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

December 21, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Dec-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 21 December 2006 Jeudi 21 décembre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF GUELPH

TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY

IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LA VÉRITÉ ET LA TRANSPARENCE

AU SEIN DU SYSTÈME JURIDIQUE

CITY OF GUELPH

TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY

IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LA VÉRITÉ ET LA TRANSPARENCE

AU SEIN DU SYSTÈME JURIDIQUE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

LINDA BOUCHER AND

ADAM CONACHER

LONG-TERM CARE

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

HYDRO RATES

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

THIRD PARTY'S RECORD

OFFICIAL OPPOSITION'S RECORD

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT /

RENDEMENT SCOLAIRE

HEALTHY LIVING /

HABITUDES DE VIE SAINE

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

HEALTHY LIVING

SAFER INTERNET DAY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LUMBER INDUSTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

WASTE DISPOSAL

HIGHWAY 407

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S GRANDCHILD

PETITIONS

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

ADULT LITERACY

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

LONG-TERM CARE

MACULAR DEGENERATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

IDENTITY THEFT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

SHEENA'S PLACE ACT, 2006

RED LEAVES RESORT

ASSOCIATION ACT, 2006

PERIMETER INSTITUTE ACT, 2006

CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL

GOVERNANCE INNOVATION ACT, 2006

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF GUELPH

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration should designate the city of Guelph as one of Ontario's immigrant

gateway cities so that Guelph can be marketed provincially and internationally as an immigrant gateway to enable Guelph to attract the investment and jobs which will ensure its future prosperity.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Sandals has moved private member's notice of motion number 42. Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes, Mrs. Sandals.

Mrs. Sandals: As you know, Speaker, the rules of order of the House do not allow us to actually print the whereases, so I would like to start by putting the whereases into the record, which will

give people a little context for the motion and perhaps help the opposition people in where we're going here.

"Whereas the provincial government has adopted an immigrant gateway strategy which designates various cities as regional immigrant destinations for immigrant settlement and immigrant investors;

"Whereas Guelph is internationally recognized as a centre of agriculture and biotechnology innovation, Guelph is a key centre for Ontario's auto parts manufacturing industry and Guelph is already home to a

strong and diverse multicultural population;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration designate the city of Guelph as one of Ontario's immigrant gateway cities."

That will give you a little bit of understanding, but we maybe need to first look at, what is an immigrant gateway? Under the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, we have a strategy to involve municipalities in

the regional marketing of immigration destinations, of trying to, I suppose, in some ways influence the immigration patterns within this province by giving immigrants information about different regions of the province. This enables municipalities

and regions to put information on a website that is internationally marketed jointly by the Ontario government and the Canadian government, that gives information about a region -- its opportunities, both investment opportunities and opportunities

for individual immigrants; what the strengths, interests and economic concerns are in the region; what services are available -- all the information a newcomer to Ontario might be interested in in terms of locating where they want to move.

What's interesting is that the five pilot sites for this program are all what we would think of as large urban centres: Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor-Essex, London and Sudbury. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; in

fact, we want to attract immigrants to all those regions of the province. But it is noteworthy that all those centres are large urban centres.

Ontario welcomed more than 140,000 immigrants last year, more than any other province. Currently, immigration accounts for an estimated 70% of Ontario's net labour force growth, and it will account for all of

the net labour force growth within the next five years in Ontario, so this whole issue of immigrant settlement patterns becomes quite important. It is important for us to think not just about urban centres but also maybe to change the attitude

that says immigrants go to urban centres and start to think about how we can attract immigrants to the rest of the province.

The average age, particularly when you get outside of urban areas, is going up; the birth rate, everywhere in the province, is going down; and immigration becomes really key to any region's economic

prosperity.

One of my hats, with my current position as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, has been looking at education funding. As we've talked to stakeholders over the last month, one of the issues

that has been consistently identified is how we deal with declining enrolment, because almost every school board in the entire province actually has declining enrolment at the elementary level. Even the Toronto boards, which we think of as

benefiting from a lot of immigration -- and they do -- also appear to be benefiting from a lot of young urban professionals who don't have kids at all. So when you bring it all out in the wash, even the Toronto boards have elementary enrolments

that are in decline. So this whole issue around where people go and how our population is going to grow in the future becomes very, very important.

I'm going to ask my colleague, Deb Matthews from London, to speak to this a little more fully. I know and many of my colleagues know, but the viewers would not be aware, that Deb, along with being an MPP and the

past president of the Ontario Liberal Party, decided to play superwoman and has completed her Ph.D. while sitting in the House. The newly minted Dr. Matthews's area of study is actually immigration settlement patterns, the study of demographics.

So she's going to speak in more detail about that, as it is provincially.

But I'd like to talk a little about the city of Guelph. We are pushing 120,000 in population. Of the mid-sized urban cities -- that is, in Stats Canada's definition, 100,000 to 200,000 -- we're the fifth-largest

when it comes to the growth of mid-sized urban centres in Ontario. But what most people don't know is that if you look at the percentage of immigrants in the population, Guelph is actually placed 11th in the entire country. That doesn't occur to

most people when they think about Guelph. Almost one in five people in Guelph, 19.8% of its population, are immigrants. In fact, that's more than the average in Ontario. If you look at perceptions, Guelph has a higher proportion of immigrants than

places like London, but also Montreal, Edmonton or even Winnipeg, which we might have thought of traditionally as an immigrant centre.

Guelph is much more a traditional immigration centre than many of the much larger cities in the country. It has quite an interesting mix of immigrants. Historically Guelph was settled by the Anglos, so the Scots

of Guelph these days people from China, people from South Asia, a black community, a Filipino community, a Southeast Asian community, largely Vietnamese -- a real mix of people. If you look at other groups, given the influence of Kitchener, which

is a near neighbour, there's a lot of German population, and Guelph has a huge Italian population. In fact, the first destination of the family of our Minister of Finance, Mr. Sorbara, was Guelph. Some of them then moved to the GTA, but first of

all they game to Guelph.

There's a village in southern Italy, in the Calabria region, by the name of San Giorgio. If you were to check, I think you would find that there are probably more people in Guelph with family roots in San

Giorgio than in San Giorgio itself. A huge number of people from this village over a matter of a few decades all moved to Guelph. So historically, the Italian community in Guelph has played a huge role in the development of Guelph and a very

significant role in our cultural mix. We also have significant Dutch and Polish and Ukrainian and Hungarian, so a variety of European groups.

More lately, we've seen a lot of Vietnamese. There's a huge Vietnamese community in Guelph. It probably started around the time of the boat people. It's sort of an odd welding of auto parts manufacturing and the

Vietnamese, as the word got out that if you were coming from Vietnam, you could get a job in Guelph's growing auto parts sector. In fact, we have quite a significant number of people who come from Vietnam originally and work in the auto parts

sector.

Guelph has a wonderful mix already. I'm not suggesting that Guelph should be the only community designated as an immigration centre, an immigration gateway, an immigration portal, but I think it could be the

first of many medium-sized cities to start to massage the immigration patterns in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise this morning and participate in the debate on the resolution brought forward by the member from Guelph-Wellington to discuss

that the city of Guelph be designated as an immigration gateway city in Ontario. I will be sharing my time with the PC caucus member from Halton, who is fully eager to speak to this resolution as well.

The city of Guelph is a wonderful city. The member from Guelph-Wellington is very proud, as she should be, of the city she is from and represents. I have been to Guelph many times. It has a wonderful

agricultural base, an industry I am quite familiar with in my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock in that we have the third-largest agriculture industry base in Ontario. Guelph is also a thriving base for automotive and related industries and of

course is a strong engineering base. We can't forget the university either. All of this comes together. As the member has said in this resolution, it's trying to tie more of the threads together to make it a gateway.

In my riding, Fleming College -- it used to be called Sir Sandford Fleming College; now it's Fleming College -- has been working to attract new immigrants and people from the city to come and take the community

college courses they offer, which I think is a very aggressive approach, a progressive approach. My riding is predominantly rural and, being a nurse at the local hospital in Lindsay, I see a lot of new immigrant doctors who are able to come, and

we are very happy that they chose to come to our area and settle there.

So I certainly support the principle of this resolution for a number of reasons. John Tory and the PC caucus recognize the contributions that the immigrants to Ontario make to our province. They form a huge part

of what makes Ontario a cultural, diverse, economic and welcoming province.

Just a few weeks ago, back in November, John Tory brought forward a discussion paper called Time for Action. In that paper, there are a number of areas with respect to working to meet expectations and fulfill

responsibilities for Ontario's skilled immigrants. The fact of the matter -- which quite embarrasses me, being a provincial member and just part of the whole country of Canada -- is that we're definitely failing in our obligations to skilled

immigrant who've come to Ontario. We have to do a much, much better job for them.

Most of us have tons of stories. We've met the qualified doctor, the engineer, the specialist in a field, working in an area where their talents and qualifications are simply not being challenged. Many newcomers

to Ontario are experienced in high-demand areas such as medicine or engineering, but without experience in Canada, are unable to find work in their area of credential. There are far too many cases where immigrants come to Canada with skills and

struggle just to support their families and who can't go into the field they were trained in and add to Ontario all the skills they attained in their country of origin.

The plan we've brought forward is thoughtful and well consulted. It has been spoken about within our party for many, many years. We need to speed the process up. We have to provide assistance to newcomers long

before they actually arrive and touch Ontario's soil, and that's what we're failing to do. Their expectations are high, but they come here and are on social systems. I'm embarrassed that that occurs. They have to wait for extraordinarily long

periods of time to enter the country, and then they come and can't go into the field they have been trained to work in. It's important and it makes good sense that we start to accredit these future Ontarians before they arrive. We need to do that

in the country they're from.

families to ensure they're prepared for the better life they intended. That's why they chose Ontario to be the place they live, raise their families and work and contribute to society.

Newcomers need that assistance as quickly as possible when they get here, which is why I appreciate the member from Guelph-Wellington's resolution today. The plan we've brought forward will expand OSAP to

skills, credentials and experience.

This relates to what we're debating this morning and the relationship this motion has with establishing a base where immigrants can enter the workforce as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Lowering the

barriers and the obstacles is key to helping skilled immigrants integrate themselves into the workforce and into society: establishing doctor-assisted programs and career mentoring programs, and ensuring that the funding intended for settlement

and integration for newcomers actually goes to what it is intended for.

One of the major factors that relates to the issues around immigration and newcomers to Ontario is underemployment. It's the obligation of the government to ensure that opportunities are provided for immigrants

to not only want to come to this great province but to want to come here because they know they'll have the opportunity to use their expertise and contribute in a positive way.

Although I think I understand the concept of the gateway city, I'm not 100% clear, but I think it's more like a pilot project that the member from Guelph has offered.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): What about Brian Desbiens and the Order of Ontario? Work that in.

Ms. Scott: The member from Peterborough makes a very good point. The past president of Fleming College, which is in Peterborough but also has campuses in Lindsay, the Frost campus, and in

Haliburton and Cobourg, received the Order of Ontario last night. We are both very proud of Brian Desbiens for receiving the Order of Ontario. It was well deserved, for the contribution he has made to many of our communities throughout both of our

ridings and to the whole province of Ontario. He was also chair of the Frost working committee, which was instrumental in getting the Frost Centre, we hope, open by June 2007, and I know he was chair of the Peterborough flood relief committee also

-- just two of the things that Brian Desbiens has done throughout his life to contribute back to his community. So the Order of Ontario that he received last night was a well-deserved award for Brian Desbiens. Thank you, Jeff.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): You're wrapping up?

Ms. Scott: I'm wrapping up because my colleague from Halton wants to participate in this debate.

The resolution from the member from Guelph-Wellington is timely and good. We need to make sure that immigrants get as qualified and as much support before they leave their country of origin, that we integrate

them as quickly as possible into Ontario, get them using the skills they want and get them on track for the better life that they came to this province for.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): It's a pleasure to speak to Ms. Sandals's resolution here. Certainly one can commend her standing up for her community. I just want to say. I know this may

be our last day together this year, and we all do our best to stand up for our constituents and our communities; I do believe that. So she's standing up for Guelph and all things Guelph and what is best for Guelph. But I'd like to say that perhaps

there are some ways in which this member and all of us could stand up for Guelph and other centres in Ontario a little bit better than declaring them as gateways.

To that effect, I want to throw on the record a few comments about the auto sector community in Guelph. The member raised the auto parts sector community in Guelph and how it was doing. In some ways it's not

doing that well. This is like other centres where workers are facing layoffs under the McGuinty government. Unfortunately, losing good-paying jobs in the auto parts sector has become commonplace under this government, as thousands of workers have

been laid off, including 25 workers as a consequence of Guelph's Dana plant closing, and the recent news that Linamar is laying off workers as well. It's particularly distressing that less than six months after the Premier committed $44 million to

Linamar for their expansion plans, Linamar is contracting out and laying off workers. Of course, we know that under the McGuinty government the manufacturing sector has lost 136,000 such jobs, so Guelph is not alone in that aspect.

I just wanted to read into the record from the Associated Press about Dana Corp. closing two plants in Canada and one each in Missouri and Indiana, eliminating a total of 440 jobs -- and guess where they're

moving production? They're moving production to Mexico. "Four other plants, expected to close within the next two years, will be identified some time next year" --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parkdale-High Park, I think it's time you got back to the resolution.

Ms. DiNovo: Happily, Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the resolution. I understand that this member is standing up for her community, and that's what I'm hoping to do as well, to stand up for her

constituents in Guelph, for their jobs and for their well-being, because after all, it's a wonderful place. In fact, the University of Guelph is one of the better universities in Ontario; we know that. It's one of the prettier places, too, I must

say.

However, we do want to look at the plight of workers in Guelph. The plight of workers in Guelph is somewhat similar to the plight of workers across this province. About 25% of them are paid poverty wages of $10

or less; about 31% of Guelph workers -- women and people of colour -- are found in exactly those jobs that pay less than $10, and this government, the McGuinty Liberals, have failed those people, those constituents of Guelph, in a number of ways.

This is one of them: They have failed to raise their wages. They're earning minimum wage, if they're on minimum wage, of $7.75 an hour. The McGuinty government has said they'll raise that to $8. Of course, that's not enough; it's not even the

poverty line. So if you really wanted to do the workers in Guelph a favour at this time of year, the first thing the McGuinty Liberal government would do would be to raise the wages of those who are poorest among them. Of the workers in Guelph,

37% -- we know this from Ontario statistics --

The Deputy Speaker: I know how difficult it is, but it's my job to keep you on topic. I haven't heard the word "immigration" in some time.

Ms. DiNovo: You're about to hear it, Mr. Speaker; you're about to hear it. In terms of speaking about the Guelph immigration, I was pleased to hear the number of immigrants in Guelph. I come

from an area that has the most number of immigrants of anywhere in North America -- Parkdale-High Park -- so I know exactly whereof I speak when I speak about the plight of immigrants.

We have had Bill 124 -- and we know that we're both dealing with the same kind of crises of immigrants getting jobs: a Ph.D. doing Pizza Hut delivery. We've heard the jokes. We know what it means to be a recent

immigrant.

Again, I think what this government could do to help the immigrants settling in Guelph, better than perhaps naming this a gateway city, is to give some teeth to Bill 124. How might they do that? They might do

that by building an appeal process so that the workers who are immigrants in Guelph could appeal the rulings that deal with their plight in terms of getting regulated.

Ms. Sandals probably has some immigrants among her constituents who are doctors and engineers and would like to get accreditation in Ontario. Naming Guelph as a gateway city is not going to help them do that.

What's going to help them do that is to streamline the process to their getting that accreditation. Again, what I'm hoping for is that this government across from us actually does do what's needed for the constituents in Ms. Sandals's riding, does

do what's helpful for immigrants in Guelph and actually beefs up Bill 124 so that they might become the doctors and the engineers that they were back in their home countries. There's another way in which this government could help the residents of

Guelph.

I'm going to let my colleague speak about some other problems with this resolution as well.

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): I have to say that I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this. As the member from Guelph-Wellington mentioned, this is actually an area

in which I have some expertise, having completed my doctorate on this very topic earlier this year.

I'm going to be sharing my time -- it's going to be difficult for me to keep this little lecture down to the seven minutes I have been allocated. University professors are used to speaking in 50-minute spans of

time, so I'm going to have to keep myself really focused here.

This is a very important demographic issue, not just for Guelph and for my community of London but for many communities in the province and across the country.

We have a wonderful culture of immigration in Canada. We're the envy of every other country in the world because of the way we attract and integrate immigrants into our country. We have a long way to go -- we

could do so much better than we do -- but across the globe, people do look to Canada when they're studying immigration.

However, there's a very unbalanced settlement pattern across the country. We have a few cities that attract a lot of immigrants, but most of our cities attract less than our per capita share. This is an

important issue because -- and this is where I'll move into the lecture mode -- fertility rates in Canada and throughout the developed world have been at below replacement rates for many decades now. In Canada, we went below the replacement rate

of an average of 2.1 children per woman, one for the woman and one for the man and an extra 0.1 to -- I won't go into that. But 2.1 is the replacement rate, and we are currently at 1.5 and seem to be stabilizing at around 1.5. What that means is,

over the short term, we see the population aging. I think everyone here and everyone watching is very familiar with the notion that our population is aging. We're focused on some of the implications.

What I don't think people really understand is that we can foresee the time in which there will actually be more deaths than births. Demographers call that "natural decrease." At that point in time -- expect it

to be 20-or-some-odd years from now -- we actually will not only look to immigrants to increase our population, but without immigration our population will decline quite rapidly.

At current fertility rates, every generation is only three-quarters the size of the previous generation. So Canadians -- we're not replacing ourselves through fertility. Some countries have tried very hard to

increase fertility, with not very good results. They haven't achieved those objectives. Immigration is how we will be replacing our population in the future.

I might say that there's no shortage of people in the world. The population of the globe is continuing to increase, in some parts of the world very dramatically; so our job, as Canadians, as global citizens, is

to attract and integrate immigrants into our communities.

When you have a fertility rate well below replacement, immigration is how you replace the population. At the national level, we're really well-positioned. We can simply increase levels of immigration to

compensate for below-replacement fertility. In fact, even at current levels of immigration, the population of Canada, unlike many European countries and Japan and other developed countries, is projected to increase, albeit at decreasing rates,

over the next 50 years. But because of the unbalanced settlement patterns, what we'll have is: The cities that attract immigrants will grow rapidly; the cities that do not attract immigrants will decline rapidly.

For my doctoral thesis, I looked at population projections for 26 CMAs in Canada. A CMA is a census metropolitan area. The results were surprising to me and have been surprising to a lot of people. Fifty years

from now -- and everybody has to understand that these are projections based on everything staying the same, which of course we know it won't -- if nothing changes, of the 26 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, only 10 will still be growing.

Sixteen will have populations that are actually decreasing in size.

We're not used to thinking about cities getting smaller, but in fact, 16 of the 26 will be getting smaller and 12 will be smaller 50 years from now than they are today. That is, in very large part, driven by

their inability to attract immigrants. There are other factors: the age structure of their population and internal migration; people leaving. Our friends in the north know that's an issue for those cities.

Unless we can move to a more balanced distribution of immigrants, we are going to be facing some real inequities. We'll have some rapidly growing cities, with demand for increasing infrastructure and services,

and we'll have another class of cities that will actually have surplus infrastructure. We're seeing it now in schools, where there are more classroom spaces than there are students.

There's a city in Germany -- and I'll wrap up very soon.

Mr. Leal: No, keep going; keep going. This is valuable information.

Ms. Matthews: There's a city in Germany -- Cottbus, Germany -- which has declined from about 130,000 to 100,000 people because they don't attract immigrants and they have a low fertility rate.

They're actually having to replace the water mains in the city because there's not enough water being used by the reduced number of people in the community. So there is a cost to population decline. In the literature they call this "population

shrinkage," and many places in Europe and other parts of the developed world are having to deal with shrinkage, something that is not on the radar screen of too many people in Canada.

Unless we can move to a more balanced distribution -- and I applaud the member's initiative, standing up for her community. But many of us need to --

Interjection.

Ms. Matthews: I've been asked by the member to keep going. I could talk for hours on this topic. In fairness to my colleagues who do have something to say, I will now conclude my remarks. But

congratulations to the member for really recognizing an issue in her community.

Mr. Chudleigh: We're busy over here dividing up the Christmas gifts from Mr. Levac to the pages. It's not that we don't appreciate the Christmas gifts, it's just that the pages seem to

appreciate them more than we do. They like candies. They're of the age when candies can still be eaten without the obvious results on the waistline.

It's an interesting resolution that we're debating today. Immigration, of course, is essential to the economic wellbeing of Ontario and Canada, and indeed any country. I think we have a wonderful example of

what happens when you don't have immigration or when you don't have population growth. Japan was one of the few countries, if not the only country, that didn't have a baby boom after the Second World War, and the depopulation of Japan can be

traced directly -- if you follow the teachings of David Foote in Boom, Bust and Echo, you will see that the population's decline in Japan led directly to the 10- or 15-year recession that they've had in Japan. They've had zero growth or very low

growth over an extended period of time because their population has not increased and hasn't kept up with the demands.

However, I think this resolution is just a titch off centre. It's a little bit wrong-headed. We're talking about placing people in various towns around Ontario, and I think that's going at the problem

backwards. What you have to do is create the jobs. People follow jobs; I don't think jobs follow people. So creating jobs in various parts of Ontario, decentralizing Ontario's job-creation engine, which is currently in the GTA, is where the

solution to the creation of higher populations in these various outlying cities and towns around Ontario, outlying from the GTA -- is where the success of that will lie.

If you look at the current exodus from practically all regions of Canada towards Alberta, you will see that people do follow jobs. To use the member's own example of San Giorgio, I don't think those people

moved to Guelph in order to sit in their homes; I think those people moved from San Giorgio, Italy, to the city of Guelph because there were jobs there. The creation of those jobs is what is going to create the economic opportunity for these

people and the decentralization of the job growth across Ontario.

Our leader and our party have introduced a white paper, one in a series called A Time for Action, talking about Ontario's skilled immigrants. It's entitled Unmet Expectations, Unfulfilled Responsibilities and

it talks to this very subject, that immigrants who come to this country aren't given the kinds of jobs that they perhaps expected when they left their homes. It's a tremendous uprooting of a person's life, that someone would move across the world

and settle somewhere and then find that the credentials they have at home don't necessarily meet with the standards that we have in this country. That is something they should know about before they leave home, before they consider the uprooting

experience they have gone through in their lives.

The Guelph area is one that is rich in research and innovation. I was actually somewhat shocked last week when the Premier, who is also the Minister of Research and Innovation, stood and talked about the need

for research and innovation in the future of this province and how we should attract the brightest and best from around the world. I was shocked and amazed actually, because it was one of the few things the Premier said in three and a half years

of being here that I agreed with. It's certainly headed in the right direction, if that was his thought. Yet you can imagine my disappointment when very shortly down the road from that, a couple of days later, we found out that this government,

through the Premier's office, is thinking about selling off the Turfgrass Institute. But that not being enough, he was also considering the sale of Vineland Research in St. Catharines, which is a venerable old research station that has huge

plantings of tree fruits that have been there for many years, have created untold opportunities for the tender fruit growers, the peach, pear, apple and fruit growers in the Niagara Peninsula. They have innovated with new varieties and new

production methods, innovated with different pruning methods, innovated with almost every facet of fruit production at that research station. To even consider the sale of such an institution is certainly wrong-headed. The Simcoe research station

was another one that was being sold.

I was going to talk about the reduction of jobs in the Guelph and Kitchener areas: ABB, Guelph; Sleeman, Guelph; Imperial Tobacco; W.C. Wood -- "Sanitation for the Nation" -- closed, 200 jobs gone.

Certainly Guelph needs some help. I don't think this resolution is the direction to go. I think we need to create jobs in that area and those jobs will attract people, as opposed to putting people into an area

that is shrinking.

I know Mr. O'Toole would like to weigh in on this subject as well. I look forward to his comments.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'm delighted to stand and speak to a private member's bill from the member from Guelph-Wellington, but I must state that when I first looked at the

motion, I was a little puzzled. I was puzzled, not so much because I believe she wants to do what she believes is best for her community, as all members do, and not so much that she is fighting for Guelph and its environs, as she was elected to

do, but I am puzzled about why it was necessary for her to do this in the first place. If you read the resolution, it is to ask the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration to designate the city of Guelph as one of Ontario's immigrant gateway

cities.

It would seem to me that that is the purview and prerogative of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and that she should simply have been able, at some point, to go over and say, "Mr. Colle, my

colleague, don't you think Guelph should be included?" I would have thought that was the way things normally transpire within the governing party, but obviously that is not the case, because for some reason Minister Colle and his ministry have not

seen fit to acknowledge the very good request that comes from the member from Guelph-Wellington. I guess that's why she's here. She is here to put some pressure on her own government colleagues, who have not seen fit, in the past or up until

today, to do what would be right by the citizens and the city of Guelph.

Dealing with the topic itself, this is an issue that involves immigration, involves trying to convince people that Guelph is a place, when they first come to Canada, to settle in, to build their lives, their

families in. Guelph is a wonderful little community. I don't get there as often as I should, but every time I get there I am transfixed by the beauty of its surroundings, by the churches, by the wonderful gardens and houses and the university. It

is a beautiful place and it is to be commended. I would not be surprised that people would want to go and live there, not only for its wonderful settings but for the bucolic nature around Guelph.

But that is not usually what causes immigrants to settle in an area. As many members would know, I worked in the immigration department for some 20 years before being a politician. In those 20 years, I met

immigrants from all over the world who were seeking to make Canada their home, some who came legally and some who came illegally, but they always had the same goal in mind. The goal was not to live in bucolic surroundings. The goal was to make

money. The goal was to find a job. The goal was to fit in and acculturate themselves. The goal was that.

Immigrants, when they came to our country at one point in our history, had to sign a pledge form, in some cases, to go and work on the railroad, in other cases to work on farms, in some cases to work outside

the cities for a period of three to five years. It happened within my lifetime that that was a requirement of immigrants to Canada, that they had to do that.

That is no longer the case. If you look at the Constitution of Canada, it quite clearly says there is mobility of all Canadian citizens and any resident of Canada as well. Not just Canadian citizens but any

resident of Canada has freedom of mobility. Invariably, what happens is that although immigrants may come destined for one location, they will move. If you invite them to go to Guelph, they will go to Guelph and they will stay in Guelph only so

long as their needs are being met. The day that those needs are not met, they are -- the same as any other citizen, the same as any other resident -- entitled and free to move to where those needs might be met.

The needs are many. The needs can be schools, they can be jobs, they can be communities of interest, they can be people wanting to live with people who speak their own language or understand their own culture.

All of those things are important to new immigrants. That is why you see, in a place like Toronto, immigrant communities, little clusters, even within a large city, places that we lovingly refer to as Chinatown or little India or Greek town or

little Italy or Kensington, which is probably the best example of cultures living side by side.

It is important not so much to pass this resolution -- and this resolution is intended, as I quote from it, "to attract investment and jobs." It is the job losses in some parts of Ontario that are affecting

immigration more than any other factor that you can think of. It is impossible: job losses related to the high costs of hydro, the northern policies of this and past governments, particularly in the industrial strategy in places like Guelph and in

the 905, where 134,000 jobs are being lost. That is why immigrants are increasingly not choosing these communities. It's increasingly why, in a city like St. Catharines or in Welland or in Cornwall where the job losses have been enormous, where

there just aren't jobs left to go around to the people living there, you're not going to see immigrants going there.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Come on down to Cornwall and see what's going on.

Mr. Prue: And I'll see all the immigrants who are lined up at the station, too; really, if that's what you want to say. They are not likely go there, because the jobs and the opportunities for

themselves and for their children are simply not there.

If you want to know where immigrants are going in this day and age, they're not so much going to Ontario. Although they have come here for a century and continue to come here, they are increasingly, in

increasing numbers, going to Alberta and to British Columbia, where the jobs and the opportunity are. That's what does it all.

I go back to the resolution of the member from Guelph-Wellington. Again, I commend her for making the resolution. If there is a vote called, I will vote for your resolution. But I want to say I don't know what

it is going to accomplish; I don't know what the minister, in designating the five gateway cities in Ontario already, hopes to accomplish in those cities. Is it the intention of the government to pour money into those cities? Is it the intention

of the government to give them financial capital to make television and radio slots to say, "Immigrants, please come and live in these cities, because we can provide for you and this is where the opportunities are"? I don't know, because I don't

know whether that is the right strategy to begin with.

The right strategy is to ensure that all of Ontario is prosperous. The right strategy is to ensure that there are not job losses, that people, if they are looking for work, can find that work. The right

strategy is to point out to immigrant groups and prospective immigrants where they are most likely to find alternatives if they are looking for alternatives, because in the end, they will, as the Vietnamese so readily showed to people who worked

in immigration -- the Vietnamese literally came to towns all over Ontario, all over Canada, but within two years they gravitated mostly to Toronto. Although there are still Vietnamese communities spread out across Ontario, the overwhelming

majority that once settled in places like Guelph or in Ottawa ended up in Toronto.

I remember the mayor of Ottawa, Marion Dewar at the time, being asked about their Vietnamese immigrant program and why they were all in Toronto. She said, "God bless them; we did our best to get them here and

now they've gone," and she wished them well. That's the reality of what's going to happen. In the end, it's all about prosperity.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Merry Christmas to you and your family and to all members. I am very pleased to join in the debate for my good friend the

member from Guelph-Wellington and her resolution today. I would hazard a guess that the other members who represent Wellington county, for example, my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and my friend the member from

Waterloo-Wellington, will support today's resolution because I think they believe, like the member for Guelph-Wellington, that what is good for Guelph is good for Wellington.

I was surprised to hear my friend from Beaches-East York refer to the town or the city of Guelph -- 120,000 people -- as a little community. I think you have to be from the Beach to think that 120,000 people

is a little community. I can tell you, in southwestern Ontario, Guelph is a growing and large community by our standards. And I wouldn't refer to downtown Guelph as bucolic, but there are many parts of Wellington that are.

What I want to put on the record is that in my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Research and Innovation, I learned a very interesting fact about the University of Guelph. The University of

Guelph is the seventh-leading agricultural research university, not in Ontario, not in Canada, not in North America, but in the world. They are a global leader in the world.

This resolution deals with the issue of whether or not we want to make sure that that community and the surrounding community -- Guelph is nestled in the heart of Wellington county -- is a welcoming community,

welcoming in Wellington and Guelph, to those people from around the world who want to do leading edge research in their own profession, particularly when it comes to agricultural research. The jobs of the 21st century will be driven by our ability

and our capacity to innovate and to take the ideas that are developed on the research tables in all of our research institutes and turn them into Ontario jobs.

The last time I was in Guelph I was pleased to join the member from Guelph-Wellington and the Premier at our very good news announcement about the tremendous reinvestment of the Linamar people, the family who

own Linamar, into Guelph, because they really are leaders in auto parts, and that's a very strong driver in our economy.

Because of our automotive strategy, we are receiving those echo announcements. For example, in my own riding in Stratford we welcomed Aisin Canada, which will be supplying Toyota Canada in Woodstock. I know

Hayashi is coming. I know that Futaba, FIO, is tripling. All of those things I think show us that Guelph is world-class and that we need to market Guelph and its surrounding communities and let the world know that they are indeed welcome to come

to Guelph.

That's why I want to support the member, and I believe all members, not just those who represent Wellington but those who have aspirations as the Liberal candidate for Perth-Wellington to represent the good

people of Wellington one day in the next Legislature.

I want to just take one moment to say congratulations to the mayor of Mapleton, John Green -- John Green is the new warden of Wellington county; they're very proud of him in Mapleton -- our new mayor, Dave

Anderson, who has replaced David Burns as the mayor of Minto, and also to Mike Broomhead, who was actually acclaimed, along with his council, as the new council and again as the mayor of Wellington North. We want to praise them. They are a vital

part of Wellington, and again, Guelph is nestled in the heart of Wellington county.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to support the private members' business by Ms. Sandals from Guelph-Wellington and the concept that I think each of us would advocate, that our

communities are places to grow.

Yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure Renewal introduced and claimed that the Places to Grow document, a guide to the growth plans, was an important and acclaimed document. But if you look at the document,

you will find, as the member from Halton mentioned, that it's really all about creating the infrastructure for human growth. More importantly, it's about growing the economy so that there are opportunities for all people, whether they're

immigrants or existing residents.

There's some uncertainty in the economy just now under McGuinty's plan. So the Places to Grow document makes it very clear, and I'll just read it: "Growth is important to Ontario's economy, but we need to be

strategic about it. That's what the Places to Grow plan is all about -- ensuring that we have places to grow business, places to grow food, places to grow families." So important here is making sure there are opportunities for people and for the

economy in that local area to grow. I would put on the table that Durham region is certainly one of those locations that people should look for.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Like my colleagues before me, I want to take the opportunity to wish everyone in this Legislative Assembly and all my constituents

back home the very best of the holiday, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah. It's a time for family to come together.

When someone as together as my colleague from Guelph-Wellington is, someone who is as committed to her constituents as she is, asks someone like myself to rise and say a few words, there's only one possible

answer, and that is, "Of course. I'd be delighted to do that." I celebrate the member and her good work and her resolution here this morning. The member understands that she owes her constituents more than just her time and talent, but also her

good judgment, her best judgment, which even on a bad day is good. So I want to celebrate that.

The resolution before us this morning is pretty simple. It's declaring that the member, who has often spoken about the brain drain, wants to acknowledge that there's a brain gain train a-comin', and she wants

to make sure that Guelph is on the stop list, where people can come and invest their time, their talent, their energy and their resources in building a stronger community.

It's also, I sense, about asset management. You can't invite people to come to a community and to invest themselves in growing their families and developing that community unless and until you can find a way

to properly work with the community to get them equipped for that as well. So it's not enough to say that Guelph is a wonderful community that wants to celebrate diversity and encourage diversity; you also have to advertise the fact that Guelph is

a community that wants to embrace and celebrate diversity and all the advantages that come with that.

So in that sense, in the sense of asset management and beginning to get the community equipped, that is where I think the member is coming from. Developing the tools that are needed to help people to settle in

and to make the kind of contribution that historically immigrants have made to this country is laudable and speaks very well for the member for Guelph-Wellington.

This is a morning to affirm the community of Guelph, its inclination to acknowledge the giftedness of immigrant populations and to embrace that community, as that community, through its wonderful member,

embraces their talents. I look forward to supporting the resolution and applaud the member for Guelph-Wellington for having the foresight to bring it forward this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Sandals, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Sandals: I'd like to thank all my colleagues who have spoken to the motion this morning and to emphasize that while Guelph is the community that is named here, this is really about a

whole lot of communities in Ontario that need to be actively recruiting immigrants because, as the member for London North Centre was so eloquent in explaining, if communities don't attract immigrants, then communities will decline, and that is

not good for the health of Ontario.

However, this does specifically name Guelph, and I think with good reason. As I mentioned earlier, Guelph, if you look at all the cities in Canada, has the 11th-highest proportion of immigrants. If you look at

Ontario, Guelph has the sixth-highest proportion of immigrants of any city in Ontario. So we are well equipped to welcome new immigrants. In fact, a number of the bridge training programs are located in Guelph. As my colleague from Perth-Middlesex

mentioned, Guelph is one of the leading research institutes in the area of agriculture in the world. As such, the bridge training programs for veterinarians, for agrologists, for virologists are all located in Guelph because we have particular

expertise in those areas.

The Guelph and District Multicultural Centre, aside from creating a wonderful annual multicultural festival at Guelph's Riverside Park, does the serious work of dealing with immigrant settlement in a whole lot

of different cultures, as I've already mentioned. And we have increased support for those.

I would encourage my colleagues to support this motion to recognize that we do have to change the immigrant settlement patterns in Ontario in the future.

And I wish everyone happy holidays.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move second reading of Bill 178.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Tory has asked for unanimous consent to move second reading of Bill 178. I might just say, for those who are looking in wonderment, that it's because the bill has not

been printed yet that that motion is required. So do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY

IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LA VÉRITÉ ET LA TRANSPARENCE

AU SEIN DU SYSTÈME JURIDIQUE

Mr. Tory moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act with respect to truth and transparency in the justice system / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires en ce qui a trait

à la vérité et à la transparence au sein du système juridique.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Tory, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): It's my pleasure and my privilege for the first time to rise as a member of this Legislature to move second reading and in fact to have proposed on

first reading a bill that I think is very important for the people of Ontario. I thought I would just try and spend my time addressing four things: first of all, the problem; secondly, why does it matter; thirdly, why transparency will help; and

fourthly, why good will come from this as opposed to any other kind of result.

The problem: I think the problem is illustrated by the fact that we've seen in many other instances in this House, in my short time here and I'm sure for years and years before that, that what happens

oftentimes is that certain cases get a disproportionate amount of attention when it comes to what people think is going on in the justice system. The cases that either get attention here or in the media or both are the cases that are taken to

summarize what's going on in a justice system that is very important to citizens across the province, which causes them to conclude that in some cases things are wrong when they are, and perhaps in other cases that things are wrong when they

aren't, because these cases are the exception as opposed to the rule. But the bottom line is that what we don't have in order to help people to understand how things are functioning in the justice system are the facts on the table so people can

know when there is a problem, in their view, and when there isn't.

I said the other day in questioning the Premier on this that it was ironic to me -- at best, ironic -- that we can count the number of eggs laid in the province each year, as is required under some statute or

other, and there are people who do it in the government; the number is, as a matter of interest to the public watching, about 228 million. We can count the number of calls to the bear wise hotline that are referred to a live operator; I think the

number there was 10,000. Yet we don't have basic information in hand to allow the Attorney General, when someone on this side of the House gets up and says that there's a terrible problem with people violating bail or whatever, to say, "Well, in

fact, we've calculated the numbers, we keep track of it, and there isn't a problem. The incident you referred to is an isolated incident." And while that doesn't mean you won't take it seriously, you also won't conclude that there is a problem.

But the facts just aren't available. I believe what that has led to as well as part of this problem is that there is a perceived lack of accountability. If you don't have the facts, if people don't know what's actually going on in the justice

system, then no one really feels held to account, no one really feels they have to answer at all, whoever it might be, but starting with the government of the day, and the Legislature, quite frankly, which is the place where these laws are

ultimately made.

I am one of those who believes that independence of the judiciary -- which I respect; I learned about it when I was a law student; I understand it as a legislator and a citizen -- just to speak to that

particular thing, which I will come back to at the end in talking about good and not harm that will come from this, does not mean a complete lack of accountability. Everybody has to be accountable who serves in positions of public trust in our

system. I understand the difference between being independent, but I don't think that means you have a complete lack of accountability for what you do, even if it is just to the point, which is really what this bill speaks to, of keeping track of

various decisions that are made by judges and others that are just facts of things that happen in the justice system day to day.

Why does this matter? It matters, first and foremost, because confidence in our system of justice is absolutely paramount to the overall strength of our democratic system. The courts don't operate in isolation

all by themselves; they operate as part of a system that says, "We meet here, elected by our constituents to make laws." Those laws are then made and duly passed, and the laws are enforced and interpreted by the courts. The courts are independent,

appointed by governments, but they are a key pillar of the democratic system.

If you want to look no further than the best example in recent times of why all of this matters and why what goes on in courts and what goes on in Legislatures and so on are all part of one whole as opposed to

being separate parts, you look no further than Caledonia. Caledonia has been a situation, in my view, where what I think people see is the inconsistent application of laws between one group and another. They see a failure to uphold respect for the

law and the rule of law. It has shaken people's confidence. I can tell you, from having been there as recently as a week ago and spent the night, that the most unfortunate part of all is the view that is held by many of the local residents there

-- you can call them right or call them wrong, but it is a view they hold honestly as a result of their experiences -- that they have lost confidence in the police and in the system of justice that it is working for all people, at all times, in an

equitable manner. We cannot have a situation where we have that confidence lost on the part of individual citizens across the province in their system of justice, because it is their system.

Why will transparency help? I believe transparency will help because, first and foremost, like we always say -- it's an expression we hear used all the time: Justice must not only be done but must be seen to

be done. So by having transparency and having the facts on the table -- and again, these are just facts of things that either happen or they don't happen -- and having people be able to see what is going on in the justice system in terms of things

that are going on and are problems or are perceived problems or aren't, to come back to where I started, where things that often get a lot of heat and light in here are things that aren't problems at all; they're individual, isolated incidents. If

you put those facts on the table, then you see justice working and how it's working, as opposed to just being able to be told, "It is working." People want to see the facts so they can judge for themselves, to some extent, whether they think the

system is working or not. And the remedy then becomes not for them to rush down and picket the courthouse to make judges upset; they come and picket us, quite frankly, and say, "Look, if there's a problem here, as judged by the facts, then you

people in the Legislature have some obligation to deal with that and to change the law, because we think the justice system isn't working."

If you ask me, "Will this raise questions about the justice system?", I hope so. What's wrong with that? Why are we afraid of looking at the facts of what goes on in our courts and having people be able to

raise questions? That's part of the democratic process too. If you believe the courts are part of that overall accountability we all have as citizens and us as legislators and people who work in the justice system for upholding and strengthening

those pillars of our democratic system, I say yes. And I say, frankly, the more that people are emboldened and informed to be able to ask good questions about things that may be real issues -- what's wrong with that? We want that to happen because

that will cause us to pass better laws and to strengthen the justice system and to increase confidence in the justice system.

I'm asking in the bill that these facts be collected on a broader basis. I have listened carefully to what the Attorney General has said and his quotes of the former Chief Justice, who's a very good friend of

mine, a friend of long standing from when he was the Attorney General of this province, one whom the current Attorney General referred to as one of the great Attorneys General of Ontario, namely Chief Justice McMurtry. He expressed a perfectly

legitimate concern about making sure that what you don't do is interfere with the independence of the judiciary. So what I've provided for in the bill, by and large, is the aggregate collection of these facts across the court system as a whole, so

you're not saying, "We're going to go to that particular judge or that particular courtroom and really bore down and analyze what that person is doing or whatever"; you are simply going to look at what's going on across the system and try and

assess whether that indicates that there is anything that really supports concerns that people articulate from time to time, including me, or doesn't support those concerns, that it really isn't a problem; it's more of an isolated incident. So I

think that's why transparency will help.

The last point I want to make in the time available is why good will come from this, and not harm. Perhaps it bears repeating what I just said: By providing for the collection of this data in the aggregate

across all courts in the justice system in Ontario on things like bail violations and sentencing deals and plea bargains and so on, you are not running the risk of putting pressure on individual judges, in my view, as to how they decided or what

their ratio was or anything else. You are simply looking at the system as a whole and you're able to make some judgments and form some opinions and ask some questions based on the system as a whole.

Secondly, there are a couple of instances, I will say, where we've provided for specific collection of information by court location. That is on, for example, things like adjournments. If you ask me whether

we'd better get a handle on what is going on with adjournments in the court system that is causing the time it's taking to get people to trial on criminal and civil matters, and find out why those adjournments are going on and if there's a place

where they're granting twice as many as somewhere else and therefore the waiting time is twice as long, we probably should be looking court by court and finding out why that would be, that some court location or other would grant twice as many

adjournments for twice as long as somewhere else. I don't think, again, that interferes at all with the independence of the judiciary.

I look at this, and in the end it is about where I started. That is that the reason I think this is good is because it does not interfere in any way with the independence of the judiciary, which is the only

argument that has been raised against it. The only other one I've heard mentioned is the question of cost. I say look, if we can afford to count the number of eggs, if we can afford to count the number of calls to the bear wise hotline that go to

a live operator, we should be able to count the number of bail violations and sentencing deals and plea bargains that go on, because that is fundamental to the main reason I brought this forward, which is that I am determined to try to make

whatever difference I can as Leader of the Opposition, as a member of the Legislature, and I hope one day as Premier, to increase confidence in the justice system, because it is such a vital part of a strong, vibrant democracy.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I am delighted to join in this debate. From what I can understand, the Leader of the Opposition is asking here, in terms of truth and transparency in the justice

system, whether judges grant bail and which judge is denying bail.

Now, I kind of think there is somewhat of a connection between what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting here and what was proposed in 2001 by the Progressive Conservative Party. I remember the bill that

was introduced by Marilyn Mushinski, since the leader has quoted the chief justice of Ontario and what he has said about that particular bill. The question, of course, is, is there a connection between the bill that the Leader of the Opposition is

proposing and the bill that Marilyn Mushinski wanted to pass into law. There is an interesting distinction, but there is certainly also an interesting connection. Judge McMurtry had said in 2001 about Marilyn Mushinski's bill, "All I can do is

express the hope that that was not the intention despite the perception that the members of the Legislature would have the good sense not to proceed with such legislation." Even Mr. Flaherty, who was here not too long ago, acknowledged that the

legislation would not go any further because of concerns that it would interfere with the judicial independence of the judiciary.

So we have to be treading here on very careful grounds. I know the leader had indicated that the judiciary must be independent, and it cannot even be seen that there is political interference in the

independence of the judiciary. That's what he says. I do not wish to belabour the point, and quote what Mr. Runciman had indicated earlier, from what we have here, his indication that he wants to track the records of individual judges. That's

different maybe from what the leader wants. I'm not quite clear sure whether --

Interjection.

Mr. Ruprecht: Since the two of you are sitting very close to each other, you would probably know the difference here.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Tony, that's not what it says.

Mr. Ruprecht: I know. But the point is -- and you must accept this -- it is fair political comment. Would you not say that? It's fair political comment to indicate that, and that's what the

Chief Justice wants to indicate here as well.

There are some other comments that I wish to make. We cannot accept the statement at all that Liberals are weak in terms of crime. I have a whole host of indications of how Liberals are strong against crime,

whether it's an indication of proposing that we hire 1,000 police officers, whether it is a political impact statement. In fact, the member for Parkdale-High Park is here today, and I wanted to indicate that, over 16 years ago already: Parkdale

"Keep Crime Out," impact statements. We have done --

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ruprecht, please put that down.

Mr. Ruprecht: It's just an indication, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Please put it down. Thank you.

Mr. Ruprecht: Community witness is a great program. It's a program that establishes a link between the police and the courts, who testify on the impact of crime on our neighbourhoods; a great

program. I have about 15 other programs to discuss here, but unfortunately, I'm out of time because my colleague needs the time to wrap up.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): It's a pleasure to speak to Bill 178 and to say right off the top that I certainly don't have any problem with this bill. It's calling for transparency.

The hope is, with transparency, if you know the facts, that this leads to accountability and then, hopefully, at the end of the chain, to action. I don't hold out a lot of hope. As we've seen with the Auditor General's reports, what is necessarily

transparent doesn't, just by the nature of its being, lead to accountability, and it certainly doesn't necessarily end in action, certainly not with the McGuinty Liberals.

I also want to set the bill in a little bit of context, and that is that we do live in a pretty safe situation. I don't think anyone here would say that right now we're involved in a crime wave of any sort.

There was an opinion piece in the Toronto Star on August 16 that pointed this out. This was by the writer James Morton, who says:

"Whenever people read or hear attacks on Canada's justice system, they should bear in mind that our judges cannot respond when attacked about why they applied the law as they did. Crown prosecutors face

similar constraints. Even defence counsel are limited in what they can say to the media."

So that's the caveat, of course, around this bill: that this should, in no way, shape, or form -- and you've heard others say this -- be an attempt to bridge that independence of any sort.

Just generally, what is it like to be an Ontarian right now in terms of law and order and crime?

"Break-ins and car thefts: 7% lower than the year before. Counterfeiting, previously a growth area: down 20%. Youth crime: down 6%. Property crime by youth: down 12%.

"The homicide rate did rise by 4%, but after years of steady decline. It's still down 30% compared with the mid-1970s."

Canadians understand all that. In light of the context for Bill 178, we can say that a survey showed that crime and justice ranked far down the list of our worries: well below education, the economy, the

environment, international issues and certainly well below health care. So law-and-order issues are not front and centre among our constituents' concerns.

This writer goes on to say that, by and large, "Canada's judges, crowns and defence lawyers apply the law, as written, as fully and fairly as possible.

"Our judges are famous for their balance and common sense.

"Our crowns exercise great care to see justice done," and

"Canadian defence lawyers act vigorously to protect the accused." He concludes, "This adds up to a pretty good system" and says it could be improved.

Certainly, that's where I would like to start with my comments, because I think we share a desire in this House to see our justice system improved. As New Democrats, one of our concerns with our justice system

and the way that our justice system works is that we really have two justice systems: We have one for those with money, and we have another justice system entirely for those who don't have money.

I drove around with 14 division. It was a pleasure to do so, an honour, and it gave me a very good first-hand experience of what law and order looks like on the ground in my riding of Parkdale-High Park. I can

tell you that one of the most chilling sights I have ever laid eyes on was the computer in the police car as we were driving around. Those incidents that required a red flashing light, the serious ones where they really needed an officer on the

scene, light up first, and then there are a whole series of others that were lit up with yellow that aren't quite as pressing. Among those that were pressing that lit up while I was driving around with this particular officer were things like

break and enters in progress, assaults in progress -- those lit up. There were about 10 of them. He said to me, "You know, we have 20 cars on the road tonight, with 100,000 people." He said, "There is no way we'll even get to those 10

high-profile, high-needs incidents -- no way that we'll get to some of them until tomorrow morning."

The McGuinty government has said that they have put 1,000 new officers -- or will be, because they're not all in place yet -- on the streets of our cities and our communities. But the reality is that we need a

whole lot more than that to really keep up community policing. The reality is that we have a lot less police on our streets than we did when I grew up in the city of Toronto because our population has grown far, far faster than the number of

police put out there.

Bill 178 talks to the transparency of the legal and justice system. Here's the reality on the ground of the justice system, where the police try to enforce those laws: We don't have enough police to enforce

the laws we have already. So once we find out what's going wrong, what are we going to do about it unless we have an enforcement piece in place? So we need more community police.

Then I look at Bill 178, and I see that on the very first page one of the things that Mr. Tory is asking for is information about, "the average, median and 90th percentile wait times in criminal and civil

proceedings in which there is a trial, indicating, "the time from the commencement," and so he goes.

It's the poor people, of course, who suffer from the lack of police the most. Also, it's the poor people who suffer from the lack of transparency and the lack of efficiency in the justice system the most.

Again, I quote from the paper

article -- this is October 14 in the Globe and Mail -- that summarizes about legal aid. And remember, for the poor amongst us, legal aid is their only hope at getting justice. This writer goes on to conclude: "In its

recently completed 2006-07 business plan, Legal Aid Ontario warned that funding has `reached the point where it is no longer adequate to meet existing service requirements.'

"It said that it `is turning away more people than ever before -- the number of people refused service has increased by 42% in less than two years.'" So if you are poor and trying to get justice in the

province of Ontario, you've got to stand in line. And then, most of the time, this seems to indicate you're not going to have any luck even getting a lawyer so you can defend yourself, or, for that matter, look after your own vital interests.

We all have in our constituency offices cases like the one that I'm going to just suggest -- and this a closed case now -- a case of property theft. This was a woman who literally ran out of money hiring

lawyers and then was forced to go to legal aid, but didn't qualify for legal aid. Then what is she to do? She was then forced to defend herself, and we know where that usually gets you. So in terms of those without money, this justice system --

so-called justice system -- isn't working very well.

Again, I'm going to quote from a Toronto Star

article about the legal aid system. "`In his days, Ontario's legal aid plan was the best in the world,' Bayne said, adding McGuinty `cares about people' and knows,

like education and health care, a `quality' legal aid plan `goes to the heart of a just civil society.'"

He goes on: "But in the mid-1990s the province capped legal aid funding and tightened eligibility rules, which remain unchanged, even though the cost of living has gone up. The result: fewer people qualify for

legal aid.

"A decade ago, a single person with a net income of $18,000 a year would have automatically qualified for a legal aid certificate. Today, someone earning between $13,000 and $16,000 after taxes falls into a

grey area. Legal aid officials look at that person's income and living expenses before deciding whether to issue a legal aid certificate."

Someone earning between $13,000 and $16,000 a year -- a grey area. You can imagine how many people in Ontario don't qualify for legal aid and still don't have enough money to hire a lawyer by any other means.

What happens to them? Where do they, and how do they, get justice?

Again, the Star, on November 24, concludes and says: "True, the Liberal government has increased base funding for legal aid since it came into office in 2003. But total funding, which comes from both Queen's

Park and Ottawa, has fallen short of keeping up with growing demand and costs over the past decade.

"In fact, after adjusting for inflation, combined federal and provincial funding for Legal Aid Ontario is still well below 1995 levels....

"Yet access to adequate legal counsel for the province's poorest citizens is routinely undermined by tight eligibility rules that have been static for years...." It goes on to talk about the same thing,

someone "earning as little as $13,000 a year after taxes may be too rich for legal aid."

What does this mean for justice for those in our midst? I want to draw this House's attention to a very high profile case, the case of Rose McGroarty. Rose McGroarty was known to people in Parkdale-High Park.

She was a cook at Parkdale Activity and Recreation Centre. She was well loved and well liked in that community. She was a victim, a very high profile one, of domestic violence and eventually domestic homicide.

Domestic homicide, as many people who are in the justice system know, is still a growing and going concern. She was not only killed, she was also mutilated. Her body was cut up and some of her body parts were

left just across from the house on Elm Grove that my husband and I are in the process of purchasing, and some in North York. It took a while, but finally they arrested her partner. Finally they prosecuted him. A whole community was in mourning. We

were horrified at this barbaric act, this outrageous crime.

Rose was a victim of domestic abuse, as it came to light, for many years, as are many women. This is a crime that we need to do something about. And in light of December 6 and the Montreal massacre, this is a

crime that we should all feel deeply about and want to see some action over.

I look at the Hadley commission. I look at the percentage around domestic violence and domestic abuse -- again, setting the context, my drive around with 14th division, how few police we have on the ground,

how little they can respond.

We know that restraining orders don't mean anything for most women who are victimized. We know that if you're victimized as a woman at home and you're at high risk of being murdered, there is very little help

out there. Shelters are full. There aren't enough of them. There's no housing. There's no chance that you can go from your house, where abuse is happening and where murder might happen, to a safe place after shelter. Chances are, as a victim of

abuse, you can't afford the housing that you need, because there isn't any. There are 65,000 families waiting for housing in the Toronto area. So chances are, after you get rejected by the shelter -- even if you get lucky and get into the shelter,

if you want to get out of the shelter and go somewhere else, into your own home, you won't find that home.

Chances are if you're on Ontario Works or ODSP, if you're on one of those systems, which many victims of abuse are because they have to leave jobs for their protection, you won't be able to afford to find

living accommodation. You'll be forced back into that system that puts you at incredible risk. So this is the context into which Bill 178 is brought, a system of justice that is really one set of laws for the wealthy and another set of laws in

practice for the poor.

I would suggest that what we need is not only transparency, which is what this bill speaks to, hopefully followed by accountability, but what we really need from the McGuinty Liberals is action. We need action

on the justice system so that you don't have to be wealthy to avail yourself of it, but if you are poor, if you are being abused, if you might be murdered because you are in a high-risk group, that is, women who are abused, you can actually find

some justice.

I speak on behalf of all of those victims out there who are being abused right now and who can't find justice under the current system. They can't find housing, they can't find a shelter place. We know that

abuse goes up this time of year. It does not go down this time of year, it goes up. I see in my community those families using food banks. I see those families at risk. I know what it's like to not be heard. I've stood with them in courts,

watching the abuser get off yet again. That's not the answer. The answer for them is a systematic plan of action, a systematic plan for housing, for income support, so they can get legal aid, so they can get a lawyer and the lawyer can represent

them.

Again, transparency -- a good thing only if followed by accountability and then only if followed by action.

On behalf of everyone who has tried to get legal aid and can't, who has tried to make the justice system work for them and can't, who has tried to phone a police officer and there isn't one available, I say

let's make our justice system work. Let's not only see what's happening, let's actually get something happening.

Just to close, I want to wish all of those who are watching from Parkdale-High Park and everyone else a very happy holiday and, I hope, one free from the need to use this justice system, because it ain't

working well.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Does any other member wish to speak?

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): I'm pleased to join this debate on Bill 178, the Truth and Transparency in the Justice System Act, 2006. I commend our leader, John Tory, for bringing

forward this private member's bill to deal with what, in my view, is also a very important issue.

This bill would amend

section 79.3 of the Courts of Justice Act to provide that the annual report of the Attorney General on the administration of the courts must include specific information, such as the

number of charges for offences involving the use of firearms or violence, wait times for trial in criminal and civil proceedings, bail violations, adjournments ordered on matters under the Criminal Code and the Provincial Offences Act and credits

awarded for time spent in custody before conviction.

Statistics Canada has reported that there were over 100,000 bail violations in 2004. In making an announcement in Toronto on November 23, 2006, concerning his government's intention to bring forward amendments

to the Criminal Code to provide a reverse onus in bail hearings involving firearms, Prime Minister Harper noted that, "In this city, police report that almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons have been committed so far this

year. Nearly 40% of them were committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence or probation. Gun crime is a menace to public safety, and protecting Canadians must be the first priority of our bail system."

Premier McGuinty attended the Prime Minister's announcement and expressed his support for these amendments, stating, "Ontarians want to see action ... across party lines. I want to urge all the federal parties

to continue working together to ensure this law gets speedy passage." Yet, despite this professed support, this government has steadfastly refused to track justice statistics that would be immensely helpful in identifying problems and trends that

might prevent serious injury and, in some cases, even death to innocent victims.

Taking matters back a little bit, on August 24, 2006, the Attorney General endorsed the finding of a panel of justice and media experts that cameras be allowed in Ontario courts. He commented, "I think that

our justice system is ready for its close-up," yet only three days before, on August 21, 2006, in clause-by-clause review of Bill 14, the so-called Access to Justice Act, the Liberal members on the committee unanimously rejected several amendments

that were put forward by our party that would require tracking of justice statistics, such as offences committed while on bail, gun offences dropped through plea bargaining, bail violations and court cancellations and remands.

Similarly, in an opposition day motion which was brought before this Legislature on November 28 this year, Mr. Tory proposed that inasmuch as the public was becoming increasingly concerned about the number of

crimes alleged to have been committed by people who were on bail, the government should: (1) adopt a policy to direct crown attorneys to oppose the making of all orders for bail for violent crimes; (2) seek a review of all orders granting bail for

charges involving crimes; and (3) begin providing more detailed information about the justice system, in order to inform the public about whether it is functioning well and in the best interests of public safety. In order to do that, statistics

would be required to be maintained along the lines as those proposed by Bill 178. Again, this motion was defeated in this Legislature without a single Liberal member supporting it.

We in the PC Party are of the view that this is a significant issue in the public interest, and that is why we keep bringing it before this Legislature. All of us are hearing -- I think every member of this

House is probably hearing from the constituents who want to know why it is that among 32 people facing murder or manslaughter charges in Toronto this year, 14 of them were out on bail at the time of the offence. Now, the standard response we've

been hearing from the Attorney General and the Minister of Community Safety is that any kind of record keeping or compilation of statistics regarding such justice matters would constitute interference with the judiciary.

We in the PC Party don't share that view. We know about and are extremely respectful of a need for judicial independence, but it's our position and our view that the keeping of mere statistics does not

constitute any kind of judicial interference whatsoever, and that it really is vitally necessary and in the public interest that these statistics be maintained, so that people will know how the justice system is functioning. After all, as Mr. Tory

has indicated, if we keep statistics on the poultry production and number of eggs produced in Ontario in a year, and we are maintaining more serious statistics such as the length of wait time for medical procedures, it indicates that statistics

are kept routinely across all of the ministries. Why should the justice system's statistics be any different? They are statistics like any other, and the public has the right to know. But even more than that, it's critical that the public maintain

their confidence in the justice system.

Yet it continues to be a bit of a mystery to the average person. Time and time again, I hear that from my constituents in Whitby-Ajax, and I'm sure many members hear that from their constituents as well: "What

goes on in that system? Why don't we know about it?" And when they hear some of the tragic stories about crimes committed by people while out on bail, sometimes with tragic endings such as people being killed, they wonder how this could

happen.

But when you look at the basic issues involving bail and you start with the question of the presumption of innocence pending trial, then you look at the situation involving bail and look at the very narrow

situations, really, in which bail can be denied: The first one is to ensure that the accused does not flee from justice -- that's an obvious one; to protect the public if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will re-offend, a

secondary ground; and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, and that's equally as important.

The public has a right to know how their justice system is functioning with respect to the granting of bail and the other types of statistics that would be maintained by Bill 178.

Bill 178 will remove some of the mystery that people feel surrounds the court system and the judicial system, and will require the disclosure of certain information, thereby introducing a transparency into the

system that we've all heard people want to see.

On this basis, I would commend Mr. Tory again for bringing this bill forward, and I would urge all members of this Legislature to support it.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I appreciate the opportunity to indicate my support for the bill and the Leader of the Official Opposition, John Tory, and commend him for introducing

this legislation. I think it's a strong indication to the people of Ontario of what a John Tory government would look like, in terms of dealing with so many challenges in the justice system in the province of Ontario. Transparency and truth in the

justice system would be things that I think virtually every Ontarian would welcome.

I could speak on this issue for hours. There is a certain degree of crisis in the justice system in Ontario. We've seen that with the Auditor General's report last September, with the backlog of cases. We've

seen it recently in a letter that both Mr. Tory and I received from the mayor of Mississauga with the challenges that the provincial offences court has, the lack of justices of the peace and the impact that's going to have on Peel region and

Mississauga specifically. I'll get into that a little later.

One of the things that we always hear in this House when any of us on the opposition benches raises issues with respect to the operation of the courts or concerns surrounding the justice system -- we get

tossed back at us that somehow, by raising these issues and shining a light on some of the problems and challenges, we are jeopardizing this mysterious thing called "judicial independence." The great unwashed, also known as hard-working taxpayers,

who pay the salaries of judges, who pay the salaries of lawyers who are accessing the legal aid system in Ontario, apparently, under this

interpretation, have no right to know what's happening inside what some would describe as an elite circle,

this sort of incestuous little clique. I have to say that John Tory and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario disagree, and strongly disagree.

I'd asked the question, why shouldn't taxpayers know? Why shouldn't they know the number of crimes committed while folks are on bail, or on probation or conditional release, while subject to a criminal

deportation order? Why shouldn't we know that? Why shouldn't we know the number of remands per case by court location and categorized by Criminal Code or provincial offences, pre or post trial date being set? Adjournment: whether it was requested

by the crown, the defence or the court? The Liberal government says no. Having taxpayers know where the problems are and who's causing them is somehow a threat to the independence of the judiciary.

A couple of weeks ago, you will recall Ontario appeal court Judge Michael Moldaver -- I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly -- spoke out about the mess that is Ontario's justice system. It was very refreshing

to hear someone of his rank talking about these challenges. His perspective was essentially -- some would interpret it as an assault on the defence bar, but he also acknowledged in his comments that his fellow judges are part of the problem. With

respect to that, he was referencing that, in his view, they do not put a quick enough end to what he describes as frivolous motions and fishing expeditions by defence lawyers.

Predictably, the defence bar has reacted with indignation: "We're not the problem; it's somebody else." There was an interesting

article in today's Toronto Star, co-drafted by the executive, I think the

president and vice-president, of the Criminal Lawyers' Association; I recall Alan Gold's name being mentioned. There was a very interesting quote in that. I'm going to quote directly from that article: "There are no reliable statistics available

to connect defence lawyers to the systemic problems that plague the system." That's the defence bar's response to Judge Moldaver's concerns about the mess in the justice system. They're saying, "There are no statistics to prove this. We're not the

problem because you don't have any statistics to back up that allegation." So round and round we go.

Clearly, we need those statistics. The defence bar is saying it, at least, in response to an assault from an appeal court judge. But when we get into discussing it in this place, even the defence bar, or many

of them, may be onside in saying, "No, we can't have this kind of annual reporting so that people who draft the laws and the people who pay the bills should have a right to know what's going on in the system and where the problems are."

Before I get into this whole issue of judicial independence, I want to talk about the problems in the courts just briefly. Our leader, Mr. Tory, talked about it. There are so many implications to this. If you

look at the victims of crime, they are on many occasions revictimized by the failure of our courts to deal in an adequate and timely manner with their challenges. Police overtime is an enormous cost burden: police going to the courts, waiting

around, and there's another remand, another adjournment. That is so frequent. Talk to any police service in this province. It is a real, significant problem, not only in a cost sense, but you're taking front-line officers off the front line,

sitting around in courtrooms hour after hour, day after day, week after week. That's a very, very serious problem.

I want to briefly talk about judicial independence. The speaker said we can't have some form of accountability, that this is jeopardizing judicial independence. I get worked up and irritated by this argument

all the time. It's exercised all the time, and I have great problems. The judiciary has to show a commitment to greater efficiencies in the system dealing with costs, but frequently it's not the case. When I was corrections minister, we had judges

saying, "No, we can't have any connection between remand, jails and the courts." We can't even have a tunnel, because somehow that jeopardizes judicial independence. Try and figure that one out. We've had judges arbitrarily saying, "I have to have

six armed police officers in my court," at $70,000 a year, "to provide security." Talk to the chief in Owen Sound about the cost burden that's placing on municipalities.

There has to be some kind of oversight applied, some kind of accountability. What we're talking about here I think is very, very reasonable. The judges have independence. They have essentially lifetime

appointments. They're guaranteed a job until the age of 75. Try to remove a judge, try to fire an incompetent judge, a judge who has misstepped. It's a very, very difficult process.

Knowing what they are doing in their courts, keeping track of what's happening, is in no way, shape or form jeopardizing judicial independence.

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): I'm pleased to speak to this. This is a rehash of the old Judicial Accountability Act that was a Tory private member's bill in 2001. That was entitled the

Judicial Accountability Act, and that was a much milder title than the bill we have before us today. The bill we have before us today has the rather ominous title of

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act with respect to truth and transparency,

the implication being that the crown attorneys and the judges in our system are untruthful, that they're not transparent. This bill goes much further than the 2001 Judicial Accountability Act.

What did distinguished chief justices and distinguished previous Attorneys General say about that bill, with the even less ominous title than the one we're dealing with today? Here's what Justice McMurtry said

on January 10, 2001, when this bill was introduced: "The people of this province are best served by an independent and impartial judiciary that seeks to find a just result." There was a story in the Ottawa Citizen in January 2001 that went on to

report on Justice McMurtry's comments. It said, "Judge McMurtry challenged the (Tory) government's decision to allow a private member's bill calling for the tracking of individual judges' sentencing records to proceed through the legislative

process." He described it as "a rather heavy-handed and irresponsible attempt to intimidate judges in the sentencing process."

The Attorney General of the day, Mr. Flaherty, acknowledged, according to this story, that having considered Justice McMurtry's comments and gone into the matter, he would "not go any further" because of

concerns that it would interfere with judicial independence. Now, the Leader of the Opposition says, "This is not about interfering with judicial independence. I'm talking about aggregate statistics. I'm trying to get a general overview of what is

going on in the province. We don't want to zero in on anybody's particular record." But words have meaning, and sometimes it's a good idea just to read and absorb the clear meaning of the words. Let me refer to subclause 1(2)(h)(iii) of this act

with respect to truth and transparency in the judicial system. First of all, it's not aggregate statistics or a general overview of the province; they're talking about statistics from, (i), the individual court location. Okay.

Now here is where the language becomes clear and is evident of the real intent to get into and to develop particular records of particular crown attorneys and particular judges. It's talking about tracking

adjournment statistics.

"1(2)(h)(iii) whether the adjournment was requested by the crown or by the defence" -- those are individuals, but here, I think, is where it gives the real intent of what this legislation is trying to get into

-- "or whether it was ordered on the judge's own initiative." How particular does that get? That is not a general overview. That not an aggregate look at what's going on. That's looking at an individual judge's own personal initiative and how he

has disposed of a particular aspect of a case. That, by anybody's definition, by any clear reading of those words, is an interference with the independence of the judicial system.

Now, I'd like to quote a former lawyer colleague, a distinguished member of this Legislature on the Tory side and one of my predecessors in the riding of Willowdale, Charles Harnick, the Attorney General of

the day. Here is what Charles Harnick said -- and I have great respect for former Attorney General Harnick, as I do for Chief Justice McMurtry, a former distinguished Conservative Attorney General. Charles Harnick, quoted in an

article in the

Globe and Mail by Colin Freeze, and I'm quoting from the article: "Former Progressive Conservative Cabinet Minister Charles Harnick told a group of young lawyers yesterday that the Judicial Accountability Act would be bad law -- and that he was

`proud to say I made it clear quickly what my position was,' when he quashed similar legislation" with the same intent several years before that.

The

article goes on to quote then Attorney General Harnick saying that "judges have to make decisions based on the cases before them, not based on public pressure." Let me just address this public pressure,

because I want to refer to something that came up in the opposition comments a couple of minutes ago. There was a reference to, "The taxpayers pay judges' salaries. Taxpayers want to know the problems and who's causing them," the "who" being the

individual judges. That's the flaw in this private member's bill. It is going to put a chill into how judges do their work, how individual crown attorneys do their work, how individual civilian court administrators administer the process of

scheduling cases. Can you imagine judges, crown attorneys, court administrators doing their work and they've got this ominous act hanging over their shoulders?

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act with respect to truth -- with respect to

truth -- the implication being that somehow, I suppose, they're telling lies, they're dishonest. Couple the title of that act with comments from the opposition Tory party in this Legislature today who are talking about, "If the taxpayers are

paying the judges' salary, they're entitled to know who's doing what, who's deciding what."

Our common law system has been well served over the centuries by the system that we have; that is, we have an independent Legislature elected by the voters, we have an executive drawn from that Legislature,

and we have an independent judiciary. They work in tandem: The judicial system is not any more independent or more superior than any of the other two elements of our governing system.

When we start to tamper with the system and say that we as legislators who are elected for a term -- maybe two terms, maybe three terms; governments change. The Liberals are forming the government today; in

years to come it may be one of the other opposition parties. When the political party of the day has an idea about how judges, crown attorneys, court administrators should be going about doing their work -- what they should be emphasizing, what

they should not be emphasizing, where they should come down hard, where they should come down a little easier -- when that judicial system starts shifting following the election of the day, so that one day we might have a Liberal view of what

judges should be doing and a few years later a Conservative view of what judges should be doing or an NDP view of what judges should be doing, that is, in the final analysis, politicizing the judicial system.

For centuries, democracies have depended upon, as a last refuge in many cases, an independent judicial system. An individual member of this Legislature, a citizen from the streets, someone in incarceration, a

police officer who finds himself in trouble or the person who the police officer has arrested can go to that independent judicial system and have their case determined independently, without having the judges and crown attorneys looking over their

shoulders with respect to being governed by something --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Tory, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Tory: I appreciate the fact that other members have participated in the debate today. What this is about is the public's right to know facts, things that actually happen in the justice

system. That's about all it's about. It's about increasing transparency, which we hear a lot about from the people across the way on many other matters, with regard to what goes on in the courts. It's about building confidence in the justice

system or, I might even say, rebuilding confidence in the justice system. It is about indicating where there might be problems but, frankly, eliminating a lot of other places where there aren't problems and where the facts will show that a lot of

things we end up discussing in here and in the media and elsewhere really aren't problems.

What this bill is not about is individual judges, except on the matter of remands and adjournments, which have to do with the functioning of the courts. But on all the other ones that have to do with the

exercise of their discretion on plea bargains, bail violations and so on, it is simply about aggregate collection of data from across the province and the reporting on that data from across the province. It's rubbish to suggest it's about somebody

not being truthful. There was no suggestion of that at all, and for people to suggest that is a smokescreen.

If there's a chill coming from anywhere, it is a chill that is coming from the fact that people are losing confidence in the justice system as they see the plea bargain deals, the sentencing deals, the bail

violations, the disrespect for the law, and the fact that there are things that get written up in the press in great detail or discussed in the Legislature that breed disrespect for those laws. So I say, if the Attorney General of this province

has time to go down and look at a Christmas tree in a courthouse when he should have just issued a joint statement with the Chief Justice saying, "Get over this orgy of political correctness. Let's let people celebrate all the holidays," if he's

got time to do that, if this government has time to count how many eggs are laid in Ontario -- and probably hatched too, for that matter -- then they should get on with letting the sun shine in on these facts and letting people know what's going

on in the justice system to build confidence in that system.

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

CITY OF GUELPH

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 69, standing in the name of Mrs. Sandals.

Mrs. Sandals has moved private member's notice of motion number 42. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY

IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LA VÉRITÉ ET LA TRANSPARENCE

AU SEIN DU SYSTÈME JURIDIQUE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 70, standing in the name of Mr. Tory.

Mr. Tory has moved second reading of Bill 178. 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.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: All members in favour, please stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

MacLeod, Lisa

Miller, Norm

O'Toole, John

Patten, Richard

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 17; the nays are 26.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

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

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today on behalf of the children and families of my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. After promising with much fanfare an initial

investment for Best Start child care spaces, the Minister of Children and Youth Services decided to remove them despite other similar regions in the same circumstances not being affected. As a result of a personal vendetta, which the minister

refuses to put aside, Kawartha-Victoria is not receiving one single Best Start space.

Let's not forget about the $59,000 luxury vehicles, the trips to the Caribbean, Argentina and other exotic locations, and the $2,000 gym memberships that she has made hard-working Ontario families pay for.

While this is occurring, she has personally decided that out of nearly 15,000 Best Start spaces, Kawartha-Victoria will get zero.

Personal vendettas and political motivations are the priority of the minister and the McGuinty Liberals. They're willing to say anything and do anything, even if it means punishing innocent families and their

children.

If she is really genuinely concerned, the minister will personally request the Auditor General to review the best start decisions and funding process and let us know exactly why she made the decision for zero

Best Start spaces in Kawartha-Victoria. I challenge her to do that on behalf of the children and families in my riding.

Minister Chambers needs to stop pointing fingers at everyone else and stop taking out her personal vendettas on Ontario's vulnerable children. It's irresponsible and it's regrettable.

The bottom line is that you, Minister, are responsible for hurting the young children who will benefit most from the very thing you are denying them.

LINDA BOUCHER AND

ADAM CONACHER

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise in the House today to congratulate two wonderful teachers in Ottawa who recently won the Golden Apple Award as outstanding educators. Ms. Linda

Boucher from Bishop Hamilton Montessori school and Mr. Adam Conacher from Henry Munro Middle School were both given the award recently.

The award was created by the Majic 100 radio station and the Alterna company, and it includes $500 that the winners can spend on their students.

Ms. Boucher was nominated for the award by eight parents of her students, and said that she would spend the money on new material for her classroom. Mr. Conacher is known for using new technologies to enhance

his students' learning experience. He plans to spend his winnings on new computer equipment for his students.

It's a pleasure for me to honour these two dedicated and outstanding educators by congratulating them in the Legislature today. Our government shares their desire to give our children the best education

possible, and we've made it a priority to support teachers like these two individuals. For instance, we haven't lost a single school day to labour discord, unlike our predecessors. We've also increased provincial funding for education and hired

over 7,000 new teachers. We've reduced class sizes and taken initiatives that have increased both test scores and graduation rates. We have also invested in new teaching materials for our children, and we are repairing and rebuilding schools

across the province. We will continue to work alongside teachers like Ms. Boucher and Mr. Conacher to give our children an education that will help them to succeed.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): There is a growing crisis in this province due to a shortage of long-term-care beds. In October of this year, there were more than 18,000 people in

Ontario on a waiting list for a bed -- yes, 18,000 people. This is an increase of more than 4,000 from the year before in October.

In my community of Waterloo, 669 people are waiting. In Ottawa, the list sits at a staggering 1,349. And in North Bay, the number is over 300.

This shortage of beds is not only affecting the people waiting, but it is drastically affecting other areas of the health care system, especially hospitals, where many beds are filled with patients waiting for

a bed in a long-term-care home. As a result, surgeries are being postponed or even cancelled and patients are waiting hours or days in emergency rooms because there is no bed for them in the hospital. Yet this government has taken no action to

address this critical shortage of beds.

An

article in the North Bay Nugget on December 19 reinforces this fact by stating that the Ministry of Health has no "long-term or short-term vision" on how they're going to manage this situation.

We have seen this lack of action before on the part of both the Liberal and NDP governments. No new beds were built in the province for 10 years prior to our government's 1998 announcement and construction of

20,000 new beds. I say to the McGuinty government, it's time for action now.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise in the House today to discuss the issue of public infrastructure renewal and the great strides this government has made to solidify Ontario as a

leader in this area.

This government recognizes that the province is growing at a spectacular rate, a breathtaking rate, and we want to ensure that with this growth comes a sustainable strategy for the future -- initiatives like

the McGuinty government's Places to Grow Act, which has not only been effective in helping communities to help develop these strategies, but it is also receiving international accolades.

As the minister mentioned yesterday, our government has won accolades for our growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe area, taking home the Daniel Burnham Award from the American Planning Association. The

impact this plan will have on many communities like the ones in my riding will be enormous. The creation of more compact communities will mean that my constituents will be closer to amenities that will improve their quality of life -- leisure

areas such as parks and community centres, but also commercial areas for work and for shopping.

Another huge issue in my riding -- and you've all heard me talk about it -- is gridlock. The plan does help to improve in this area by providing access to different forms of transportation and helping to

lessen reliance on cars and their inherent evils.

I just want to say that Places to Grow is a responsible plan that will help Ontario's growth in a responsible and sustainable way, which is necessary.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I rise to tell members of this Legislature how the McGuinty government's energy policy is hurting manufacturing in Ontario.

This month, OMYA Canada has laid off a small number of workers from its plant in Perth in my riding of Lanark-Carleton. It is shifting some of its production from its plant in Perth to Vermont and Alabama.

OMYA processes calcium carbonate and is the world's leading producer of white fillers used in paper, drywall, toothpaste and other household and industrial products.

In a media release, Larry Sparks, the plant administrator, lists high energy prices as the main factor contributing to the layoffs. In this same release, he notes that steps have been taken to assist the

forestry sector in northern Ontario with energy costs, while nothing has been done to help the mining sector or the manufacturing sector in eastern Ontario.

The president of OMYA, Olivier Chatillon, wrote to the Minister of Energy on June 1, 2006, supporting "an energy policy that is part of an industrial strategy for Ontario. The strategy would protect existing

jobs and ensure companies are confident investing in Ontario."

In spite of this urging of the president of this company six months ago, nothing has been done. The jobs have been lost.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): This past Tuesday, I met up with St. Nick here in the Legislature. He was taking a break from what's a very hectic time in his work

schedule to come and

express his concern about the lack of action the McGuinty Liberals are taking on climate change. As a resident north of the Arctic Circle, he's an eyewitness to the particularly pronounced impacts global warming is having.

In my meeting with St. Nick, I told him about the Ontario greenhouse gas reduction act I was introducing in the Legislature. This act obligates Ontario to reduce provincial greenhouse gas emissions in

accordance with the Kyoto Protocol. Under the act, the minister would have to prepare a plan to reduce emissions. A plan of this nature needs to have energy efficiency and conservation at the core.

One proven way to reduce energy use is to retrofit older buildings. When I was a city councillor in Toronto, I founded the Better Buildings Partnership, a building retrofit program that to date has reduced

CO 2 emissions in Toronto by 173,000 tonnes per year.

In 2005, a resolution was passed in this Legislature to expand the program province-wide. However, the funding to make this a reality has not happened. Likewise, a suite of aggressive conservation and

efficiency programs have not been carried through.

The clock is ticking down on the existence of the North Pole, just as it's ticking down on this presentation. This province needs to take action.

THIRD PARTY'S RECORD

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I rise in the House today to speak about the hard work the McGuinty government is doing while the third party continues to remain inconsistent on a number of

issues that directly benefit Ontarians.

The leader of the third party has a tendency to say one thing while doing quite another. After saying that we need to protect our drinking water from source to tap, the honourable member then voted against the

clean water legislation that would do the very thing he was advocating for. Also, after extolling the virtues of mandating renewable energy, such as solar and wind, he then came out against wind energy, saying it was too expensive.

These inconsistencies are not a new occurrence for the third party, and they continue to prevent progress for Ontarians through voting against valuable legislation like insulation pumps for diabetic children,

ending the 60-hour work week and raising rates for those on social assistance, to name but a few. It seems that the third party would like to remain holier than thou, while still voting against valuable services that would change the lives of

Ontarians for the better. The McGuinty government is proud of the legislation it has passed, and will continue to create new legislation that has a positive impact on Ontarians and their hard-working families.

OFFICIAL OPPOSITION'S RECORD

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): As another year ends, I'd like to spend a moment and talk about some of the things that just don't seem to change. The official opposition is now on its

third leader in the last five years, and despite the fact that he's a new face from the old back rooms, the Progressive Conservative Party stands for the same tired, cynical approach that the people of Ontario rejected just a few short years

ago.

While we on this side of the House invest in public health care in an effort to strengthen our greatest competitive advantage, they want to cut $2.4 billion from the system. While we make public education the

best education, they want to take hundreds of millions of dollars out so they can give it to private schools. While we pass legislation that ensures that all municipalities, big and small, urban and rural, are treated with the with respect they

deserve, they vote against it. And while we work to make Ontario an even better place to live, they vote against clean water, against insulin pumps for diabetic children and against investing in infrastructure. While we're working to make Ontario

a leader in the knowledge economy, they travel the province mocking research on climate change as simply useless.

There is one other thing that won't change as we move forward, and that is that the people of Ontario can continue to count on the McGuinty government to always move forward, never backward.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): This being the last day in the Legislature before heading home to our ridings, I'd like to remind all Ontarians of what this government has done to move

health care and education forward in recent months. To ensure that Ontarians have access to safe, quality services provided by the health professionals of their choice, we introduced legislation to regulate the profession of traditional Chinese

medicine. Members of the TCM community have been diligently pursuing this legislation for years to ensure the health and safety of Ontarians. Well, this government has delivered. This is one way we moved our health care system forward this

fall.

We didn't stop there. Not only do we want healthy people in the province of Ontario, we also want well-educated people. To have well-educated people, you have to provide the right opportunities. That's why we

passed learning-to-18 legislation. Amongst other things, this bill gives young people, particularly those who are struggling in our classrooms or those who have given up altogether, a renewed sense of hope. It provides for new learning

opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom. Providing hands-on experience outside the classroom allows certain students to fulfill their full potential. Giving them academic flexibility affords them more opportunity to succeed. When

youth succeed, we all succeed, because children quite literally are our future.

By creating a healthy and well-educated population, we're strengthening the foundation of the province and providing a climate for prosperity.

Merry Christmas to everyone here in this Legislature.

VISITORS

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise today to recognize somebody in our gallery: Mrs. Farida Merchant. Mrs. Merchant is one of those unfortunate

people who lost her husband to cancer. She had to send him down to the United States for treatment that could not be achieved here, and spent tremendous amounts of money on that treatment. But then when she came back to Canada with her husband,

she has reached out to the Credit Valley Hospital and helped them raise a lot of money to improve the health care system here. I think it's very appropriate at Christmastime that we recognize the generosity of people like Farida Merchant.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I don't want to mow the lawn of my good friend the member from Northumberland, but I do want to remind members, if

you'll give me a moment, that Rotary International is the oldest and largest service club around the world, and there is a Canadian, for the first time in 57 years, who is the president-elect. That is my father, who is visiting today: Wilf

Wilkinson from Trenton, Ontario.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I believe we have unan