the city of Ottawa has not applied for those loans through OIPC. In fact, they have actually received $9.2 million and $14.2 million respectively for two other infrastructure projects in the city. Once again the reality is that this particular project is not a priority for the city.

The relationship between the city and this provincial government continues to strengthen and continues to go. Let me just quote our mayor, a good friend of the honourable member from Nepean—Carleton and mine, Mayor Larry O'Brien, who just recently said, "The province of Ontario has never in its history been as good to eastern Ontario and Ottawa as it has been over the last two years while I have been mayor." This is the mayor of the city of Ottawa.

Let me talk about public transit. I represent a downtown community, the riding of Ottawa Centre, which is the hub of Ottawa's economy. This is where most of the jobs in that city are located. We welcome everyone from across the city to come and work in Ottawa, but what we don't want is people driving to the downtown core. What we want is fewer cars on the roads and more effective public transit so that we can maintain in Ottawa Centre the sustainability of our community, the livable, the walkable, the bikeable aspects of our community.

That's why I am very proud that more and more money from this government is being spent on transit in Ottawa: $440 million has been committed for public transit. That includes $200 million for rapid transit—the rapid transit project which included this particular bridge, if the friends of the honourable member for Nepean—Carleton had not derailed this project. Most recently, $27 million was given to OC Transpo to enhance efficient public transit in Ottawa; and $36 million in gas tax money this year alone, which now totals about $118 million to enhance public transit.

These are the kinds of investments we need to make in Ottawa. We don't need more cars. We don't need more cars coming to downtown communities, communities like mine in Centretown, in Westboro and in the Glebe. What we want is members from communities in Nepean—Carleton and other parts of the city coming to the downtown core, but taking the bus, taking light rail, coming into the community in an environmental fashion. More cars on the roads is not the solution for a better environment. Definitely, that's not a solution for my own community of Ottawa Centre.

Again and again and again, as I'm out there knocking on doors and meeting with members of the community, I have been told by those who live in Ottawa Centre that they want a light rail project, that they are angry at the former Conservative member from this chamber, John Baird, the current federal Minister of the Environment, who derailed, axed this particular project. The honourable member from Nepean—Carleton did not say anything. She was quiet. Where was she then, at that point—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Nepean—Carleton, I think the House listened to your speech, and we would like others to pay that same attention.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My community is consistently concerned about the fact that there is a lack of effective public transit. They were very excited about the fact that in 2006 we would have seen the beginning of a light rail project. As we know, a contract was awarded in that instance, and we would have been making sure that light rail was coming to the downtown community. We would have been bringing people from the southern part of the city of Ottawa, not in their cars but in an environmentally friendly light rail to the downtown community, helping the issues dealing with transit and helping issues dealing with the environment right here.

Sadly, when I am out there talking to people, that issue keeps coming up: "Whatever happened?" So I ask the honourable member from Nepean—Carleton that she should call her member of Parliament, John Baird, and remind him as to why he axed it. That particular bridge would have had public transit on it, if that project had not been axed by the federal Conservative member in the city of Ottawa.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'm pleased to join the debate this morning and I will be speaking in favour of my colleague's private member's resolution.

I want to share the thoughts of the honourable member from Parkdale—High Park about how much we admire and respect the passion and the zeal with which our member from Nepean—Carleton represents her constituency, and how she is not afraid to stand up against the tide.

On that point, I must say, I chatted a couple of times with the new member from Ottawa Centre and I find him to be a very pleasant fellow and a very nice man. But it appears that he should have missed that first Liberal caucus meeting, because that's where they had him drink the Kool-Aid. Now he is just messaging exactly—I thought maybe we'd see a new and kind of refreshing voice, but no, it's just bang, same old mantra: Blame the federal government for everything that doesn't work out; blame John Baird. In fact, it was the city of Ottawa who voted against the light rail, not John Baird.

Anyhow, let's get back to this project. I would be the last one in the world, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to accuse the government of using partisan politics with regard to making a decision on this particular project, but the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge—let's just look at the facts. The Premier previously endorsed this project. It would have significant environmental benefits in that it would shorten the commute, thereby reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in our atmosphere, because we're all striving to get cars to be on the road less and driving less distances, if possible. The city is ready to go.

The member from Ottawa Centre says that it's not a priority. Well, I have a letter here from the city of Ottawa indicating very clearly that it is a priority. And the feds are prepared to fund one third of the project.

The city's in favour, ready to go; the feds are pretty prepared to fess up the money; the Premier previously endorsed this project, as did the member from Ottawa—Orléans. So there are a lot of pieces fitting together here in the puzzle. Again I say, I'm not the one who is going to accuse the government of being partisan, but we can all put those pieces of that puzzle together and we may be able to draw that conclusion. Perhaps the voters in Ottawa will draw that conclusion as well.

My question would be, if that's the case, why? Because Lisa MacLeod, the member from Nepean—Carleton, is a particularly aggressive member who will not back down for any reason when she's representing her constituents? Is it because she's a burr under the saddle of the ministers who reside in the city of Ottawa? Is it because she gets publicity when they're not doing something? Is it because she draws the media's attention to the fact that this government is not keeping its word and is breaking its promises?

Don't be afraid because it may be perceived by you as a victory for Lisa MacLeod; this is a victory for the people of Ottawa. This would be a victory for the environment. And we all know, after last night's fourth straight loss to the Pittsburgh Penguins, that they're looking for victories in Ottawa. Perhaps this bridge would be one way for this government and this Ottawa Premier to say, "Look, I know you all know that I'm really a Toronto Premier, but I'm actually going to try to do something positive for the city of Ottawa as well."

I know that people are saying that the city of Ottawa took some of this infrastructure money and spent it on snow and slush removal, but I don't want to be too hard on the city of Ottawa. I want to ask this government, what kind of plan did you have in place that allowed those loopholes? That's like sending your child to the grocery store without a list and then not being happy when they come home with all of the things that you didn't want them to buy. You can't just hand out money without having some conditions, and that's what this government did with that particular project.

They're here. They're blaming everybody. They blame the feds. They blame the member. When is it going to be time for you people to stand up in the morning, look in the mirror and see what you can do to make it better for the people of Ottawa?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I am pleased to join in the debate. I'm afraid I missed the first part of it and it seems I should be disappointed because it's been very interesting in the Legislature this morning. But I'm pleased to stand and support the member from Nepean—Carleton.

The bill we're debating is providing assistance to finally build the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge.

There's been great discussion here this morning about the struggle that municipalities have in dealing with the provincial government. The case has been brought forward very passionately. We have a very strong advocate in the member from Nepean—Carleton for bringing the needs of municipalities in her riding forward. We're saying the city of Ottawa wants it; we're saying the federal government's ready to stand up. Where's the provincial government? That is the question. Thus, we have the—

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes. This is what we're discussing here in the Legislature this morning.

Municipalities are faced with this lottery type of system. They spend thousands of dollars on studies, on applying, trying to comply. Maybe there are rules for applications for money that's available. Maybe there's just a quick form. How do they know? They need some long-term commitment from the provincial government here, and we're seeing that they're not getting it.

The municipalities have gotten some money in the last few weeks, at year-end. They quickly filled out the form, crossed their fingers and hoped for the best. Some won, some didn't win.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, I've got a few examples from my riding that I'll bring forward too.

This is what we are hearing, the challenges we face in our municipalities, and this example of the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge is classic. I know the member from Nepean—Carleton has a stack of reports as to why this bridge is important, and I'm sure if the new member from Ottawa Centre doesn't have them, he will be getting them shortly.

Mr. Robert Bailey: He'll soon find out.

Ms. Laurie Scott: He certainly will find out so that maybe he can get on the same page with the needs that are occurring in his area of the province.

I've had challenges with some bridges myself in the riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I know that Algonquin Highlands has applied, in a very serious emergency bridge matter, to the local MIII program. They weren't accepted, and they weren't accepted in COMRIF for a few years previous too. But I've talked to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to say, "Okay, I think we need to look at this a little closer. There are some emergencies going on that need to be addressed."

I'm hoping that maybe we can see some long-range infrastructure planning for the municipalities. That report is still coming up, isn't it? When is it due? Has that report on the funding been delayed? It keeps getting delayed. But I'm hoping that when this report comes forward, the Liberals will actually act on it, because one-time funding, band-aid solutions, are not what our municipalities need. They need to have long-range plans from this government, which we fail to see. They're not really great on planning.

I have the County Road 24 bridge, and the Bobcaygeon bridge too that suddenly needs some serious—there has to be a complete rebuild. There's not even a repair that's possible. So I know that the municipality of the city of Kawartha Lakes will be coming to you.

These are important economic lifelines to our communities and they have to be addressed. I'm hoping that the municipalities use this year-end money that went out the door quickly for the roads and bridges they need in their municipalities.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I hear the member from Ottawa—Orléans made a second change of direction this week when he actually supported the speed limiters. He was converted, I guess, on the road to Damascus. He kind of referenced the other evening in the Legislature that he's had a change of plans.

I just want to state that roads and bridges are about connecting communities. They are not dividing political camps. That is what the member from Nepean—Carleton is saying in her remarks, and I hope this government takes heed of those.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Nepean—Carleton, you have two minutes to respond.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: As I started out in my speech, people send me here because they know I mean what I say and I say what I mean, and I'll never ever stop being like that, unlike the two members from Ottawa who spoke to this, who had to be whipped in what they had to say. That's a shame. They should be fighting for the people of our community. Instead, we've got a Move Ontario plan that forgets Ottawa, and they say nothing at the caucus table.

We've got a McGuinty gap, where the residents of my city receive $519.75 less per household than they do in the city of Toronto, but the member from Ottawa Centre remains silent at the caucus table in the Liberal Party. He's a flip-flopper and he speaks with a forked tongue. Because I will tell you something: While he pretends that I don't have the response, here is what I—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I'm not sure that the term "speaking with a forked tongue" and the implications of that is parliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I caution members, as others in the chair have, to use moderate, debatable language in the House. We'll all be happier.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn, Mr. Speaker, and an apology to the member. But he did bring some serious myths to this chamber, which I think need to be pointed out.

He says that the city hasn't identified this as a project. I have a file full of reports from the city of Ottawa: June 13, 2007, a city report about the priority of this bridge; August 29, 2007, the city supported the Strandherd bridge as a priority in a list of top 20 investments; on October 23, the city of Ottawa voted to request federal and provincial funding for the bridge. And from November 2, I have the letter of all letters from the mayor and the general manager of the city of Ottawa:

"With council direction, we are hereby requesting that the provincial government fund a minimum of one third of the amount of funding in building the bridge and associated roadworks."

I can understand that since the two previous mayors of Ottawa, including the current one, did not support him in the last election, he might want to play with the facts a little bit, but the facts speak for themselves. On Friday, November 2, they wrote to the Minister of Transportation requesting support for this bridge.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

RED TAPE AND REGULATORY

REVIEW ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RÉVISION

DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ET DES DISPOSITIONS RÉGLEMENTAIRES

Mr. Hillier moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to establish political oversight over legislation and regulations to reduce red tape and unjustified regulatory burdens / Projet de loi 57, Loi établissant un régime de surveillance politique des lois et règlements afin de réduire les formalités administratives et les fardeaux réglementaires injustifiés.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Hillier, pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The

short title for this bill is the Red Tape and Regulatory Review Act. I think, without question, all of us in this assembly can agree that regulations are more and more often, increasingly, being done outside of this assembly. The unaccountable bureaucracy is making regulations passed by cabinet and never coming back to this House for oversight and review. I think that's pretty clear.

But there is a consequence to it. We are the people who have been elected to make regulations and legislation. Not the bureaucracy, not the policy wonks—we. We are accountable to our residents and our constituents, but we don't see these regulations.

Over the last number of years, I've travelled extensively across this province, and we've seen what the cost is for these regulations, the unintended consequences of them and how they harm and hurt our residents, harm and jeopardize our businesses and our economy. We must do something to prevent this.

We have seen that these regulations have often become counterproductive. They have been intended to achieve one thing, and they actually end up doing the opposite. We've also seen how these well-intended regulations are reducing and minimizing the role of people and their judgment; not recognizing the good judgement of people.

I guess I'd like to read one thing. We've seen all kinds of examples of these nanny state regulations that have been implemented. I'll read a passage from a fellow legislator back in the 1800s, Frédéric Bastiat. He talks about, "Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves."

This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question. If people are as incapable, as immoral and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of the same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence? I think that's an important thing that we have to recognize. We have to take back control over regulations, over-intrusive regulations, and prevent them from diminishing our economy and harming our people.

It's not just me who believes this. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the largest business group in the country, also agrees. I'll just read a couple of quotes from the CFIB. Their members say: "The totality of provincial regulations far exceeds small business capacity to know, understand and comply." The regs they do know about are unreasonably expensive and onerous. Provincial government has no idea of the size of regulatory workload it places on small business, and there is no attempt by government to measure it. CFIB goes on to say that, currently, this burden on small and medium-sized enterprises is $13 billion a year in this province—$13 billion.

We know we're moving into an economic downturn. We have to start doing something about this. Furthermore, with the CFIB, 65% of all their members identify government regulation and paper burdens as their greatest concern. I could go on with many, many quotes from the CFIB. But it's not only the CFIB. As well, it's also Roger Martin and his task force on competitiveness.

This is what Roger Martin has to say about our Ontario government's regulations and policies: "Ontario has one of the worst regimes for new business investment." He goes on to talk about "a balanced regulatory environment that meets the need for worker and consumer protection and for flexibility and responsiveness in resource allocation to the best opportunities for wealth creation." We know that the current approaches are not working. That's what Roger Martin has to say about our present regulatory regime.

The present Liberal government has also talked about the need for red tape and regulatory review. Mr. McGuinty, in 2005, said he wanted "to remove the burden of process from spending approvals," a sign that he's unhappy with bureaucrats who tie up government plans in red tape. That was June 30, 2005.

Here's a recent quote from the Premier: "Ontario's goal is to lead all Canadian jurisdictions in efforts to measure and reduce the regulatory burden." That's what the Ontario provincial Liberal government has recognized: that we must reduce regulations.

There are many, many examples: in my own riding, the Lafarge plant. For four years they've been trying to get approvals that would create more employment and improve our environment, and for four years they've been stuck up in process; red tape, counterproductive regulations. We have seen church suppers, butcher shops, sawmills and farmers' markets all feel the weight of unintended consequences of red tape.

We have an obligation. I believe all members of this House have an obligation not just to create nanny-state regulations but an obligation and a duty to fix those things that are wrong, those things that we know to be wrong. That is what we are elected for: to fix what is wrong and the wrongs that we have created.

We've seen all kinds of contractors who cannot hire apprentices.

This new bill—we even want to ban Tony the Tiger from advertising to children now.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Not Tony the Tiger.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Tony has to go.

Let's do the right thing. I believe that this bill, which creates a red tape and regulatory review committee—a standing committee in this House where every regulation that is drafted comes before the House for our review. We'll review it for a number of things. Is the public purpose identified so we can measure and hold it to account? Is the regulation counterproductive, or will it meet its intended objective? Who is best suited to be the regulator? Not always is government best suited to regulate; there are others out there who do quite a fine job regulating.

Finally, we also have to look at: Does it infringe upon people's use and enjoyment of their property, and does it offer compensation if it does infringe?

Those are a few of the elements that this review committee can look at and make sure that what we do in this House can be held to account, our constituents know what we are bringing forth, and that we also understand if we are going to put another church supper or farmer's market under the hammer.

I really ask everybody once again in this House: Let's look at this bill and do what is right for our residents, our constituents. Let's do what will help and improve our economy. Let us work together and make sure we have oversight of all regulations that come before the people that they must bear.

I want to thank you all for listening and taking time to consider this bill. I think it's a good bill, and I look forward to it being in committee where it can come under the scrutiny of the whole House to actually improve it where it can be improved.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 57,

An Act to establish political oversight over legislation and regulations to reduce red tape and unjustified regulatory burdens on the businesses of Ontario.

I was listening to the member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington when he was speaking about bureaucracy and he was speaking about civil servants. I want to disagree with him, because those people do an excellent job on behalf of all of us in the province of Ontario. As a member elected four years ago, I have moved from ministry to ministry. I don't claim at any time to know all the details of a ministry. I'm not specialized in any specifics in the area, so all of us from any party, any group, rely on them for expertise and advice. As you know, this place was founded to implement bills and regulations.

We send those bills and regulations to be implemented by civil servants. That's why the origin of the laws and rules comes from this place. Civil servants are in charge of advising us and also trying to implement them in a fashion that respects and protects the people of Ontario.

I was listening to the member when he was speaking about the bill. He doesn't want any regulatory bodies. As you know, we are governed in Ontario by almost 37 regulatory bodies dealing with professions from medical to pharmacists to nurses etc., because they want to enhance capacity and protect the professions in a fashion that they can enhance the ability to serve the people of Ontario and also make sure that all the people being served by their professions are protected and safe.

As you know, we have the medical professions, the nurses—they cannot hire anyone from the street without credentials, which are required in order to give them the ability of accreditation to practise and also deal with the people of Ontario.

You also talk about regulations being a burden on many small businesses. You mentioned butchers, farmers' markets. If you ask them to get rid of all the inspectors—the past Conservative government fired all the water inspectors; that's why we had the Walkerton tragedy. Also, if you're asking us to fire meat inspectors—I don't know if you remember Aylmer Meat Packers near London, but that disaster happened because it was not inspected regularly. There weren't enough people on the street to inspect those facilities to make sure the people of Ontario were eating safe, healthy meat.

I also want to respond to the member when he talked about our Premier. Yes, our Premier cares about cutting red tape. I'll give you an example. Mr. Speaker, you were here in this Legislature when we introduced many different bills to work with government ministries to break the silos by creating a one-stop-shopping website for visiting all the ministry sites. You can navigate the system easily and with no problem.

We also created a toll-free number for the people of Ontario to phone and ask. We also created a live answer. Instead of navigating the system of Yellow Pages and blue pages, now we have a person on the other end to answer your questions.

We also introduced in 2007 a bill, the Regulatory Modernization Act, which became effective January 17, 2008, and enabled regulatory ministries and other regulators to work together more effectively to protect the public interest.

We are on the road to harmonizing all the services, trying to break those silos to help the people of Ontario to navigate the system and be able to be served without any problem. But our obligation, as a government, as elected officials, is to protect the people by creating some kind of system they have to go through instead of being harmed, and holding people accountable. Can you imagine that anyone can open a butcher shop? Can you imagine that anyone can open a private practice to treat people? Can you imagine that anyone could do business without any regulations and accountability? Therefore, those are in there to protect the people to make sure everyone's safe.

Thank you again for letting me join the debate on this particular bill.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to say thank you to my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for bringing forth this bill for private members' public business. I want to congratulate him for his election to the Legislature and also commend him for the passion with which he follows his principles and represents his people.

He alluded at one point to businesses, and how businesses in this province feel strangled by the regulatory burden that is placed on them by government. That has been a growing burden over several decades, but it has reached a point—and when business is tough and when the economy is weakening, and we're in that situation right now, where everybody recognizes just how costly that is to business. It costs businesses in this province billions of dollars a year just to meet the regulatory burden placed on them by government, with no benefit to the people.

I'm going to give you a couple of examples. Back in the early 1990s, there was a regulation written in the Environmental Protection Act that was interpreted by some bureaucrats to say that sawdust was a hazardous material. This is the product that you put on your flower beds. You go to the garden centre, buy it in bags, put it on your flower beds—various reasons.

In fact, years ago, Mr. Speaker—and not to point anything out, but you might even be older than me and you would remember a time, certainly in rural Ontario, when not everybody had electric power and they used iceboxes. They had ice houses. In the wintertime, they went out and they sawed ice on the lakes, took it home on horse-drawn sleighs and stored it in ice houses. What did they store it in so that they would have ice all summer long to keep their food from spoiling prematurely? What did they store it in? That hazardous product, sawdust.

We got some overly zealous bureaucrats—they stay up at night wondering, "Okay, what can we go after next? Look, we're making six figures here. We've got to pick on something. What can we go after next?" So several years ago they decided that sawdust was going to be the target.

Two particular people in my riding, Earl Saar and Glen Gulick, were challenged by this. Unfortunately, Mr. Saar had to go to court and ended up closing his sawmill because the legal battle was protracted and he could not afford it. Another member of my community, Glen Gulick, who runs a sawmill down in Palmer Rapids, went the distance in court. It cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and at the end of the day, they're not going around bothering people in the mills anymore because it was just ludicrous. Silliness; absolute silliness.

But how much of our taxpayers' dollars were spent on that because somebody decided, "Hey, here's a regulation that was written in 1990. Let's have some fun with it. Let's go bother the hardworking people in the province of Ontario trying to make a living"?

That's what happens with too much red tape. I don't know exactly where the term "red tape" comes from, but I'm sure it has something to do with Liberals because they're so proud of that red colour. Every time they get into power—the master of red tape prior to this government was the Peterson government. And now this government wants to get back on the red-tape wagon.

The previous government actually established a commission to reduce red tape. That is a laudable goal, and that's something we should be looking forward to.

I congratulate the member. I'll be supporting that motion.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Did you nickname it?

Mr. Michael Prue: It was called red tape.

Mr. John Yakabuski: What was the government at the time? Was it Liberal?

Mr. Michael Prue: It was indeed.

Now, what is purported to happen as a result of this bill is that the House will set a separate committee. I'm not sure whether the members—no one has spoken to that yet. We already have five or six standing committees. We also have the opportunity, as a House, from time to time to set up a select committee and to send bills to any of the committees or to any select committee. What is being proposed here is to set up a new and separate committee apart from the existing structure in this House.

That committee would look at the regulatory burden it would look at the freedom and ownership of property, it would look at unjustified burdens, and it would look at whether the administrative body to whom the bill was sent was the appropriate body.

I'm not sure that the vehicle being used by this bill is the appropriate one, because what this bill in effect says is that the standing committees of this House are not doing their job. The standing committees have the obligation—each and every one of them, be they the finance committee, the legislative committee or the regulations and private bills committee—all of them have the responsibility of looking at the regulatory burden; the freedom of ownership of property, if that is an issue; the burden on the taxpayer or on business or anyone else; and they also have the responsibility of explaining to this House if the bill is in some way going to the wrong body for implementation.

I am not sure what is going to happen by simply setting up another committee. This is a committee whose sole job will be to oversee the existing committees. Because as you read through the bill, each committee will continue to do its job and then the bill will be sent to this new separate, distinct committee that will look at red tape. They will hold the bill and they will make whatever recommendations they wish and hold it for up to 60 days before regulations can be implemented.

This is an ideological perspective of many people on the right. It is an ideological perspective which I do not share. Quite frankly, in my 20 years in public life—and this is my 20th year, both in the municipality and in this Legislature—I have had the highest regard for the people who work for both municipal governments and provincial governments. As a former civil servant, I can tell you, from when I was one of the people who worked for the federal government, that there is a place in our system for bureaucracy. There is a place in our system—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm being heckled.

There is a place in our system for the men and women who do the job that they are intended to do. It is our job as legislators to oversee that. It is our job to make the bills, it is the government's job to make the regulations, and it is our job collectively to oversee what is happening.

I have heard what the members had to say. I have heard what they had to say about overzealous people out there doing their jobs, who are looking at a regulation and trying to enforce something for which there is not much practical reason. I would agree. There was the whole sushi scandal, that the fish had to be frozen first before it could be eaten. If you are a sushi aficionado at all, you will know you don't do that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It's not much good for the taste.

Mr. Michael Prue: No, it's not much good for the taste. But, with the greatest of respect, although that was determined by someone within the bureaucracy, it did not take very long for either the minister or this House to raise the issue and to stop it, and it has not taken very long in all of the jurisdictions to stop the overzealousness when and if this should occur.

I do have some real problems with ideological deregulation because I have seen places where I wish there was more regulation. I look at the Ontario Securities Commission and I wish there were more regulation. I wish that people weren't at risk of losing their money. I look at what is happening in the United States and all around—the stuff about airlines; I look at the airlines. Do you remember that we deregulated all of the airlines? Can anybody honestly tell me that you think we get better service today, that you know the waiting times have been cut or that the people are any better with whom we deal, or that we're safer or—

Mr. Tim Hudak: I like Porter.

Mr. Michael Prue: Okay. We have a gentleman here who likes Porter. But apart from all of that, I don't think deregulations have helped the airlines and I don't think deregulations have helped the markets.

Look at what has happened in the markets in the United States and in Canada over the last couple of months. They've been on a see-saw because unfettered deregulation has occurred. You've seen things like Bear Stearns. You've seen the whole trap that even this government got caught in with asset-backed paper—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Commercial paper.

Mr. Michael Prue: —commercial paper, because it was deregulated, because nobody is out there watching it, because no government is there, no bureaucrat is there and no civil servant is there. Quite frankly, that causes me a great deal of difficulty. It causes me a great deal of difficulty, and I do acknowledge that a farmers' market may have been dealt with inappropriately. I do acknowledge that a church supper was looked at inappropriately, but those were relatively small things that were easily cured, and cured very quickly. The big things that need regulation are not there.

I think that most people in our society understand the role of government. They understand that we in this Legislature are here to protect them many, many times from forces that are beyond their control—the overwhelming, huge forces—and that regulations sometimes help. I have some difficulty with the ideological position that regulation is not necessarily a good thing. I hold the opposite view: Regulation is a good thing, and if it's excessive, then it should be taken away.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That's what we're talking about.

Mr. Michael Prue: No, no, that's not what this bill does. If that's what you're saying, that isn't what I've heard. With the greatest of respect, we have had situations—and I heard howls about Walkerton, but that was in part due to deregulations. We've had real problems in this House and the government, the new government, the Liberal government, because of the partial and botched deregulation of the hydro system. We still have not recovered from that.

So, with the greatest of respect to the mover of this bill, I believe that the House has the necessary tools at its disposal at this time. With the five standing committees and with any select committee that might be established, I believe that we have the wherewithal to establish regulations that are meaningful and effective. I believe that the civil servants in this province do a very good and excellent job in enforcing the regulations that are put forward by this House and by the governments from time to time. I do not share the concern of the mover that we should proceed in this fashion, and therefore I cannot support the bill.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I just wanted to lay it right on the table that I will not be supporting this either. One of the things I want to make perfectly clear is that when good public policy comes forward, it comes forward in a balanced manner and being respectful of the vision of where you want to go, but it's based on good public policy with the understanding to minimize the effects on those who would be affected, such as small business.

I can tell you I do come from a small business background and, as many of you know, I also come from a municipal background. I want to share a little story; as you know, I was also the warden of the county while the downloading happened. One of the things that happened the first year I was warden was the Walkerton tragedy. At that time, while the Red Tape Commission of the previous government was ongoing, we begged the previous government, from a public health policy point of view, not to take away the ability for the medical officers of health to communicate with the water providers. But did they listen?

No, they did not listen. It was shortly afterwards that the Walkerton tragedy happened. What do you think happened in our rural communities after that? Now I have the honour and privilege of representing Walkerton, and I can tell you they have come a long way, have built a very strong foundation, and their future looks brighter.

But how did we begin the Red Tape Commission? We began with words like "incompetent," "unaccountable," slamming the bureaucracy. I looked to this member's maiden speech. That language was used then; that language is used today. When we begin in that manner, we know the outcome. We've seen the outcome; we've lived through the outcome. What do you think happened in ridings like Huron—Bruce when meat inspectors were fired? We produce the largest amount of beef that is consumed in this province. What do you think would have happened if that had gone on, if there hadn't been an election?

I had the privilege of running the Minister of Agriculture from there. What do you think my beef gentlemen and women wanted to talk about? They wanted to talk about that issue. Was there ever any thought about what that would do to all of our communities, as you fired water inspectors, as you fired meat inspectors? What did you think was going to happen to our rural communities?

Now, specifically, comments are made about church suppers and farmers' markets. Today in the riding of Huron—Bruce we have more farmers' markets, and by the work that has been done by this government on this side, our church suppers are strong and they're providing the financial assistance that is needed to make sure that we have a strong foundation to provide the people of Huron—Bruce somewhere to go within their churches. We understand.

But make no mistake: That regulatory framework came in when? When did it begin? They now say, "Oh, it wasn't me," but we know it was. Then, when it all became such an issue, they just couldn't remember. Suddenly a fog—

Interjection: A shock.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: —a shock came over them.

But one of the things I do want to talk about is this government's commitment. We have made a strong commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on Ontario businesses by 20% by the year 2011. We will do this in a balanced manner that is respectful of what is needed to ensure that all of us move forward in Ontario and that we move forward in a sustainable manner.

I do thank the honourable member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for bringing it forward. It reinforces what that side of the House is all about, and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on that again.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now that the fairy tale has been completed, it's time to move on with the facts when it comes to red tape in the province of Ontario. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that a survey of the members indicates that red tape and regulation have increased during the past three years of Liberal government and estimates that the total burden is some $13 billion annually weighing down on the business sector. We looked this up. The facts are actually the opposite of what the member from Huron—Bruce's fiction would tell you.

Since 2003, this government has created 437 new regulations and revoked only 81. So for every regulation they revoked, they added on 5.4 more regulations, increasing the burden on the backs of businesses and working families in Ontario. I congratulate the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for bringing forward this bill—a weighty bill, not like some of the flighty stuff we see from across the floor but something of real substance.

I know the member from Huron—Bruce is anxious to rush to the defence of the Koebel brothers in their attack on the previous government. That's a choice, I guess, she makes here in the assembly. My recollection is something quite the opposite.

As well, red tape impacts on the delivery of services; not only on business but on social services agencies. By way of example, we found out that the Best Start program offered at St. Martin elementary school in Smithville will close permanently in June. It's an innovative program that combines daycare with programs to help parents to better their parenting skills, prepare children to enter school and offer screening to determine if children are reaching behavioural and developmental milestones. If they need the extra help, then they are referred for speech and language services.

So parents like the Brucculieri family and Phil Ieluzzi—there are many examples, and I back them up—from across West Lincoln and neighbouring communities like Binbrook are calling on this government to challenge the Minister of Children and Youth Services to get directly involved and restore that program in Smithville. It's part of the vast community of the township of West Lincoln.

My last point is that the Red Tape Commission in Ontario was actually a world leader. They came to Ontario to see what the Mike Harris PC government was doing to reduce the red tape burden on businesses. They helped ministries revoke over 2,100 unnecessary regulations. They were advocates and helped 200 individual businesses with their red tape problems. They had a website established in 2000 that attracted 1,000 visits a month. With 15 different red tape reduction bills, it was a regular part of business in this Legislature to remove that burden.

You see the opposite, and the Dalton McGuinty Liberals in my view have accomplished one thing, and that's cutting red tape lengthwise, increasing that burden.

The member is right. I strongly support this legislation.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: First and foremost, I'll say for the record that I'm also unable to support the member's bill, Bill 57. It's fascinating; I think this bill does pinpoint the ideological differences in this House. Across the aisle we have the Liberal Party under Dalton McGuinty that runs their principles based on polls. To our right, we have the Progressive Conservatives, who base this particular bill on libertarian principles. They have ideological principles but they are principles we in the New Democratic Party absolutely disagree with. I'm going to focus on why we absolutely disagree with the foundations of libertarianism which go into this bill.

I have to say that I share some of the sentiment of the member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington. I certainly commend him for what he's done since he's been elected, particularly around the Tibetan cause, when he showed such courage. And I appreciate the sentiment for small business. I'm the small business critic for the New Democratic Party. Karl's butcher shop is in my riding. That was the butcher shop that, in part, was forced to close because of regulations that were put in place in a most untransparent manner, I must say, by this government.

The most egregious result—I think of unaccountability, untransparency and unelectability—is the Ontario Municipal Board, which, trust me, as a housing critic, we're always up against. I introduced a motion to reform that body. We would like to see it abolished as far as Toronto issues are concerned. So I appreciate the sentiment.

Are regulations necessary? Really, what we're saying is, "Is government necessary? Is government oversight and regulation, put into place by government, necessary?" Certainly we in the New Democratic Party would say, "Absolutely, it's necessary." You can have both. You can have vibrant economies and regulation and government oversight. We see this in Scandinavian Sweden, where you have an incredibly vibrant capitalist economy and yet you still have 85% unionization, you still have regulations in place and you have a way better quality of life than we experience in Ontario.

In fact, if you go back to the days of the lack of regulation at the turn of the century, when we fought to bring in child labour laws, when we fought to bring in labour laws of any kind, those were the days of lack of regulation as well. Those were the days when libertarianism carried the day. We've been there; we've tried that. It didn't work.

Tommy Douglas once talked about the cats and the mice. If the mice keep electing the cats, the mice never get a say. We believe that you need to elect those who represent you, not represent the interests of big business or private property alone.

Interestingly enough, the other concern I have about Bill 57 is that Bill 57 actually adds to the red tape and the bureaucracy of this government. It's another level of oversight. We think the committees should do their jobs better and more transparently, but we certainly don't want to blame the civil servants who work hard and long hours doing what they can to actually put into place what this Legislature should be doing and of course has done, sometimes for the betterment of Ontarians, sometimes not for the betterment of Ontarians.

So there's an ideological, principled difference between we in the New Democratic Party, who are social democrats, and elements of those in the Progressive Conservative Party who subscribe to the libertarian point of view—you know, less and less and less government. I should say, they share this with the Green Party, who are also libertarians at their core. We don't subscribe to that. We subscribe to responsible government, to an elected representative who stands up for their constituency, who is supported, yes, by a bureaucracy of civil servants, whom we believe in strongly, whom we think are doing an excellent job.

All we ask, of course, from across the aisle, is that they have more principles, not less, when they defend the rights of the mice, as Tommy Douglas would have it, and certainly, for transparency's sake, that when decisions are made by committees—and we have five standing committees already—those decisions are made known, that they're transparent decisions, that they're made known to small business. Because there's no doubt that some of what this government has done has been done on the backs of small business and to the detriment of small business—no question there.

We know that the McGuinty government is really beholden—we can see this from the wonderful work done by the Toronto Star in terms of who funded the Liberal Party in the last election—to banks, insurance companies; big business, in short.

We need more spokespeople for small business in this Legislature. There's no doubt about that. So I commend any imperative to defend small business, but not at the expense of the environment, health care, education and labour laws. In fact, I have a motion on the papers that calls for more inspections of places of employment, not less. We need more regulation, not less.

For regulatory bodies, we need more transparency. For bodies like the OMB that have never been elected, that are not accountable, we need accountability. We need to get rid of bodies that exist like that, that are accountable to no one. That's certainly true.

But where this bill, Bill 57, comes into play—unfortunately, I cannot support it. I cannot support the ideology that supports it, and I cannot support the principles that support it. We in the New Democratic Party are social democrats, and we stand up for the human rights of the majority of people, not the property rights of a few.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It is indeed a pleasure to speak this morning and to have an opportunity to reflect on Bill 57.

A wise person once reflected that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Last night, I took the opportunity to go to the legislative library and pull out the report of the Walkerton inquiry. There was much talk this morning about the Red Tape Commission and what it was doing during those years. I want to just make reference to page 393 of the Walkerton report. It said:

"It was also clear that the Red Tape Commission was focusing on the nature and extent of regulations under the purview of the MOE. The MOE was subject to twice as many recommendations from the commission as any other ministry. In a consultation paper, the MOE stated that environmental protection agencies in many countries were reducing their emphasis on traditional 'command and control' regulatory approaches. In its view, there was a trend toward using environmental management approaches that were broader than simply mandatory requirements.

This paper was published in July 1996, the same month in which the routine laboratory testing" in Ontario "was privatized. In reviewing the MOE's regulatory reform package in September 1997, the Red Tape Commission recommended that certain regulations be replaced with voluntary guidelines.

In making this recommendation, the commission relied on its position that 'as a matter of principle, when we ask businesses to be good corporate citizens and in effect to police themselves, those matters should be agreed upon through voluntary agreements, MOUs (memorandums of understanding) and other instruments outside of regulations.'"

Justice O'Connor was extremely clear. He called a number of witnesses in that period of time: the deputy minister of the MOE and several officials within that ministry.

They clearly put on the record—and I tell the member, he should take the time to review this report, because it certainly looks very clearly and very squarely—it put the MOE under the light; the Red Tape Commission attacked the Ministry of the Environment, reduced regulations and brought in the privatization of laboratory testing in the province of Ontario and in Justice O'Connor's words, "was a contributing factor to the tragedy." Seven people were killed, and still hundreds of people in that fine community are suffering a variety of diseases today, including kidney disease and other diseases directly related to the ingestion of water that was contaminated with E. coli.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Koebel brothers.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I'm saying very clearly the Koebel brothers were involved, but the work of the Red Tape Commission was clearly acknowledged in O'Connor's report as being a contributing factor to the tragedy at Walkerton. If they don't want to read the full version, if they don't have time to look at that, there is the

summary version of the report on Walkerton: Events of May 2000.

In fact, when Justice O'Connor finished his review, his

summary said, "I am satisfied that if the MOE"—I'll repeat that again—"I am satisfied that if the MOE had adequately fulfilled its regulatory and oversight role, the tragedy in Walkerton would have been prevented (by the installation of continuous monitors) or at least significantly reduced in scope.

"It is worth observing that since the Walkerton tragedy, the government has recognized that improvements were needed in virtually all of the areas where I identify deficiencies and has taken steps to strengthen the MOE's regulatory or oversight role."

I can tell you, one of the key issues in my riding in the 2003 provincial election was the need to rebuild Ontario's public service. They have seen what happened with the meat packer in Aylmer, Ontario. They were there to witness the tragedy that happened in Walkerton, Ontario. They said very clearly that there was a need of investment in key ministries in the province of Ontario to provide the necessary oversight. Those folks over there are living in fairyland if they don't know the ramifications of the Walkerton inquiry.

They should realize that their commission, the Red Tape Commission which they set up, destroyed the regulatory framework of the Ministry of the Environment. O'Connor clearly said that that led directly to some of the problems in the tragedy of Walkerton. We don't want to go down that road again.

I understand there is a philosophical divide in this House on this issue, but for us over here, we want to make sure that there are resources in place, that we have continuous oversight in those key ministries that people in Ontario depend upon each and every day for the protection of their water, for the protection of their air, for the protection of activities that go on in their workplaces.

That's what we're here for and we'll continue to move ahead in that direction.

Mr. Norm Miller: It's my pleasure to add some comments today—short comments, because we have a lot of speakers who want to speak to the private member's bill of the member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

As has been mentioned, there was in the past a Red Tape Commission. I sat as commissioner on that for my first couple of years in government, and it considered a business impact test for all new regulations; it dealt with the elimination of existing red tape. Let me emphasize that the Progressive Conservative definition of "red tape" does not include measures that are truly needed to protect our health, safety and the environment.

I want to give one example of a case I remember at the Red Tape Commission. I brought in with me to the Red Tape Commission 30 rejection letters from the Ministry of Health for applications for the northern health travel grant. That was because the process required that you had to get a signature for every single trip. So if you have a cancer patient who has 30 trips to get treatment, they need 30 letters signed by the doctor. Of course, when you're a cancer patient, the last thing you want to do is deal with forms.

Not only that, when you get rejected for your claim, they send a separate letter out for every single claim. I brought all 30 letters in to show this ridiculous process. This Liberal government did away with the Red Tape Commission, and you know what? Today, in 2008, you still get the 30 rejection letters. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I was in small business in the past. I can tell you, as a small business person, you're trying to make a buck; you're trying to look after your clients' needs. Small business is the engine of the economy. It's creating the jobs in our province, and we need to make it so they are able to do their job and create those jobs.

Things have changed in the last number of years. Government used to be helpful. My experience with fire inspectors and the Ministry of Environment was that they would come on your property and be helpful and help you meet the regulations. Now we've become the police state, where the inspectors come in and all they do is lay charges. That's not helpful in terms of meeting the regulations. It's certainly not helpful for the success of those businesses.

I support this legislation. I am very happy to see that the new member has brought it forward, and there is a great need for it. I can tell you that from speaking and meeting with people in my riding.

The issue of meat inspectors was brought up, I think by the member from Huron—Bruce. I met with the OFA and farmers in the northern part of my riding, and what they told me was that the new government inspectors were doing less work than other inspectors. So they wanted more inspection to be able to carry out their work. What you've brought into effect is actually making it worse.

I might also add that this government, as of January 17 of this year, with the passing of the Regulatory Modernization Act, has actually created 200 new inspectors.

I need to sit down to let my other members speak.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate this morning. I think one of the disappointments for me, in listening to other members speak, is that they're not taking into account what this bill actually suggests.

First of all, it suggests that it be a tri-party arrangement. It is not something that would be done in secret. It also does nothing to create the kind of ideological framework that we are being accused of here.

Several people have made reference to the historical burden of red tape. One of the things that struck me when I was looking at this was the fact that in pre-revolutionary France that was one of the burdens that, quite frankly, created the ferment that became the French Revolution—the regulatory burden, the time that it took and the kind of frustration that it led to.

The people who want to push this into an ideological box need to think for a moment about the fact that we recognize that there's a time when a regulation is a method of protection. What we're talking about is when a regulation becomes a method of obstruction of an activity, where it actually, instead of protecting the activity, has now become a method of obstruction.

I think, when you listen to the members on this side, we have given you many examples—first of all, of the growth; secondly, of the kind of third party recognition by both the CFIB and Roger Martin's group. Certainly in my own riding, I'm contacted all the time on issues where people are struggling. Frankly, it becomes such a burden that they give up. They've gone through multiple government offices and phone numbers to get answers. A businessman in my riding recently contacted me about the zoning on a piece of property he owns.

The local council has told him that they cannot do anything about it because it's covered by provincial legislation. I wrote on his behalf to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. And what was the answer? "Nothing to do with us. Contact your municipality." Those are the kinds of things that build the kind of cynicism we see around us.

A local doctor wants to set up a family health team in the riding. He wants to bring doctors to an unserviced area. What did the Ministry of Health tell him? "We'll add you to the 'expressions of interest' list."

Those are the kinds of things that create the kind of frustration that this member is trying to prevent for all the people of Ontario. It has nothing to do with compromising safety. It has everything to do with, are you buying apples on the roadside? There's a different classification if they're in a bag or in a bin. That's how ridiculous it is when we are talking about red tape.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Randy Hillier: First off, I'd like to say to the honourable member from Huron—Bruce that it was two drunks in Walkerton, not the Red Tape Commission, that caused the problems there.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I'd like the—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. The member for Peterborough, order. I'd like the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington to consider withdrawing that word.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Which one, the drunks—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): You know very well which one.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I'll withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I'd also like to say thank you to all the members here who spoke to this bill, especially the ones who read it and understood what was in it.

It causes me some concern, though, when I hear this debate and I hear the fearfulness of members on the other side, fearful of making decisions. They talk about my wanting to get rid of the bureaucracy. What I'm talking about is having members in this House have control and oversight of the regulations that the businesspeople and members of our province have to be burdened with and have to get through. This is not an attack on bureaucracy. It's not an attack on anybody. It's blaming us for not taking our job seriously.

I would say to the honourable members, I can understand why you don't want to have ownership of regulations. If you are not going to read the legislation before you pass it, it's pretty hard to get good decisions based on ignorance. The Liberals obviously want more red tape, even though their Premier says he wants to reduce red tape. It's just more broken promises from this Liberal government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 13.

Ms. MacLeod has moved private member's notice of motion number 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

After we've dealt with the next item, we'll call in the members.

RED TAPE AND REGULATORY

REVIEW ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RÉVISION

DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ET DES DISPOSITIONS RÉGLEMENTAIRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 14.

Mr. Hillier has moved second reading of Bill 57. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will call in the members on this as well.

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

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

STRANDHERD-ARMSTRONG BRIDGE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. MacLeod has moved private member's notice of motion number 3.

All those in favour, please stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 18; the nays are 39.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I declare the motion lost.

Negatived.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now open the doors for 30 seconds before the next vote.

RED TAPE AND REGULATORY

REVIEW ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RÉVISION

DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ET DES DISPOSITIONS RÉGLEMENTAIRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Hillier has moved second reading of Bill 57. All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 18; the nays are 39.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I declare the motion lost.

Second reading negatived.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROBERT SHERWOOD

Mr. Frank Klees: I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian, an exemplary citizen of this province, a dedicated municipal councillor, a tireless community activist and a loyal friend. Above all, Robert Clark Sherwood—"Bob" or "Sherwood" to all who knew him—was a devoted husband to Sally and a very proud father to sons Philip and Michael and daughters Tiffany and Paula.

On April 7, 2008, Bob left behind a legacy that will survive not only his remarkable life but will continue to enrich lives of future generations because of his selfless contributions to people, to organizations, to his community and to our province.

Bob was a man of his word who knew what he believed and why. He was a man of action. When he saw a need, he did what had to be done to meet that need and never hesitated to lean heavily on those around him to help him get the task done. Nowhere was that more evident than in his work to provide transit access to the disabled through the Markham Mobility Foundation.

Bob was always a leader, never a spectator. His contributions as a past president of the Thornhill Community Hockey League were recognized in the naming of a rink in his honour at the Thornhill Community Centre.

In addition to his service as a Markham councillor, Bob served as a member of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, was a teaching professor at Seneca College and was the best salesman I ever met.

Bob Sherwood will never be forgotten. He has left us with memories and a legacy that will inspire his family and his friends for generations to come.

I am honoured to pay this tribute to a good friend here in the Ontario Legislature today.

HAMILTON EAST KIWANIS

BOYS' AND GIRLS' CLUB

Mr. Paul Miller: I'm proud to stand in support of a local organization in my riding, the Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys' and Girls' Club. For over 60 years, they have provided recreational and social development programs for youth in Hamilton.

This month, the Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys' and Girls' Club launched their 2008 Send a Kid to Camp campaign. This initiative will provide a summer camp experience for scores of disadvantaged Hamilton children. In support of this initiative, I'm honoured to attend their pasta dinner fundraiser tonight.

Research has shown that summer camp experience has helped children and youth develop self-identity, self-worth, self-esteem, leadership skills and self-respect. In promoting programs like Send a Kid to Camp, it is my hope that the children and youth across Ontario will have the opportunity to access summer camps in their own communities.

In our province, we far too rarely recognize the importance of organizations like Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys' and Girls' Club, who build safe and supportive environments where children and youth can experience new opportunities, overcome barriers, build positive relationships and develop confidence and skills for life.

I am proud of the Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys' and Girls' Club and their history of levelling the playing field and providing opportunities for children and youth to reach their full potential.

I encourage everyone listening to reach out and support their local Kiwanis Boys' and Girls' Clubs, especially on initiatives such as the Send a Kid to Camp campaign.

WILLIAM PATERSON

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I rise in the House today to celebrate the 105th birthday of William Paterson, who lives in my riding of York South—Weston.

Born during the turn of the century, in 1902, Mr. Paterson has survived two world wars, has seen over 30 provincial general elections come and go, has lived through many exciting times and faced memorable challenges in his lifetime.

More recently, Mr. Paterson has been enjoying the finer things in life, like spending time with loved ones, reading a good book and enjoying a good meal. Currently living at the Harold and Grace Baker Centre, a long-term health care facility in York South—Weston, Mr. Paterson enjoys a healthy and social lifestyle that provides him with an excellent opportunity to interact with his peers in a comfortable and social environment.

As the baby boomer generation eases its way into retirement, the need and demand for these types of facilities will gradually increase. Our government has anticipated this demand and, since 2003, has increased funding for long-term-care facilities by nearly $800 million, resulting in at least 6,100 new front-line staff for long-term-care residents.

For his many achievements and accomplishments in his long and distinguished life, I would ask everyone to join me in congratulating Mr. Paterson on celebrating his 105th birthday.

GEORGE MCCAGUE

Mr. Jim Wilson: I rise today to congratulate the honourable George Raymond McCague on being named the Elgin Blakely citizen of the year at the Rotary Club of Alliston's annual Rural/Urban Night. It was in Alliston that George served as town councillor, deputy reeve, reeve and mayor between 1960 and 1973.

He served as the warden of the county of Simcoe in 1966 and served again as mayor of the newly amalgamated town of New Tecumseth from 1992 to 1994. He is the first chairman of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and is a founding member and the first chair of the board of governors of Georgian College. He's the only person to have received both a fellowship and an honorary degree from the college.

George was elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1975 and went on to serve as the chair of cabinet and the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet concurrently for almost a decade. He also served as Minister of Transportation and Communications, Minister of the Environment and Minister of Government Services before retiring from this Legislature in 1990.

In retirement, George has remained an active member of our community, coordinating the driver program for the Canadian Cancer Society. He's also very active with St. John's United Church, the New Tecumseh Improvement Society, the Stevenson Memorial Hospital Foundation and the Nottawasaga Foundation.

I want to thank the Rotary Club of Alliston for recognizing the remarkable life of George R. McCague. I consider myself fortunate to be counted among George's many friends and I wish him and his wife, Brigitte, many more years of good health and happiness. Congratulations, George.

BAYCREST

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I rise today to speak about one of the greatest hospitals in Ontario and our government's support of the outstanding work that's done there. Baycrest has strong roots and a history reaching back to 1918, when the Ezras Noshem Society collected money door to door to open the Toronto Jewish Old Folks Home in a small semi-detached home. Today, Baycrest provides care and services to 2,500 people a day, including wellness programs, residential housing and outpatient clinics, a 472-bed nursing home and a 300-bed complex continuing care hospital facility with an acute care unit.

Baycrest has also grown into one of the world's premier academic health science centres focused on aging.

Our government recognizes the contribution that Baycrest has made to the community and to science. Through the Ministry of Research and Innovation we are investing $10 million towards the establishment of the Centre for Brain Fitness and the development of the world's first mobile testing unit for brain diseases. The new Centre for Brain Fitness will support Baycrest and its invaluable work, which is already leading to the discovery of important new tools and approaches to treating diseases associated with aging such as Alzheimer's. The funding from the province matches $10 million from private donors and builds on a previous $591,000 provincial investment in the brain project.

This investment is building on Ontario's strength and international leadership in the area of health research and advanced health technologies and on Baycrest's history as an essential part of the community.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise in the House today to remind the McGuinty government that my caucus colleagues and I will not be bullied out of participating in the democratic process that our constituents and this government's taxpayers have elected all of us to do.

Today, I was expecting to see every committee room in use, full to the rafters with the citizens involved in creating well-rounded legislation and interacting with their elected officials. The reality is, the McGuinty government killed my private member's Bill 42 and countless other members' legislation because they are afraid of hearing from their own citizens. The Premier's office has clearly whipped all of their caucus to vote down the hard work and the democratic initiatives of their fellow members of the Legislature. The Liberal members could barely look me in the eye as they drew the last breath from my bill.

These are dark days in our democratic system, which will go from bad to worse when Minister Bryant's cabinet-friendly changes to the standing orders take place. Once again, a committee in unanimous agreement to involve all parties in the formulation process of new family-friendly standing orders has been usurped by this government for its own purposes, the result of which will set women's rights back 20 years in terms of access to the Ontario Legislature.

Very scary precedents are being set. This is democracy at its worst.

JAY FEDOSOFF

Mr. Vic Dhillon: It's with great pleasure that I rise today to celebrate the fine educators of Brampton West. Their hard work and dedication to our children should be recognized by this House. Recently I was informed that one of our finest educators had been nominated for the prestigious Premier's Award for Teaching Excellence. Earlier this week, it was announced that one of our teachers in Brampton West was awarded this great honour.

It is with genuine enthusiasm that I recognize Mr. Jay Fedosoff, who has been awarded the Premier's Award for Teaching Excellence. He has been selected to receive this honour out of hundreds of other many worthy nominees. Mr. Fedosoff teaches at the Roberta Bondar Public School, which is located in my riding. I'd just like to say hello to all the students who may have their TVs on and are watching question period.

Mr. Fedosoff has been described by his fellow teachers as someone who goes above and beyond the requirements of an educator. His tireless effort to educate our children is an example that all teachers should follow. It will be my pleasure to attend the awards reception to honour Mr. Fedosoff for this outstanding achievement.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I rise in the House to share some great news with all members, and that is that Ford of Canada has announced 500 new jobs at the plant's manufacturing facility in the community of Oakville. This great news comes on the heels of a recent announcement of Ford's intention to reopen the Windsor engine plant, resulting in 300 new jobs for that community.

Our government is working with the auto sector so that the next generation of vehicles will be researched, developed and built right here in Ontario. A $100-million investment from this government's auto investment strategy helped Ford to make a $1-billion investment in its Oakville plant to a flexible manufacturing facility. That's the first of its kind for Ford in Canada.

Ford's announcement of a third shift is in response to the tremendous demand for its Ford Edge and the Lincoln MKX models, and 229,000 of those have been sold, both built right here in Ontario, right in my community of Oakville. The third shift in Oakville will bring employment in the plant up to 3,500.

I want to recognize the great work that Ford is doing on research and innovation. The R&D centre is developing a large-scale stationary fuel cell system that converts paint shop emissions into hydrogen-rich fuel that generates electricity.

I congratulate Ford of Canada on their success. I know that, moving forward, our government is going to continue to support the type of example shown here of a partnership with a major employer that leads to more jobs and prosperity in this province.

CORNWALL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Mr. Jim Brownell: I was bemused to hear my provincial neighbour the good member from Leeds—Grenville commenting negatively about our government's plan for the Cornwall Community Hospital, in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, during debate yesterday. We know what his party's plan was while they were in government: to issue empty promises and deliver nothing.

Under the governance of Dalton McGuinty, and with the unwavering support of my friend the Minister of Health, my riding is now the beneficiary of a plan that actually involves action. With the recent announcement that the Cornwall Communi