Ontario Hansard — 25 November 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session)
2002-11-25
Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">
November 25, 2002
37th Parliament, 3rd Session
< Previous sitting day
Next sitting day >
Hansard Transcripts
vol. A
Hansard Transcripts
vol. B
Votes and Proceedings
Orders and Notices
Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-25 (PDF)
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO
Monday 25 November 2002 Lundi 25 novembre 2002
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HIGHWAY 69
ST CATHARINES COURTHOUSE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BIODIESEL FUEL
GROWING STRONG COMMUNITIES
AUTISM
ENVIRONICS POLL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
ELECTRICITY PRICING, CONSERVATION
AND SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L' ÉTABLISSEMENT
DU PRIX DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ,
LA CONSERVATION DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ
ET L'APPROVISIONNEMENT
EN ÉLECTRICITÉ
BACK TO SCHOOL ACT
(SIMCOE MUSKOKA CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RETOUR
À L'ÉCOLE (SIMCOE MUSKOKA
CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)
MAN WHO WASN'T THERE ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PRÉSENCE
À LA PÉRIODE DE QUESTIONS ORALES
DES CHEFS D'UN PARTI RECONNU
VISITORS
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE
VISITORS
DEFERRED VOTES
MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX MUNICIPALITÉS
CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTE
LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI CONCERNE
LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR
LEGAL AID SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
VISITORS
ORAL QUESTIONS
EDUCATION FUNDING
PENSION PLANS
HYDRO DEREGULATION
PENSION PLANS
EDUCATION FUNDING
SCIENCE NORTH
PENSION PLANS
HIGHWAY 69
EDUCATION FUNDING
PENSION PLANS
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ONTARIO DISABILITY
SUPPORT PROGRAM
WEARING OF RIBBONS
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TIME ALLOCATION
Monday 25 November 2002 Lundi 25 novembre 2002
The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HIGHWAY 69
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Words cannot express the depth of my pride in the people of greater Sudbury and northeastern Ontario, whose
concerted effort in recent months has prompted the provincial government to finally act on the multi-laning of Highway 69.
What got us to where we are today? Well, it was the 14,000 people who signed the postcard, the 28,000 people who signed the petition, the 7,645 people who signed
the electronic petition and the well in excess of 11,000 people who signed the bumper sticker and put it on their cars. It was our media in Sudbury, it was the Northern Life, it was our radio
stations and our television station who kept the issue alive, who believed in the issue and promoted it almost on a daily basis. Last but not least, it was the CRASH 69 committee, the committee
made up of our community. "CRASH 69" stands for "community rallying against substandard Highway 69." We came together as a group from business, labour, service clubs, education, health care and,
tragically, from those who lost loved ones. The result: well, the government made the announcement.
But you know what? The announcement is good, but rhetoric must be reality. The promise must translate itself into pavement. I say today that the community of
Sudbury, the community of northeastern Ontario, will be very vigilant to ensure that that announcement becomes reality.
I say to the people of my community, my constituents, that a lot of people will want to take credit for it, but the reality is that there is only one group that
should be taking credit: the constituents of the ridings of Sudbury and Nickel Belt and northeastern Ontario. I'm proud of you. We've proven that if you stay together, if you believe in a cause and
if you're determined to ensure you reach your goal, you can do it.
Again, I am proud of the constituents I represent; I am proud of the people in Nickel Belt; I am proud of the people of northeastern Ontario. We came together,
and certainly David slew Goliath.
ST CATHARINES COURTHOUSE
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): On Friday, November 22, I attended the dedication ceremony of the St Catharines courthouse, along with colleagues
Minister David Young, Minister Tsubouchi, Minister Hudak and St Catharines MPP Jim Bradley.
The St Catharines courthouse was officially dedicated to the late Robert S.K. Welch. Many admirers, colleagues, friends and family members, including Mr Welch's
grandchildren, were in attendance to recognize Mr Welch's long record of public service.
Mr Welch was first elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1963, and during his many terms served in just about every portfolio, including Attorney General twice,
education and energy. As well, Mr Welch served many years as Deputy Premier. Mr Welch had a wonderful sense of humour, and was a great orator and an extremely capable manager of each ministry he
captained. He was a true leader and a great gentleman. He was indelibly connected to and had a deep and abiding respect for the law.
The idea to dedicate the courthouse to Mr Welch came from a committee that was organized by St Catharines resident Dave McDonnell.
The courthouse is located in downtown St Catharines and currently serves St Catharines, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara Falls, Grimsby, Smithville and the town of
Lincoln.
Future visitors to the courthouse will be able to view a commemorative plaque that will be placed in the main lobby of the courthouse.
Hundreds of people came out on Friday to honour Mr Welch and the many contributions he made to the community and the province, for which we are all forever in
his debt.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I was proud this morning to be there along with a number of colleagues as my leader, Dalton McGuinty,
unveiled the Growing Strong Communities platform, the second part of the Liberal platform that will lead us into the next election and lead us to a better province for people who are in need of
affordable housing.
This platform, that has been unveiled today by the leader, is going to commit $245 million to housing in Ontario. We're going to ensure there are 20,000 new
units built in this province. We're going to have a shelter allowance to help 35,000 Ontario working families. We're going to have real protection, unlike the pie-in-the-sky NDP irrelevant approach
nobody believes or listens to, and unlike eight years of being abandoned by this government. Tenants, people who need affordable housing in this province, are finally going to get some help.
We're going to get rid of the Tenant Protection Act that is now in place and bring in real legislation. We're going to bring in real rent control, that is going
to help people across this province -- not the type of deal that this government has cut with developers, that has abandoned tenants across Ontario. We're going to restructure the Ontario Rental
Housing Tribunal; we're going to establish a provincial rent bank; and we're going to establish an Ontario mortgage and housing partnership. We are going to work with the federal government; we're
going to work with developers; we're going to work with tenants. Ontario is going to have housing policies that are going to be proud. People are going to have a real choice next time.
After the eight years of abandonment of tenants and people who need help from that side of the House, and the irrelevant NDP, to real choice by a real leader
with Dalton McGuinty, a real policy that Ontarians are going to be proud of. We're going to walk into the next election, and walk proudly with this and help tenants across this province.
BIODIESEL FUEL
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): A week ago the Minister of Energy, the Honourable John Baird, and our new Commissioner of Alternative Energy, the
Honourable Steve Gilchrist, travelled to Halton region to announce an initiative in support of energy conservation, clean energy and alternative energy sources. I can tell you, as a member of the
alternative fuels committee, I know the work they've done.
The host for the day was the Halton-based company called Biox. Biox Corp is a Canadian success story. It produces an
alternative to petroleum diesel fuel and it is made from vegetable oil and animal fat. The product, called biodiesel, can be used in diesel engines without modification. You don't hear the big oil
companies talking about biodiesel, and here's why: biodiesel is biodegradable, it's renewable, it's non-toxic and it's essentially sulphur-free.
Biox Corp is supported by a number of contributors and alliances. Contributors include Rothsay, one of Canada's largest renderers, the Ontario Soybean Growers'
Marketing Board, and Trimac Corp. In fact, Biox's innovative work takes place inside the Trimac facility at Halton region.
Congratulations to Biox, Trimac Corp and to everyone who is involved in biodiesel, in making the oil companies stand up and take notice. In this context I want
to commend Biox, the Minister of Energy and our Commissioner of Alternative Energy for the work they've done and will continue to do to make our environment cleaner for all the people of
Ontario.
GROWING STRONG COMMUNITIES
Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to speak on the newly released Liberal policy on improving Ontario communities, called Growing
Strong Communities. Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty, in consultation with many stakeholders across Ontario, released this policy that will make sure that Ontario communities work for the people, not
against the people, of Ontario.
Statistics Canada stated that Ontario has lost 2.5% of its front-line police officers since the Harris-Eves government came into power in 1995. The Ontario
Liberals are committing to placing 1,000 net new front-line police officers on our streets to fight crime and keep our streets safe. Ontario's probation and parole officers have a 70% higher
caseload than the national average. This is putting Ontario people's families at risk and the Ontario Liberals are going to fix it. In our first term of office, we are committed to hiring an
additional 100 probation and parole officers to correct this government's abysmal record on probation and parole staffing.
I am proud to announce that the Ontario Liberals have committed to assist our firefighters by ensuring that each fire service in Ontario is equipped with a
thermal imager, that allows firefighters to see into dark places for trapped victims and into burning buildings. This is a necessary tool that will enable firefighters to find victims quickly and
minimize the amount of time spent in a burning building. The Ontario Liberals value the dedication and commitment of firefighters, and that is why we will do what is necessary to provide them with
the best tools possible.
Ontario Liberals have a plan to repair and improve Ontario's communities by introducing Growing Strong Communities, and I am proud to be a part of that plan.
AUTISM
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to let the House and the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services know that I met on
Friday with a group in my community, the Sault Ste Marie
chapter of the Autism Society Ontario. They are very upset, frustrated and angry about the government's lack of support for services for
that group of people. They're saying there was no funding and that the funding she announced last week was simply not enough. When you break it down across the province and look at the number of
communities and the number of families and children who are in need, it's a paltry amount of money to be putting out there. They also say that continuing to stick to the age six tack is arbitrary
and based on no science whatsoever.
They feel very strongly that the government has a responsibility. They say the government should listen to my colleague Shelley Martel, when she calls for autism
to be moved into the health portfolio and for intervention for every child in this province diagnosed with autism to be automatically covered. They also ask the government to pay attention to the
court case in British Columbia, where the government was found to be in contravention of the Human Rights Act, and indeed of the Constitution, for refusing to provide immediate and needed to
services to children and families suffering with autism. That court told the government very clearly that it needed to provide funding and services. As a matter of fact, it went so far as to say it
would fine individual bureaucrats if that service is not delivered. Your government is on the hook here and should be listening to that court finding and delivering to those people the services
that are needed.
ENVIRONICS POLL
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): It's not my normal practice to comment on public opinion polls, but one recent sampling did manage to
catch my attention. I refer to a poll that was done for the TVO program Fourth Reading by the Environics Group. The poll found that Ontarians are questioning the Liberal Party of Ontario. It showed
that more people trust the PC government led by Ernie Eves than the Liberals. This got me thinking. "Why would this be?" I asked myself.
First, I suppose, are the flip-flops that have characterized the Liberal leader. One day he is for shutting down Ontario's coal-fired generators; the next, as
the Globe and Mail so eloquently put it on Saturday, the Liberal clean air plan is blown out of the water. According to the Globe, Dalton was the target of ridicule by members of his own
caucus.
The people of Ontario recognize how hard it was for Finance Minister Ernie Eves to manage this province's budget after the 10 lost years of Liberal and NDP
governments. They recognize that this government has created an economic environment of lower taxes and balanced budgets. The result has been the creation of more than one million net new jobs
since our election in 1995.
We delivered on our promises to the people of this province, and our economy is stronger as a result. The poll result, showing distrust of the Liberals, marks
the recognition that people understand that Dalton's shiny, expensive promises cannot be kept without tax increases.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Today there was a momentous announcement by Dalton McGuinty where he basically laid out a protective plan to
ensure that all the Golden Horseshoe has protection, a shield whereby lands in Seaton will be protected, the 6,600 homes will not be built in the middle of the moraine and the Oakville Trafalgar
moraine lands will not be given away to developers. We will put a line in the sand and make sure developers don't pave all the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe.
This morning, Dalton said, "Save, don't pave." This government has pretended to protect, when all they've done is given away sensitive lands to developers;
that's all they've done. We are saying you need public transit. That's why we're giving two cents on every litre sold to public transit, because without public transit you can't protect the
environment. We are saying that we're going to have a greater Toronto transit authority to coordinate transit throughout the GTA to make sure it's done in a comprehensive fashion. Right now this
government has abandoned transit. We are saying you can't save unless you have transit, so save; don't pave.
WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN
Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today is the official launch of the 2002 White Ribbon Campaign to stop violence against women. Since the campaign
began in 1991, men have been encouraged to wear a white ribbon at this time of the year as a personal pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. I and our
government believe that ending violence against women is everyone's responsibility, so I am pleased to support this campaign.
Men are encouraged to reflect on this important issue and to talk to their friends about the problem of violence against women. We need more men to take an
active role to ensure that women can live in safety and security in our province.
The government of Ontario is committed to ending violence against women. It is a commitment that is ongoing and unwavering. This government is spending more than
$160 million this year alone to address the issue of violence against women. This is more than any previous government.
The government of Ontario does not tolerate violence against women. We are taking a comprehensive approach to domestic violence that focuses on protection and
prosecution, support for victims, and prevention and education.
While we've made progress on this issue, we know that more can be done. Preventing domestic violence is everyone's responsibility. We need everyone to be
involved to make this a success.
Today I'm wearing a white ribbon. It is my personal pledge that I will not condone or remain silent about violence against women. To my colleagues, I urge that
you make this commitment as well.
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Standing order 62(
a) provides that, "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect to
all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."
The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, November 21, 2002, as required by the
standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(
b) the estimates before the committee of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities; the Ministry of Community, Family and
Children's Services; the Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Public Safety and Security; the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation; and the Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunity and
Innovation are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the" --
Interjection: Dispense.
The Speaker: It was the last word, but dispense? Dispense -- "House."
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its
adoption.
Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:
Bill 113,
An Act to honour firefighters who have died in the line of duty / Projet de loi 113, Loi visant à rendre hommage aux pompiers
décédés dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
ELECTRICITY PRICING, CONSERVATION
AND SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L' ÉTABLISSEMENT
DU PRIX DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ,
LA CONSERVATION DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ
ET L'APPROVISIONNEMENT
EN ÉLECTRICITÉ
Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 210,
An Act to amend various acts in respect of the pricing, conservation and supply of electricity and in respect of other matters related to
electricity / Projet de loi 210, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l'établissement du prix de l'électricité, la conservation de l'électricité et
l'approvisionnement en électricité et traitant d'autres questions liées à l'électricité.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please 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 1350 to 1355.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Agostino, Dominic
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Bartolucci, Rick
Beaubien, Marcel
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Bradley, James J.
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Colle, Mike
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Cunningham, Dianne
Curling, Alvin
DeFaria, Carl
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gill, Raminder
Gravelle, Michael
Hodgson, Chris
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Kennedy, Gerard
Klees, Frank
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Murdoch, Bill
Mushinski, Marilyn
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Smitherman, George
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Churley, Marilyn
Hampton, Howard
Kormos, Peter
Marchese, Rosario
Martin, Tony
Prue, Michael
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 75; the nays are 6.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The minister for a short statement?
Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This important legislation puts Ernie Eves's action plan
for electricity into law. It provides a rebate of every cent more than 4.3 cents that consumers have paid for electricity back to May 1. It provides some stability on price going forward to 2006.
It also includes different measures for supply and conservation.
If I could, on a personal note, I have always tried to approach these important public policy issues in a non-partisan way, and I want to thank the official
opposition for treating it that way.
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for the minister to give a five-minute
statement telling us about the provisions of the bill.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a point of order, Speaker: I listened closely to the statement by the minister and I ask you whether that
constituted a minister's statement, for which we get five minutes to respond.
The Speaker: No, unfortunately it isn't. Members do get a little time, a short statement, and that was well within the bounds.
Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for the Liberals give a five-minute statement about the bill.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
BACK TO SCHOOL ACT
(SIMCOE MUSKOKA CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RETOUR
À L'ÉCOLE (SIMCOE MUSKOKA
CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)
Mr Clark moved first reading of the following bill:
Board / Projet de loi 211, Loi visant à régler le conflit de travail opposant l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants catholiques anglo-ontariens et le conseil scolaire de
district appelé Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please 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 1401 to 1406.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Agostino, Dominic
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Bartolucci, Rick
Beaubien, Marcel
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Bradley, James J.
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Colle, Mike
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Cunningham, Dianne
Curling, Alvin
DeFaria, Carl
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gerretsen, John
Gill, Raminder
Gravelle, Michael
Hodgson, Chris
Hudak, Tim
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Kennedy, Gerard
Klees, Frank
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Murdoch, Bill
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Smitherman, George
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Churley, Marilyn
Kormos, Peter
Marchese, Rosario
Martin, Tony
Prue, Michael
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 78; the nays are 5.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The minister for a short statement?
Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I'll defer till ministers' statements.
MAN WHO WASN'T THERE ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PRÉSENCE
À LA PÉRIODE DE QUESTIONS ORALES
DES CHEFS D'UN PARTI RECONNU
Mr Kormos moved fist reading of the following bill:
Bill 212,
An Act to amend the Executive Council Act and Legislative Assembly Act respecting an institution of democracy in the Legislative Assembly /
Projet de loi 212, Loi modifiant la
Loi sur le Conseil exécutif et sur l'Assemblée législative concernant une institution démocratique de l'Assemblée législative.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.
The Speaker: The member for a short statement?
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Recently, Bill 21 received first reading in this Legislature, which has as its goal an effort to secure more
regular attendance of the Premier at question period. We've made observations since November 21 that demonstrate that one official party leader has attended little more than 30% of question
periods, while the other party leader has attended over 70%, even though his caucus only numbers nine.
This bill would amend the Legislative Assembly Act to ensure attendance of party leaders in the same manner as Bill 21 would require attendance of government
leaders.
The
short title of the act is the Man Who Wasn't There Act, 2002, although it has become known readily and rapidly as the Dalton, we hardly knew ye Act.
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek unanimous consent to move and pass a motion without
debate removing
section 25 pertaining to the Pension Benefits Act from Bill 198.
The Speaker: There is no process to do that. What you would have to do if you wanted to amend the bill is ask for unanimous consent for the
House to go to committee of the whole, at which time there would be a process to do it. There wouldn't be a mechanism if that motion passed to do it, so if the member wanted to and if that was the
intent, he would have to move that this House go to committee of the whole right away to deal with it.
Mr Smitherman: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to move that the House go into committee of the whole to
deal with
section 25 of the Pension Benefits Act.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Always in an effort to entertain
and accommodate the members opposite --
Mr Smitherman: I don't think it's funny.
Hon Mr Stockwell: I wasn't being humorous, Mr Smitherman. If we did go into committee of the whole to do this debate and the clock did
continue to run till past 3 of the clock, would we be jeopardizing question period?
The Speaker: Yes, if we did.
Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
VISITORS
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask members of the Legislature to join
with me in welcoming 52 members of the Minesing Good Times Club. They've come here for a good time, so I would ask all members --
Applause.
Hon Mr Wilson: Since they have come for a good time, could we at least behave today, folks?
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our special guests.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE
Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): As members are aware, secondary school students with the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board
have been out of class since November 4. They have endured rotating strikes since October 23 and a work-to-rule campaign by their teachers since September 24.
Bargaining between the school board and the union has come to a halt, leaving no end to this dispute in sight for students. As a result, the Education
Relations Commission has advised that the continuation of the current situation will place the students' school year in jeopardy. It should be obvious to all members that the time to act is now. We
must ensure that these students' studies are not put at risk by a continuation of the strike. We must get them back to the classroom. That is why today I am introducing the Back to School Act
(Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board), 2002. This bill would get students back into the classrooms and ensure a fair settlement can be reached between the board and the union.
The government always prefers that labour disputes be resolved through the collective bargaining process. The best solution is a local solution, where the
school board and the union achieve a mutually acceptable, fiscally responsible, negotiated settlement. We have given the school board and the union time to achieve such a settlement. Now the
priority is to get the children's education back on track.
The bill, if passed by the Legislature, would provide a fair and balanced approach. It would get students back in their classrooms without delay. It would
allow the school board and the union seven days to continue to negotiate a fair settlement or jointly agree to a mediator-arbitrator. If the school board and union are unable to reach a settlement
or agree to a mediator-arbitrator within these seven days, the Minister of Labour would appoint an independent third party as mediator-arbitrator.
mediation-arbitration process would begin within 30 days of appointment of a neutral third party, and a final award is to be made within 90 days of appointment.
The bill would also provide for maximum fines of $2,000 for individuals and $25,000 for the board or the union for non-compliance. Each day of non-compliance
would be a separate offence.
We believe it would be best for the parties to reach an agreement and achieve a quick ending to their labour negotiations. We want school boards and their
employees to be able to negotiate fair and reasonable contracts, but this must be done without jeopardizing the education of students.
Like parents, the government does not want the children's education further disrupted because of this dispute. We want Ontario's students to benefit from one
of the best and most challenging curricula available and the assurance of quality provided by province-wide standards. That is why we are continuing to put students first by introducing the
proposed Back to School Act (Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board), 2002.
I call on all parties to also put the students of the Simcoe-Muskoka area first, as my honourable friends in the New
Democratic Party did in 1993 with the Lambton County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute Settlement Act, the East Parry Sound Board of Education and Teachers Dispute Act, and the Windsor
Teachers Dispute Settlement Act.
I would also encourage the Liberals to do the same as they did in 1985 with
An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute and
with the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute Settlement Act, and in 1989 with
an act respecting the Toronto Transit Commission labour disputes. It's important to note that
when these bills were brought forth, there was all-party consent to get them passed.
I know the students in the Simcoe-Muskoka area want their schools to return to normal. Many of these 7,000 students are about to graduate from grades 12 and 13
and are now preparing to head to university or college. This is a crucial time for them, as the marks they receive now will help determine their future paths in life. We want these students in
school, learning and growing.
I ask all members to support this legislation and allow it to proceed to second and third reading today so our children's education will get back to normal as
soon as possible.
With that, I would ask that we get unanimous consent to proceed with this bill on second and third reading.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Responses?
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): We stand in the Legislature today with what is supposed to be a last-resort measure from the
government, through the Education Relations Commission, when school boards and federations representing teachers can't arrive at agreements. But it is very important to remark here what the first
resort of this government should and could have been to accommodate the students in Simcoe Muskoka, because this is just the latest: 136,000 days lost in Simcoe Muskoka, part of almost 25 million
lost days under this government for students, three times as many days as the previous two governments combined because of the policy of turmoil and non-support for the school system that this
government has made its breakfast and dinner when it comes to education policy. Every one of the students in Toronto and Simcoe and all around the province on average has $1,200 less in support
because this government deems them less valuable. Then they leave it to the boards and to the students and to parents to sort out where that hurt and that pain are going to be felt.
In some years we have had no increases in teachers' salaries and sometimes we have had instead some constraints in the system. They have put impossible choices
in front of the boards and the teachers of this province and they have, in every instance, put paid to the title of this bill, or at least the subtitle: the interests of students last.
We have seen turmoil and fights incurred with teachers, with school boards. In fact, we see that last year this government has had such an impact on the
teaching resources of this province -- and that's how we need to start to regard the teachers that are part of this dispute -- that we have 1,884 letters of permission from the government, letters
that said that people who are not teachers have to stand in front of the class and attempt to provide instruction to children. That's up from just 300 a few years before. Why? Because the policies
of this government, the endless turmoil that they generate with their lack of support for the education system, are chasing teachers right out of the province and right out of the profession.
We say here today that it is vitally important that the province starts to awake to the implications. The Premier said to the boards of this province, "You
should wait for us to provide more funding." Well, they've been waiting from the beginning of this year and there has been no additional funding coming forward -- nothing apparently put forward by
the member for Simcoe, nothing put forward by any of the members opposite -- to see that there be some equitable funding.
In June of this year, Dalton McGuinty and I put forward a critical action plan. We said, "Don't give in to boards, don't give in to teachers; give in to
students' needs," which is what we believe most of the people that are participants in this dispute today would like to see happen. This government had that opportunity. They could have reckoned
with curriculum casualties, with the kids who were having very great difficulty passing courses.
We heard reference today to the double cohort. This may be the only thing this provincial government does on behalf of the kids in the double cohort, perhaps
have them go back to school a few days earlier because, quite frankly, it's an absolute car crash that this government could have avoided in terms of providing for those kids in this year, trying
to get their credits, trying to get into school, trying to get scholarships, trying to get spaces in colleges and universities, all courtesy of a government that has had a recipe for turmoil in our
schools from day one. We see, just today, in front of us, the legislation that deals with just the most recent example of that.
This government has not had within it the ability to support publicly funded education. They have put their priorities forward and they have been for private
schools. There has been a 54% increase in the enrolment of private schools. Four hundred public schools have closed, 200 private schools have opened, and the members opposite are proud of that
effect.
We should not be surprised that we have in this Legislature yet another example of last-resort legislation, because there's no one opposite who will stand up
for the average, everyday interests of students and the people who help make that system work.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Legislating any worker back to work in this province is a very serious step, and I would have hoped
that this government would have learned, from its experience in dealing with the Toronto garbage strike this summer, that they would have dealt with more sensitivity in dealing with the different
parties involved in this, in looking at their choice of arbitrator. Several of the parties have put forward names, but unlike what finally happened in the crisis dealing with the garbage strike,
this government is adamant in not allowing the parties to come together and choose a mutually-agreed-upon arbitrator, but is going to appoint one in the end.
That's not the way to resolve these disputes. We should be working in partnership. This is a serious step to take, it's a tough step to take and we should make
sure that all the parties are involved in this and that they can work together from the beginning to find an arbitrator who is acceptable to all sides, so we can get to a successful conclusion of
this dispute.
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The Liberals support the government today by virtue of their vote on first reading. I tell you, New
Democrats don't. Even the most cursory reading of this bill -- take a look at subsection 10(5): "In appointing a mediator-arbitrator, the minister may appoint a person who has had no previous
experience as an arbitrator, has not been previously or currently recognized as a person mutually acceptable, is not a member of a class of persons which has been or is recognized, who are mutually
acceptable." Obviously, the only inference to be drawn is that the Liberals support that proposition as well.
Take a look at subsection 10(7), where there is no possible review of even the most un-neutral, the most biased arbitrator. Subsection 10(7) permits this
government to appoint -- it has been said before; let's say it again -- Guy Giorno as the arbitrator. The appointment of Guy Giorno would not be subject to a review.
New Democrats do not support this legislation. New Democrats will not willy-nilly force teachers back to work. New Democrats believe in free collective
bargaining and New Democrats condemn this government and, quite frankly, their Liberal collaborators for giving boards of education like the Simcoe-Muskoka board carte blanche, because the
Simcoe-Muskoka board doesn't have to negotiate. The Simcoe-Muskoka board can go to the table week after week, time after time empty-handed, silent, not prepared to participate in active
negotiation, knowing full well that at the end of the day this government is going to reach in and pull them out of the wringer.
New Democrats don't agree with the government; we don't agree with the Liberals. The Liberals agree with the government; they don't agree with us. I understand
that. New Democrats are standing with the teachers in Simcoe-Muskoka. New Democrats are going to ensure that those teachers get a resolution that's fair, that's just, that reflects their interests.
Indeed it's their interests, when properly responded to, that are going to improve the quality of education, not just in Simcoe-Muskoka but in every board of education jurisdiction in this
province.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to add a couple of things and say that I congratulate the teachers from the Simcoe-Muskoka area
for standing up against a very hostile board and a very hostile government. These are the lowest-paid teachers in the whole of Ontario. For the last 10 years they haven't had an increase. For the
last 10 years these are the heroes of our system, working with our students. Because we expect the best, we think they should be paid as fairly as the rest of the teachers across Ontario, and they
haven't had an increase in 10 years. When you factor in inflation, it's less than zero per cent. That's not fair.
The minister stands up and says, if you can believe him, "We think the best solution is a local solution." How can they get a local solution when they're short
of money to be able to negotiate fair agreements? You have, under your reign, not given the money they deserve to negotiate fair settlements. They are $1 billion short of the money they need to be
able to negotiate fair settlements. So how can you stand up and say the best solution is a local one, when you know without money they cannot ever have a local solution? You know that. They have
been dipping into their reserve funds to balance their budgets. Reserve funds should not be dipped into to pay for ESL, to pay for librarians, adult education, music teachers, vice-principals,
educational assistants, books -- and the list goes on and on. They shouldn't be using reserve funds for those purposes.
Chris Stockwell puts his hand to his forehead like this, as the typical young adolescent that he is from time to time. What are you talking about?
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Teachers are looking for the fairness they deserve. We are telling you that the public needs to know that the problem is not with
the teachers; the problem is with this government. The debate needs to happen in this place. Unless we do that, the public will not know, and they will take a position against teachers, I would
say, unfairly. The fairness of the argument takes place in here. We will expose it. We will fight for the fairness that students and teachers need and we will make sure that will happen. We're not
going to let you just come up here and say, "We will give unanimous consent so teachers can go back into the classroom, so they" -- and Liberals, God bless, with their support. We're not going to
let that happen. The debate will happen here, and fairness will take place in this Legislative Assembly.
VISITORS
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to introduce some very special guests that we have
visiting from the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce. In the members' gallery west we have Tannis Drysdale, the president of NOACC; Jon Christianson, the past president of NOACC;
Mary Long Irwin, the president of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce; and Debbie Schatkowski from the Kenora Chamber of Commerce. We welcome you.
Applause.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the members.
DEFERRED VOTES
MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX MUNICIPALITÉS
Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 177,
An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and other Acts
consequential to or related to the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001 and to revise the Territorial Division Act / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les
municipalités, la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales et d'autres lois par suite de l'édiction de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités et révisant la
Loi sur la
division territoriale.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1431 to 1436.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Agostino, Dominic
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Bartolucci, Rick
Beaubien, Marcel
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Bradley, James J.
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Cunningham, Dianne
Curling, Alvin
DeFaria, Carl
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gerretsen, John
Gill, Raminder
Gravelle, Michael
Hudak, Tim
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Kennedy, Gerard
Klees, Frank
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
McGuinty, Dalton
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Murdoch, Bill
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Sergio, Mario
Smitherman, George
Sorbara, Greg
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Churley, Marilyn
Hampton, Howard
Kormos, Peter
Marchese, Rosario
Martin, Tony
Prue, Michael
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 81; the nays are 6.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTE
LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI CONCERNE
LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR
Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 180,
An Act to enact, amend or revise various Acts related to consumer protection / Projet de loi 180,
Loi édictant, modifiant ou révisant diverses lois portant sur la protection du consommateur.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1440 to 1445.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Agostino, Dominic
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Bartolucci, Rick
Beaubien, Marcel
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Bradley, James J.
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Chudleigh, Ted
Churley, Marilyn
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Cunningham, Dianne
Curling, Alvin
DeFaria, Carl
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gerretsen, John
Gill, Raminder
Gravelle, Michael
Hampton, Howard
Hudak, Tim
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Kennedy, Gerard
Klees, Frank
Kormos, Peter
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Marchese, Rosario
Marland, Margaret
Martin, Tony
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
McGuinty, Dalton
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Murdoch, Bill
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Prue, Michael
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Sergio, Mario
Smitherman, George
Snobelen, John
Sorbara, Greg
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 88; the nays are 0.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 19, 2002, this bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.
For the people in the gallery who have asked, we have one more deferred vote before question period.
LEGAL AID SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE
Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 181,
An Act to amend the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 181, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998
sur les services d'aide juridique.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1449 to 1454.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Beaubien, Marcel
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Cunningham, Dianne
DeFaria, Carl
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Flaherty, Jim
Galt, Doug
Gill, Raminder
Hudak, Tim
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Klees, Frank
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Murdoch, Bill
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Snobelen, John
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Agostino, Dominic
Bartolucci, Rick
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Bradley, James J.
Brown, Michael A.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Churley, Marilyn
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Curling, Alvin
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Gerretsen, John
Gravelle, Michael
Hampton, Howard
Kennedy, Gerard
Kormos, Peter
Kwinter, Monte
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Marchese, Rosario
Martin, Tony
McGuinty, Dalton
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Prue, Michael
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Sergio, Mario
Smitherman, George
Sorbara, Greg
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 47; the nays are 40.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
VISITORS
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hope that all members might join with me in welcoming the
grade 11 students from Rosedale Heights, accompanied by Frank Rioux, their teacher, a former political staffer here at Queen's Park.
Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since the House is on a roll in voting together on issues, I'd seek
unanimous consent to move second and third readings on our Muskoka school bill.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to introduce His Worship Mayor Rick
Brassard, the mayor of Englehart.
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since we're on a roll here, as the Minister of Labour said, I would like
to get unanimous consent to agree to the playing or singing of O Canada once in the Legislature every week as part of our proceedings.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could we amend that to twice a
week?
Mr Colle: Sure.
Hon Mr Stockwell: OK.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Just so we know as we continue on, we're right now at 3 o'clock. If we begin now, we can get the hour of question period in.
ORAL QUESTIONS
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is to the Minister of Education. Minister, it turns out that last
week's Toronto public school board budget was wrong. The budget you celebrated as increasing funding to classrooms in fact did the opposite. It cut classroom funding by a full $23 million. My
question is, why did you tell Toronto parents their children would get more classroom dollars when in fact that funding will be cut by $23 million?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I think the Leader of the Opposition has neglected to keep in mind what the
point of the exercise was. What happened in Toronto was that the trustees refused to abide by the Education Act and pass a balanced budget. In response to the refusal of a small majority of
trustees to not abide by the law, it became necessary for us to send in a supervisor.
I am very pleased to say that the supervisor's task was to balance the budget, and last week the supervisor did exactly that: he balanced the budget.
Mr McGuinty: Minister, I assume you're agreeing now that in fact classroom spending is going to be cut by $23 million.
Last week the Premier boasted, and I quote, "The supervisor has managed to increase [spending in] the classroom." That simply was not true.
Several months ago, when he first appointed supervisors in Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton, he said classroom spending would not be affected. That is not true
either.
The truth is that both in Toronto and in Ottawa you can't balance the books. You're short $16 million here in Toronto. Our kids are continuing to pay the price
as a result of your cuts to education. That means less money for textbooks, less money for special education programs, less money for computers, less money for teachers and assistants and on and
on.
Madam Minister, will you now admit the truth: your supervisors' budgets are doing nothing less than further compromising our children's education.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Christie just lied.
Hon Mrs Witmer: For five years, the trustees on this board had the opportunity to use almost $1 billion in transition funding in order to make
a smooth transition to the funding model. Unfortunately, they refused to use the funding to do the necessary restructuring: they did not make the decisions; they did not pass a balanced budget;
they did not obey the law. As a result of that, we sent in the supervisor.
Now, I think the opposition would agree with me that all of the programs they said were in jeopardy are there: the swimming pools, the heritage language and
the parenting centres. All the things you said would be gone are still in place.
The other thing I can tell you is that spending, if we take a look at the classroom --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.
Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, why not have the decency to admit that this entire business of taking over school boards and imposing supervisors
has been an expensive, time-wasting charade. The end result has been further compromises to our children's education. You did not balance the budget in the city of Toronto. We're short $23 million
more this year when it comes to our children's education, and you're short $16 million when it comes to balancing the budget.
This has been an expensive, time-wasting charade that is further compromising the education of our children. Why not have the decency to stand up and admit
that this has been a terrible exercise? It has wasted money, it has been a fraudulent perpetration on our children, and it has done nothing more and nothing less than impose further cuts on their
education.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the member to withdraw that comment, please.
Mr McGuinty: I withdraw the comment, Speaker.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I heard the member from
Scarborough-Agincourt say a moment ago, "Christie just lied." That is unbecoming --
The Speaker: Order. Take your seat. The member will know that he didn't say it about a minister. I listened very carefully. He did not
indicate the minister. I would say this, however: I would ask all members to think before they make any comment.
The Minister of Education has the floor.
Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition appears to be somewhat confused on this whole issue of whether or not trustees or boards should
be required to balance their budgets, or whether they should be allowed to break the law. In fact, in September 2002, Mr McGuinty suggested trustees should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Then he goes on to say that the school board does not balance the books --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Minister, take your seat. Come to order, please. Would the minister continue, please.
Hon Mrs Witmer: As I said, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be confused in his position. Then he goes on to say that if they do not
balance the books, the Liberals would be "all over them like a cheap suit."
Do you know what? I can tell you about the budget. The budget was able to increase spending for classroom teachers, textbooks, classroom supplies and classroom
computers. There were no school closures. There were more --
The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.
PENSION PLANS
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, on Friday there was a landmark ruling in
the Ontario Court of Appeal that protects employee rights when it comes to their pension surpluses. You will know that your omnibus bill is going to change all of that. You want to turn the tables
and allow employers to raid pension funds of any surplus and keep it for themselves. We believe that is patently unfair. We believe that any decision regarding pension funds ought to be a joint
decision involving the employer and the workers. Will you respect the unanimous decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal by withdrawing your changes to the Ontario pension law?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I would agree with the honourable member that nothing should be allowing employers to raid pension
plans. The proposals do not do that. We respect the fact that the court has made a decision, we respect the fact that that decision may have an impact on the amendments, and that's why we put out
the statement on Friday to say that we will not proclaim those sections of the bill until we have analyzed the court decision thoroughly to make sure there is nothing in any proposals that is
taking away any rights of pensioners in this, because that is not the intent nor is that the desire of the government.
Secondly, we will continue to do consultations on any proposed regulations, again to make sure that pensioners who have heard this debate, pensioners who may
be concerned, can see and can feel fully confident that their pensions are secure.
Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, do you honestly think that Ontario workers, people who stand to benefit in one way or another under a pension,
are going to take satisfaction in knowing that you're going to take this away and somehow, under cover of darkness, you're going to make some kind of a decision that's going to respect their
interests and their needs? Hardly.
The question everybody is asking is, why are you doing this? Last week, you were asked to name one single employee group that supports what you're doing, and
you could not. You said you needed to ram this bill through the Legislature to keep pensions viable, but you can't name a single pension plan whose viability is at risk.
The highest court in Ontario has now told us that the surplus is something that should be shared. Your legislation is going to give employers the right to take
the surplus away from the workers who have earned it, and it denies those workers any right of appeal. Minister, it's fundamentally not about workers, and it's not about the employers; it's about
what is fair in the circumstances.
We believe that workers and employers should be making joint decisions when it comes to the future of their pension funds. We think what you're doing is
fundamentally wrong. We think the right thing to do in the circumstances, Madam Minister, is to withdraw your changes to Ontario pension law.
Hon Mrs Ecker: Obviously the honourable member has not read the legislation or read the discussion paper, because the legislation specifically
recognizes and requires in many circumstances that a surplus-sharing agreement between the employer and the employees is the preferred way to go. Absolutely we agree with pensioners on this issue.
But we should also be very clear that if there is no change in the current situation of uncertainty that is causing people to go to court, that is causing groups to make applications for this, that
there were circumstances where pension plans could be forced into putting surpluses out for employees, whether the plan was able to withstand that or not -- now, maybe the honourable member thinks
that is not something that the government should be concerned about. But I would think pensioners would want to know that decisions made about their pension plan are paying attention to the future
viability of the plan.
Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, I have no idea what you're saying. What I know is what the Ontario Court of Appeal said -- they were very, very
clear -- that workers have to be involved when it comes to issues dealing with the future of their pension funds. It is as simple and as straightforward as that. If you're looking for clarity on
this, read the decision. The offending sections of your bill are going to affect hundreds of thousands of Ontarians and millions and millions of dollars. There were 200 cases -- that's 200 separate
employee groups -- awaiting the Monsanto decision. You want to pass legislation now that is going to take their rights away from them without giving them any right of appeal.
Your bill is wrong. It's wrong to trample on the rights of hard-working people and then unilaterally and retroactively change their pension rules. What you
want to do now is that you're looking for us to give you authority to make changes under cover of darkness. This bill was wrong from the outset. The policy that informs it is wrong. It is patently
unfair to Ontario workers. The only reasonable and responsible thing to do is to withdraw this change to Ontario pension law.
Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member seems to be ignoring the advice of many, many pension experts who have publicly stated that with the
reduction in investment income that has hit many pension plans -- a National Post article, for example; a study by Caldwell Securities -- 46 major Canadian companies with pension plans expressed
the concern that there were underfunded plans out there -- a Globe and Mail article; a UBS Warburg study -- again, a warning that pension plans have to be very, very cautious about how they
continue to function so they remain viable. Maybe the Liberal Party thinks the government should ignore that. On this side of the House, we believe steps should be taken to ensure that there is
nothing that takes away the rights of pensioners, that legislation respects, encourages, supports employees making surplus --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up.
HYDRO DEREGULATION
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, a quick review of your pre-election hydro bribe
legislation reveals that Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga, is right: you will stick the municipal hydro utilities with the $500-million cost of implementing your hydro deregulation and
privatization fiasco and you will stick them with the cost of sending out the rebate cheques, which means the only way they can recover this is by, in effect, putting it on to municipal property
taxpayers. A $500-million cost spread across property taxpayers in this province is $100 per household. Do you really believe that you can bribe people with a $75 cheque --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member has to withdraw the word "bribe." You're not going to be able to use that. Withdraw it,
please.
Mr Hampton: I withdraw it. Minister, do you really believe that you can send out a $75 cheque before the election and then force up people's
property taxes to cover your tracks, and that people are going to fall for it?
Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I'd like to address both issues that the honourable
member raised.
With respect to those costs to get the rebate out, we believe they should be recoverable from a corporation should the local distribution company get the
rebate out by December 31, after the 2006 freeze.
With respect to the market-ready costs, they have not even begun to be determined by the Ontario Energy Board. I think some are rather modest, like in the case
of Mississauga. Some are perhaps greater than they need to be. The Ontario Energy Board will make those determinations at some period of time in the future, as they were going to do, and they'll be
held as assets.
So the leader of the third party is wrong on both of those.
Mr Hampton: What's clear from reading your legislation is that scam artists like Direct Energy will continue to collect their outrageous
profits and get a rebate from the taxpayers of Ontario as well; that Hydro One won't be forced to operate on a not-for-profit basis; that Brascan, British Energy and OPG will continue to charge
outrageous prices, but municipalities are being lined up to carry all the freight here.
Minister, there are a number of municipal hydro utilities that are already on the brink of bankruptcy thanks to your deregulation and privatization fiasco. Now
you're going to stick them with more costs. Do you really think you're going to get away with this? Do you really think you can say to the Hazel McCallions of the world that they should just buzz
off?
Hon Mr Baird: I don't think there is anyone in the province of Ontario who would indicate that to Her Worship, the Mayor of Mississauga.
With respect to Hydro One and the two examples you raised, both for the cost of getting rebates into consumers' hands and for the market-ready costs, we're
going to treat Hydro One exactly as we treat every other local distribution company in Ontario. That is not any different.
I suggest to the member opposite that he might want to take more than a few moments to read the bill that was presented to the House. I'd certainly be very
happy to offer him and his folks a briefing on the issues so he can be informed as to its contents.
Mr Hampton: There is nothing in this bill that will force Hydro One, for example, to roll back its transmission charges that are now
profit-based. There is nothing in this bill that is going to force Direct Energy to fork over the 40% increase in hydro costs that they've pushed on.
For almost over a century, municipal hydro utilities have always paid their bills on time. Now, after your deregulation and privatization fiasco, Dominion Bond
Rating Service last Friday came out and said that many of them are in big financial trouble. Now, in your attempt to cover up the disaster of hydro privatization and deregulation, you're going to
push more costs on to them.
Why don't you just admit it? Hydro privatization and deregulation is the problem. Kill it, not the municipal hydro utilities.
Hon Mr Baird: The leader of the third party raises three issues, and I'll go through them one by one.
With respect to marketers like Direct Energy, under the piece of legislation we introduced, they are not entitled to a single cent more than they were entitled
to before the legislation was introduced -- not a single cent.
With respect to transmission charges at Hydro One, they have been frozen and they haven't gone up since the market opening.
With respect to local distribution companies, what we're doing is going back to the price of the commodity that existed before the market opening. I don't
recall a single local distribution company going under on that former process.
PENSION PLANS
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Finance. On Friday the highest court in Ontario, the Ontario
Court of Appeal, delivered a clear and unanimous judgment. They said that under the existing Ontario Pension Benefits Act, a pension surplus must be distributed to employees affected by a plant
shutdown and mass layoffs. Your government has tried to tell Ontarians that the existing pension law must be amended and clarified, but the Court of Appeal says it's very clear.
What is equally clear is that the whole objective of your offensive pension amendments is to give your corporate friends on Bay Street the capacity to go in
and raid the pension plans of retirees and hard-working employees.
Now that the Ontario Court of Appeal has said clearly and unanimously that you are wrong and your pension amendments are wrong, will you withdraw them from
Bill 198 immediately?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I think it's very clear to note that the Monsanto court decision was about a particular circumstance.
It was not a judgment on proposed legislation before this House.
However, we quite recognize the significance of this decision for workers. We quite recognize the fact that there is a great deal of concern among pensioners
that something could happen to their pension plans that might jeopardize their rights. We do not wish this to happen. That is why we have said very clearly that those amendments are not going to be
proclaimed. There needs to be further work done to ensure they are consistent with the court decision. If they're not, they will be amended.
Second, any regulations that may or may not go forward will not go forward until there has been clear consultation, until all of the groups are very aware that
their rights have been protected. This is about respecting those plans where there is, in the plan documents, old documents, new documents, where there is entitlement for --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Sorry. Supplementary?
Mr Hampton: What a pile of complete nonsense. The Ontario Court of Appeal interpreted the law of Ontario, the Ontario Pension Benefits Act,
and they said there's no need for clarification, there's no need for amendments. The law is clear: where there is a plant shut down and there is a pension surplus, it must be equally shared between
employer and employees. They said that your amendments aren't necessary.
Let's recognize what your amendments are all about. Your amendments are all about making it possible for your greedy friends on Bay Street to take money away
from retirees, to take money out of the pension plan of people who've worked for years and years. That's what it's about. It is theft from people's pension plans. If you had any decency, you would
do what you've done in the past with some of your other budget bills: you'd amend it. You'd rip those sections out of the bill, because it is an insult to all hard-working Ontarians that you even
tried to do this. Will you do it now?
Hon Mrs Ecker: This legislation respects the rights of employees. It does not allow employers to raid pension funds.
Secondly, let's be very clear. We have said we are analyzing the court decision. We quite understand the concern that pensioners may have. We want to make sure
that pension plans, that the rights that pensioners have, that the earned benefits that pensioners have, are indeed protected. This legislation will respect the court decision or it will be
amended.
Regulations under any sections will be thoroughly consulted on. We've got additional meetings scheduled. I repeat, as I've said in this House before, this is
an issue that has been worked for over two years. The government was very open about the concerns and the problems, and consulted in order to try and resolve the issue. If we haven't got an
appropriate resolution, we are prepared to continue to make sure we have a resolution so that pensioners' rights are respected.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to speak to you directly in your
special capacity as the person particularly responsible for the kids in the Toronto public system. Last week you and the Premier said things like, and this is the Premier's quote, "First of all,
money spent in the classroom has actually increased under the supervisor's recommendation." Figures were released to say there was a $2-million increase. In fact, there was a $23-million cut to the
classroom.
Minister, you had to know. You have the staff; you have the supervisor's staff, the board's staff. They're all working for you now. You had to know. Your job
is to protect those kids. For three days, until it was pointed out by somebody else, you let that be told to the parents and children of this province. How is it possible that you would forgo your
responsibility and let a story like that get told to the parents and students of this city?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): The story that needs to be told is the fact that a small majority of trustees
refused to obey the Education Act. It was necessary to send in a supervisor, and the supervisor managed to balance the budget. All those programs that you said were going to be cut -- the swimming
pools, the heritage languages, the parenting centres -- are still in place. Furthermore, there is more spending for classroom teachers, for textbooks and classroom supplies, as well as computers.
There was also more money for hall monitors in order that there would be extra school safety. Those are the facts.
Mr Kennedy: They are wrong. The minister opposite, who is responsible for the well-being of children in the Toronto public school system,
directly took it over, and last week the minister and the Premier said they were protecting the interests of those children by not having cuts to the classrooms.
Minister, you know then there were $23-million worth of cuts. You tried to say just now the budget was balanced. In fact, there's a $16-million deficit. You're
not telling the people of this city what's happening in their schools. I want to say to you, as they have in fact fewer textbooks, according to the real figures, as they have less classroom
support, less teachers' assistants, less supply teachers, why should anyone in this province in any of the schools believe you when you let this be on the public record for as long as it was when
you clearly had the knowledge beforehand that things were different?
Hon Mrs Witmer: I guess the question is, why would anyone believe you? You were the people who talked about parenting centres -- gone;
heritage language -- gone; swimming pools -- gone. Instead, all of those programs were saved, plus there was a balanced budget plan, plus there is more money for classroom teachers and textbooks
and classroom supplies, stabilized spending for special education, stabilized spending on school maintenance, stabilized funding for the itinerant music teachers, the preservation of the
international language programs, and stabilized funding for the parenting and family literacy centres. This is the job that the trustees could do and refused to do.
Interjections.
SCIENCE NORTH
Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Culture. I understand that on November 9 you were in Sudbury to announce this
government's support for the capital expansion underway to improve the facilities at Science North. We all know that Science North is a very popular attraction in northern Ontario. In fact, you
know that --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): This is the last warning for the member for Parkdale-High Park and the member for Windsor West. If they continue
to yell across when the question is being asked by someone else, they will be thrown out. Last warning for both of them.
Sorry for the interruption, member for Nipissing.
Mr McDonald: Minister, we all know that Science North is a very popular attraction in northern Ontario. In fact, you do know, and I was happy
to hear, that Science North was the winner of the 2002 Attractions Canada national award for best indoor site with an operating budget of more than $400,000. Science North has become famous for its
visitor-friendly approach, which creates an environment that highlights learning over teaching.
Minister, could you tell us a bit about this expansion project?
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I thank the member for Nipissing for that excellent
question. I did have the pleasure of being in Sudbury to visit Science North along with my colleague the Minister of Tourism. We were able to announce a $2.2-million investment over two years for
the expansion of Science North. Science North will be looking for an 8,500-square-foot expansion to go to the educational and tourist attraction, as well as exhibit floors and science
workshops.
I give my congratulations to both Jim Marchbank, who is the CEO, and Risto Laamanen, who is the chairperson, for the wonderful "bluecoats," as they are
affectionately called, who make a visit to Science North a memorable learning experience. There are also volunteers there who wear light blue coats, as the member for Sudbury knows, 150 or 200 of
them, some of them over 80, and some of them as young as 13 or 14 years old who plan to have careers in science and who make our experience there a wonderful thing.
Mr McDonald: Thank you, Minister. I also understand that in keeping with their entrepreneurial spirit and through their independent business
division, Science North continues to market and sell their expertise in multimedia attractions, film production and program development. I understand that the recent IMAX film Jane Goodall's Wild
Chimpanzees and the creation of Discovering Chimpanzees are both examples of this entrepreneurial spirit. Both of these exhibits have now moved on to Cincinnati and will tour other American cities
and bring revenue back to Science North.
Minister, could you tell this House what future plans Science North may have for the people of Ontario to enjoy?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: One thing that really struck me about Science North when I was there was the fact that they are quite a leader in
innovation. This was brought home to me with some of the innovative projects they are doing in exporting our talent to the United States. For example, and this is quite ironic, at the Tech Museum
of Innovation in San José, in the middle of Silicon Valley, Science North was hired to create this wonderful theatre of innovation in Silicon Valley. The same thing happened in the middle of
car country with the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. They were the ones asked to do this display on cars. What's really exciting is that they've got this wonderful exhibit called the
Dynamic Earth project, at a cost of $14.35 million, that allows visitors to Sudbury to really engage in what Sudbury is all about -- the mining community and the community itself -- explaining it
in a wonderful way to visitors. It's a wonderful project for tourists, and this is exceedingly good news for Sudbury as well.
PENSION PLANS
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns Bill 198 and, in particular, the
pension considerations. She has used the word "viability" so many times in trying to define this issue, when everybody but her seems to have understood that it's about state-sanctioned robbery
designed to placate the business elite --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You have to withdraw that, please.
Mr Smitherman: Yes, I withdraw.
It is about state-sanctioned legislation that is designed to offer an incentive to corporations to take all of the surpluses out of pension funds. This
honourable member, who ran around getting sports teams to sign off for $10 million, has established a record that makes people very concerned about dealing with her, to the point where she refuted
the suggestion that I made on Thursday about her flawed consultation, only to agree by Friday at 6:15.
So, Madam Minister, I'd like to ask you a question, which is: will you stand in your place today and agree to withdraw
section 25 of Bill 198 because it is so
deeply flawed?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): If the honourable member has read Bill 198, he knows that the tax to which he refers, the special
treatment for sports teams, is not allowed to proceed under that legislation, so perhaps he might want to consider voting for the legislation since he seems to agree with the direction.
First of all, what the honourable member should understand is that some pension plans currently allow employers access to surpluses. One of the things this
bill talks about in the proposals is that there has to be an application, there has to be entitlement, there has to be protection for the rights of pensioners. The plan itself has to have a surplus
to distribute. I'm sure the honourable member would agree with that.
We understand that the court has ruled. We are taking a look at that court decision. We are making sure that anything this government wishes to do is clearly
respecting rights workers have in this province, and we will continue to do that. I think it is only due diligence to do that.
Mr Smitherman: It would be nice if it were so, but it isn't, because the legislation you propose wipes out any of the rights that the Monsanto
workers were awarded on Friday. If that isn't enough, it goes one rather significant step further, to make Ontario the only jurisdiction in North America that encourages the stealing of surpluses
from ongoing pension funds,
section 79.1.
So, Madam Minister, since you don't seem to understand your own legislation and since you didn't take the time over the weekend to read it and because you have
admitted that it's probably way out of whack, why don't you do the honourable thing and withdraw it today?
Hon Mrs Ecker: Employers were not required to distribute surpluses in partial windup situations under the Liberals and under the NDP. But
decisions have been made that have made it very unclear. What is important here is that we are looking at the court decision. We are not going to be proceeding with something that is flouting the
rights of workers. We are continuing to sit down with all of the groups that are part of this, because this legislation does not, nor would we stand for something that would, allow employers to
raid pension plans, to take away the rights of workers. That would not be appropriate and would not be fair. If the honourable member would like a full briefing on this, we'd be quite happy to give
it to him.
HIGHWAY 69
Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, road safety has been improving in this
province. In 1994, Ontario had the eighth-safest roads in North America; by 1999, we had improved to having the second-safest roads.
Sadly, tragedies do occur on our highways. There have been growing concerns, including those of our own Premier, over the safety and the stretch of Highway 69
between Parry Sound and Sudbury. This part of the highway has seen a number of tragic collisions and loss of life. The loss of even one life is one too many.
The Premier has committed to making this two-lane stretch of Highway 69 safer by expanding it to four lanes within 10 years. Will you tell us what you are
doing to make sure this happens?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): Our Premier is the first leader of any political party to make a commitment and commit to
a time frame for four-laning Highway 69 to Sudbury. Road safety is a top priority in my ministry and our Premier announced in Sudbury on November 21 that we are working to complete the four-laning
of Highway 69 from Parry Sound to Sudbury in stages. Starting in 2003, we will begin construction of 14 kilometres of four-lane highway north of Parry Sound. We are finalizing the design and
acquiring property to allow construction of another 20 kilometres south of Sudbury. We're fast-tracking the
schedule to complete four-laning of the 118 kilometres between Noble and Estaire.
When all is said and done, over $1 billion will have been spent four-laning Highway 69, one of the largest transportation projects the government has ever
tackled. We are proud of this commitment and the $1.6 billion we have spent on highways in northern Ontario since 1995.
Mr Miller: Thank you, Minister, for restating that commitment.
There are many factors that contribute to collisions on our highways. We hear from police and other authorities that many collisions are preventable. I
certainly appreciate that our roads are the safest in Canada for the second straight year, but any loss of life on Ontario's highways is a concern for us all.
People are concerned about what appears to be an increasing number of collisions and fatalities. What is your ministry doing in the shorter term to make it
safer for those who drive on this highway?
Hon Mr Sterling: Unfortunately, we cannot build roads immediately. There are many, many things that we are doing in the interim to deal with
the problem with highway use on 69. Over the past 13 years -- that is, from 1988 to 2000 -- the overall average of the collision rate actually has declined slightly.
However, we continue to be concerned about fatal collisions. According to the police reports on Highway 69, in fatal collisions, some 27% involved drivers that
were speeding, following too closely or passing improperly. We are helping to improve road safety through the implementation of our Highway 69 action plan, installing 50 new road signs to promote
safe driving habits, increasing enforcement of commercial vehicles by 30% and short-term highway improvements to the S curve south of Highway 637. But we cannot do this alone; drivers must improve
their habits. We will continue to look at methods to stop the fatalities that are occurring on Highway 69.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. Evidently, the supervisor is allowed to carry a deficit of
$9.5 million over a three-year period for severance for all of the workers that he has either laid off or is firing. But the trustees at the Toronto Board of Education reminded me that there is a
$45-million account that's available for severance. My question to you is, why is he carrying over a deficit of $9.5 million over a three-year period when there is $45 million available for the
purposes of taking care of severances?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I didn't hear all of the question, but I think it had to do with severance
costs. I would just mention to the member opposite that the fact that the budget was balanced five months late into the year also meant that a possible $9 million in savings was not able to be
achieved, and that's why there is some carry-over.
Mr Marchese: If I could just suggest to you, Minister, because you couldn't hear the question, that you wear this little earpiece just in
case.
My question to you is, he's allowed to carry over a deficit of $9.5 million that deals with severance and another $6 million that deals with enrolment decline,
for a total of 16 million bucks. The board has available $45 million for the purposes of severance. We don't know what the supervisor is doing with that 45 million bucks. We think he's cooking the
books. We think you should know about it.
Trustees were not allowed to carry over a deficit. Why is the supervisor allowed to carry that deficit, and why is he not using the $45 million that's
available for the purposes of severance to do that? It's a simple question.
Hon Mrs Witmer: On the issue of the enrolment numbers, obviously the trustees were not aware that the numbers were going to go down. So that
has had an impact on their bottom line and their per-student funding allocation. That's why Mr Christie has brought forward a plan that responds to a budget that is now being balanced five months
later.
We are well aware of the severance fund. In fact, as the member probably knows, the trustees at one time thought they would have access to this in order to
balance their budget.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I'm sure you have learned by now that your appointed
supervisor for the Ottawa school board, Mr Merv Beckstead, has been unable to balance the books. He says that the funding formula is to blame, and I quote from an interview he had on CBC radio: "A
permanent fix for Ottawa's problem is unlikely until the government changes the funding formula....
"It's very difficult to have a universal formula that works the same for everyone. The idea is sound but they didn't get it right the first time. Major shifts
in policy like that -- rarely are they ever right completely the first time."
So, Minister, I ask you, will you withdraw the supervisor and his very expensive office that has cost the board about half a million dollars -- he has been
unable to balance the budget -- and will you apologize to the trustees who are now totally vindicated in their fight to do something for students for a change? Will you remove him?
Hon Mrs Witmer: We should probably review the actions of the trustees and be mindful of why it was necessary to bring in a supervisor. But
certainly I think it's important to remember that the supervisor is presently preparing a plan that we anticipate will return the Ottawa-Carleton board to a balanced financial position, and I hope
we'll receive that plan this week.
Mr Patten: I have a speech here from Mr Beckstead that he gave to the Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce. I note with some interest the title
of his address: Challenges in Managing Funding for Public Education. It was subtitled "You Cannot Solve a Problem with the Same Thinking that Created It."
On Friday, Beckstead said that in spite of making painful choices, he could not find enough cuts to balance the board's budget, and the funding formula is to
blame. "The province's funding formula did not work for Ottawa.... Only when that formula is changed can Ottawa begin to think of longer-term solutions."
Minister, you have said that there needs to be a review of the funding formula. It must be rather embarrassing now to have your appointee come back and say you
have created the problem -- not you, but your government. Will you do the right thing and make adjustments and provide adequate funding to these school boards in the interests of our children?
Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to remember what Mr Beckstead has been able to do. If you remember, when he was appointed as
supervisor, the school year and the school starting date were all in jeopardy simply because the board had not selected to behave in a way that was in accordance with the Education Act. Mr
Beckstead made sure that the schools opened safely and on time. The banks did not cancel the board's line of credit. Teachers and staff were paid. He is presently putting in place a plan for
long-term financial stability.
The Speaker: New question.
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also have a question for the Minister of Education. We in rural Ontario have certainly been
following the work of the supervisor as he puts the Toronto Board of Education back on course. However, I understand that Mr Kennedy, the member for Parkdale-High Park, is apparently trying to
confuse the budget numbers for the Toronto District School Board. Is this true, Minister?
Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, the methodology that has been used by Mr Kennedy is flawed. The supervisor's table compares net expenditures in
2001-02 to net expenditures in 2002-03, in other words, an apples-to-apples comparison. Mr Kennedy, on the other hand, has a table that compares total expenditures in 2001-02 to net expenditures in
2002-03, an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The net-to-net comparison used in the supervisor's table shows there were increases in spending for teachers, textbooks, supplies, computers and school
operations. This method of reporting was not invented by the supervisor. All boards report to the ministry on both a net basis as well as a gross basis. So the methodology is flawed.
Interjections.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Parkdale-High Park
accused the Minister of Education of misleading them. I think that's out of order and I would ask he withdraw it.
The Speaker: If the member said something, he wasn't doing it publicly. I didn't hear it. I was trying to listen to the question. Quite
frankly, I couldn't hear him because of you.
Interjection.
The Speaker: He can withdraw it any time if he wants to. I didn't hear it.
Mr Barrett: Thank you, Minister. That clarifies some of the flawed methodology of the member opposite. If one were to look at this budget in a
clear way, could you tell us just what it does, not only for students but for people in Toronto?
Hon Mrs Witmer: What this budget does --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Now I'm going to have to do it formally. Last warning to the government House leader as well. I'm not going to continue when
you're shouting across. Sorry, Minister of Education.
Hon Mrs Witmer: Regardless of how you look at the numbers, the supervisor's budget has put the board back on a sound financial basis. He has
been successful in finding $90 million in savings. The programs that were in place when the supervisor was appointed, such as parenting, the literacy centres, the pools and of course heritage
language, are still in place. The budget release has been transparent. The supervisor has not tried to disguise his savings plan; quite the contrary, he released nine pages of details on where the
savings can be found. Again, I would say that Mr Kennedy's methodology is flawed. The method of reporting used by the supervisor is the same one the boards use to report to the ministry on a net as
well as a gross basis.
PENSION PLANS
Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): My question is to the Minister of Finance. In answer to questions last week, you said, "There has been public
consultation on this bill. There has been a public discussion paper, meetings and submissions." You went on to say, "This legislation is clearly there to protect the rights of pensioners."
After the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on Friday that former employees are entitled to a share of pension surpluses, you have now decided not to proclaim
parts of the bill pertaining to pensions while you conduct these same consultations on measures to ensure that the rights of pensioners are protected. The problem is that by not proclaiming this
bill you solve nothing, because you're going to pass this bill and it's going to be law, other than the proclamation.
What confidence can anybody have that the same consultations that led to this disaster on your pension bill are not going to be repeated in these subsequent
consultations when there is no public input? Would you now agree to withdraw that portion of the bill and have public hearings so we can at least get some real input to it?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): With all due respect to the honourable member, sitting down and having a meeting with the Ontario
Federation of Labour is hardly not having public input; sitting down and having meetings with some of the other groups, as has happened in the succeeding months and will happen in the future -- he
says that's not public input. I reject that. We are indeed going to sit down with all of the groups.
We're analyzing the court case. The portions of this bill that pertain to pensions are not going to be proclaimed until we have done due diligence with the
court decision, until we have finished further consultations to make sure they understand that their rights are protected.
If amendments have to be made in the future, we're prepared to do that, but I think what is important here is that this was started in the year 2000. There was
a public discussion paper, there were many submissions from groups -- employee groups, union groups, legal groups, employer groups -- there have been meetings. Those consultations will continue
until people's concerns are eased.
Mr Kwinter: Madam Minister, you went on to say, "This bill does not interfere with court cases that are going on. We specifically are not
retroactively changing court decisions."
First of all, there was only one case, and that was the Monsanto case. You rolled the dice on that one and you lost. There were 200 cases that were pending
that decision. You are retroactively going to wipe them all out, notwithstanding that the courts have ruled on the same issue that most of those cases are pursuing.
How can you possibly suggest that you are dealing fairly and equitably with this issue? Why don't you just withdraw this section? Let's have some public
hearings and let's make sure we get it right, because obviously you didn't get it right the first time.
Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, the legislation clearly exempts any case that is before the courts. We thought that was appropriate. We are
indeed analyzing this particular court decision. It was on a particular case, a particular set of circumstances, but we're doing what I think is the prudent thing: to analyze that court decision to
see what direction it would have for us.
The other thing is that there are cases before the superintendent. Yes, those are not before the courts, they are before the superintendent, and one of the
challenges has been that because of the unclear direction that is there, there were circumstances that could have forced surplus distribution, that could have put some pension plans in
jeopardy.
We will continue the consultations to ensure that pensioners' rights are indeed protected and that that is very clearly understood by all the
organizations.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing responsible for rural affairs.
Minister, your hard work continues to improve the economic well-being of hundreds of thousands of rural residents. Ontario's small towns and rural communities have benefited enormously from our
government's foresight and strategic thinking as it implements a variety of programs for rural Ontario. Indeed, rural Ontario could not have a stronger advocate working to ensure that its residents
have the same opportunities for economic growth and prosperity as our urban residents.
Minister, I understand this past weekend you visited the Ottawa Valley to announce a major economic investment. Can you expand on your work and the investment
you made on Saturday for the working people of Renfrew county?
Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member from Peterborough. On Saturday, I was in
Pembroke at the Renfrew county council chambers to announce a major economic development program for this area. This resulted from an innovative project that emphasizes the partnerships, skill sets
and assets they have right across the county of Renfrew.
Our government, through the OSTAR-RED project, is investing more than $1.8 million in the County of Renfrew Partners Initiative, or CoRPI. This is a
$4.1-million, public-private sector investment partnership that goes right across the county of Renfrew and creates 200 new jobs in tourism, manufacturing, agriculture and resource processing in
Renfrew county.
It's a joint initiative between the Renfrew county economic development, the Renfrew Industrial Commission, the town of Deep River, the town of Petawawa, the
Ottawa Valley Tourist Association, the Ottawa Valley Manufacturers Alliance and Enterprise Renfrew County, an innovative initiative.
Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister. It's another example that partnerships do work. Partnerships will continue to move this great province
forward.
This is outstanding news for the Ottawa Valley. This CoRPI announcement shows that we are indeed addressing the economic development needs of this region.
Minister, can you tell this House how this investment fits into our government's overall rural economic development strategy?
Hon Mr Coburn: The OSTAR-RED economic development program in rural economic development is an initiative, and that's where this project is
funded. It's an initiative that enables partnerships, and in fact promotes partnerships, between municipalities and between businesses to capitalize on some of the technologies and initiatives they
have in their communities. It's a $200-million program that assists rural and small-town Ontario by promoting a diversified business climate and creating and retaining long-term jobs.
To date, there have been 48 projects approved. These projects are injecting $308 million into new economic activity all across rural Ontario. Of this total,
the province has contributed in the order of $49 million in direct investment.
So there are success stories, from Essex county, Kingston, Midland, Trenton, and in Pembroke and Renfrew county -- all across the province.
ONTARIO DISABILITY
SUPPORT PROGRAM
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Minister, last spring you
raised the hopes of people living on the Ontario disability support program. You promised to review the program, look at ways to improve it and raise benefits for the first time in nine years. But
almost six months later, we've heard absolutely nothing from you.
Here with us today are more than 20 people from the ODSP Action Coalition, who have done your work for you. They have put together a full report of the
problems with ODSP and have made 10 practical recommendations that you could implement today.
People on ODSP are being forced to live in poverty. Thousands of others are even worse off because your application process makes it too hard for them to even
apply.
Minister, will you stand in this House today and commit to implement the 10 recommendations given to you by the ODSP Action Coalition?
Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague across the way for the question. He will know
that our government has been committed for some time to do what we can to improve the lives of the disabled. It is our government that removed those who are disabled from the old welfare program
and created the new ODSP plan, with a number of improvements that we think make lives easier for those who are disabled. It is also our government that introduced the Ontarians with Disabilities
Act, one of the first in Canada.
My colleague across the way indicates that he has some ideas, on behalf of constituents, that he wishes for me to consider. I have indicated that our
government is looking at doing what we can to improve the plan. Of course, as in any other situation when ideas are presented to our government on how to make plans or processes work better, I'd be
more than pleased to receive those --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary. There was some time left.
Mr Martin: The answer was totally unsatisfactory. It's obvious that the minister hasn't read the report, so I'll send it over to her, if I
could have a page here, please.
Minister --
The Speaker: I apologize.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. I apologize. It is 4 o'clock. I thought there was time on the clock, but unfortunately it's 4 o'clock.
Just before we begin, it being 4 of the clock, pursuant to standing order 30(b), I'm now required to call orders of the day.
The member for St Catharines on a point of order first.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to request unanimous consent of the House to present a petition
calling for the cleanup of the abandoned aluminum smelter in the town Georgina.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No, I'm afraid not.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to raise my dissatisfaction with the answers provided by the
Minister of Education. I have filed a notice with the Clerk for a late show tomorrow.
The Speaker: I thank the member, and if he could table the appropriate papers with the table.
WEARING OF RIBBONS
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier today the member from Nipissing, Mr McDonald, spoke rather passionately
about the White Ribbon Campaign, which is a violence-against-women initiative. I'm seeking unanimous consent for members to wear the white ribbon for this significant event.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TIME ALLOCATION
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any
other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 191,
An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to ensure the safety of emergency vehicles stopped on a highway and people who are
outside a stopped emergency vehicle, when Bill 191 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without
further debate or amendment, at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and
That, when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or
amendment; and
That the vote on second and third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred; and
That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Stockwell has moved government notice of motion 65.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand to speak against any type of time allocation motion because in this instance, as in other instances, it
stifles debate in this House and doesn't enhance the democratic process. In fact, it does not allow the general public, the people in Ontario, to have a say in the important bills that this
government should want to be taking out to committee and to have input etc.
In this particular instance, this bill is important. The act itself, Bill 191, is a good piece of legislation. In the words of Brian Atkin, the president of
the Ontario Provincial Police Association, "Lives could be saved by having this bill introduced as law." For that reason, I as a member representing the people of Sudbury will be supportive of the
legislation. Our Liberal caucus said, on first reading, that we would support the legislation.
The problem we have with the way the government has been doing business lately is that it's stifling critical debate on a number of very serious initiatives.
If the government were able manage its time better to allow bills to go to committee, to allow for a more democratic process to take place, I think we could be passing a lot more bills that would
enhance the safety of children in this province, the safety of police officers and the powers of the police to execute their duties more diligently and with less restraint.
I think of some of the private member's bills I've introduced -- for instance, Bill 24, the Municipal Amendment Act, with regards to adult entertainment
parlours -- and how children could be exploited because they haven't passed some of the arguments I put forth in Bill 24. I think of other bills -- Bill 47, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act
(Driving While Suspended); I don't think the fines are strong enough for people who drive while they're suspended.
I'm going to the launch of the red ribbon campaign on Friday with Action Sudbury. Again, I'm going to say that I've tried to get the government to pass Bill
47, but they refuse refuse to pass Bill 47.
As winter approaches, in northern Ontario in particular, I think of Bill 119, which is my studded tire bill. I'm concerned that this government continues after
four years to be reluctant to pass meaningful legislation that will potentially save the lives of police officers who have to drive on inferior winter roads because of a privatized maintenance
program that is at best flawed and, in the real-case scenario, lousy in most parts of the province.
I think of Bill 128, the highway memorials act, that I've introduced. It may be a mission of mine and of the
constituents whom I represent -- but tragically, we lost two police officers. One was hit after putting down a spike belt -- Sergeant Rick McDonald -- and one, as we all know in this House, was
brutally executed by two killers. It's a goal of my community to ensure that we have overpasses named after them. So we, with me as their voice, will continue to fight with regard to the passage of
this bill so both Joe and Rick will know that they will be forever remembered by not only the people of Sudbury, but also by people who are passing through our great city, our wonderful city -- and
they find out that -- do you know what? -- there are these two memorials named after these two very, very fine police officers who died tragically way too early in their careers.
I think of Bill 136, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, with regard to having police officers inspect motorcycle helmets. That's a very, very significant piece
of legislation which will certainly allow police to do their job properly and very effectively in a short period of time.
I would suggest to the government that it would be in their best interests to ensure that they manage the time of the House a whole lot better, and that way,
we'd be able to get a whole lot more debated.
The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): The floor is open for further debate.
Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today to speak in favour of what the bill says and against, again, another closure. Here we are --
almost every single bill this particular month, every single bill in this session of the Legislature, is ending by closure. No matter whether the bill is a good one or a bad one, it seems to end up
in the same way: the government rams it through at the last minute without listening to the people and to debate. In fact, this debate probably would not have been necessary had the government been
a little more open and honest in some of its other bills and allowed for the other bills to have the full limit of debate they needed and not pushed issues like this up against the wall so that
we're here on a third day debating a bill that I'm sure every one of us in this room will probably end up voting for.
This is a bill, after all, that seeks to protect police and emergency personnel on our roads, who are out there with the express purpose of trying to save
lives; people who are out there in accident situations, people who are out there pulling over careless drivers, people who are out there in ambulances, people who are out there in fire trucks,
people who are out there trying to do what they can for the people of this province, sometimes in very hazardous circumstances, sometimes in slippery, wet, snowy and icy circumstances, where we
should all hope that drivers would all show just a modicum of caution.
So of course it is important to pass this kind of legislation. In fact, this legislation does exist in other provinces and in states in the United States. No
one can deny that the intent of the bill is a good one. No one can deny that asking motorists to slow down in what potentially is a dangerous situation is a good idea. No one can deny that the
bill, in allowing motorists, where it is feasible, to stop -- who actually stop their car either hopefully to come to assistance, but even if they don't come to assistance, just to stop their car
so that it will make it easier for the enforcement and emergency people to do their jobs correctly -- that they be allowed to do it.
One can ask, and I guess I've asked myself this question, why don't ordinary drivers do this anyway? Why don't ordinary drivers, when they see a difficult
situation, when they see flashing red lights, instinctively and normally either slow down or stop in order to accommodate the men and women who are out there working to try to protect the lives and
safety of motorists and pedestrians and the ill and the disabled and those who are on the sides of our roads? I don't know the answer, but quite frankly, we see it almost every day. In and around
the city of Toronto where I'm wont to drive, especially in the periods when school is in session, one often sees school buses stopped at the side of the road with the stop signs coming out the side
of the bus, with the lights flashing, and you see ordinary, otherwise careful drivers -- I guess they're late for work or whatever it is or late trying to get home or trying to go about their
everyday business -- passing these buses. It is a very, very dangerous situation. We believe that something needs to be done in order to protect everyone.
I looked through this bill and some of the aspects of the bill are good because if the drivers can't slow down using their own common sense, which tells them
they should be slowing down in slippery or icy conditions or around accidents where there are ambulances and fire trucks and police officers and all those things, if they do not have the sense to
do that, well, I guess they're going to end up being fined. The fines here range from $400 to $2,000 for a first offence, and if anyone doesn't learn from that first offence, the fine the next time
around is quite a bit steeper at $1,000 to $4,000 for second and subsequent offences -- with two kickers. One is, you can get up to six months in jail as well, and as well, you can lose or have
your licence suspended for a period of time.
Drivers should know how to do this already. This bill should, in reality, not be necessary, but I would suppose that there are people out there who, for
whatever reason, are distracted, people who are out there who do not obey the simple rules of the road, people out there who are more than happy, more than willing or more than uncaring to put
lives at risk.
Our police and emergency personnel have very dangerous jobs. They have jobs where they often put their lives at risk. Their lives are not so much at risk,
although they are from time to time, in a shootout that one would see in Hollywood, and their lives are not so much at risk in ordinary situations around the office, but their lives are at risk
when they are on the streets and roads and highways of our province. They are very often at risk when they are attempting to do work where the weather conditions are tough, where they're bad, where
the roads are slippery or icy. We need as a society to ensure that their jobs are made just a little bit less risky. We need to make sure that the job for which they are hired and for which they
are paid is made just that much easier so that they can do those jobs, so that they can get the traffic flowing, so that they can get the sick and the injured to hospitals, so that they can put out
fires or car fires or whatever is adjacent to the street. That is why it is important, I would suggest, that this bill be passed.
The failure of the bill, and it's not enough for me to vote against it, is that it is confined in all of the sections to flashing red lights. I would draw the
members' attention to
section 159.1 of the bill, which reads, "upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway," and
goes on. In
section 159.2 it says the same thing again: "upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway with two or
more lanes." It is confined to those vehicles except school buses that have red lights. There are many other vehicles and workers who need to be protected as well, and I do not know the rationale
of why they are not being protected in this legislation, which I am sure would get swift all-party approval.
There are many workers who deal with emergency situations, who drive vehicles that have other coloured lights; that have orange lights that would show caution;
that have blue lights to show they are highway vehicles clearing snow or dangerous debris. I do not understand why we are not seeking to protect them as well. It is granted that they may be moving
vehicles and may not necessarily be stopped on the side of the road, but they have nothing with them except the lights with which they are equipped. So if you have a snowplow, for example, which is
on the side of the road, perhaps helping a motorist who is stranded during a snowstorm and has gone off the road, or any other type of semi-emergency vehicle with orange lights, they can be stopped
at the side of the road doing what they are supposed to do, as good Samaritans, to help clear up the emergency situation, and they are not covered by the ambit of this law.
I think the only failure of the law is that it treats our people in different categories. They are there to do the same kind of dangerous work, they are there
to keep the traffic moving, they are there to help the injured and the sick, they are there to get rid of whatever problem is causing the tie-up, yet the workers from those vehicles are not being
treated in the same way that we are treating our police officers, our fire people and our ambulance crews. I would suggest that they need to be protected in much the same way. Their lives are every
bit as important to all of us as those of our emergency personnel. Their lives are important to themselves and to their families, and they need to be protected in the same way.
Obviously, since this is going to closure, it's far too late for us to move an amendment or to