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

July 22, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

RECALL ELECTION REQUEST ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉCLENCHEMENT D'ÉLECTIONS PAR PÉTITION

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

RECALL ELECTION REQUEST ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉCLENCHEMENT D'ÉLECTIONS PAR PÉTITION

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

SOCIAL CONTRACT

FOREST INDUSTRY

SENIOR CITIZENS

GRIMSBY ROTARY CLUB

RODNEY JOHNSTON

SOCIAL CONTRACT

TOUCHSTONE YOUTH SERVICES

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

CASINO GAMBLING

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

STUDENT SAFETY

FOREST INDUSTRY

DRIVERS' LICENCES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

POLICE SERVICES

MEETINGS OF THE HOUSE

HEALTH CARE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

GO BUS SERVICE

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

HOMOLKA CASE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

DOCTORS' FEES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

GAMBLING

BICYCLING SAFETY

CASINO GAMBLING

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, I don't believe a quorum is present, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Could we have the Clerk check for a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present.

RECALL ELECTION REQUEST ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉCLENCHEMENT D'ÉLECTIONS PAR PÉTITION

Mr McClelland moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act to provide for Petitions requiring the Premier to request the Calling of an Election / Loi exigeant que le premier ministre, sur pétition, demande que soit tenue une élection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes for his opening remarks, after which every recognized party in the Legislature will have up to 15 minutes to participate and, finally, the honourable member for Brampton North will have two minutes in summation.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): As I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving the people of Brampton North in this assembly over the past now close to six years, one of the things that has come up from time to time is the issue of parliamentary reform. As I travel both within my own constituency and indeed across the province and, quite frankly, from time to time across the country, people have reflected upon the need to move the parliamentary system into a mode that is more responsive to people, that has more reflection of the realities of the 1990s and indeed beyond into the next millennium as we face that in the not-too-distant future.

We have today leadership of various political parties who have espoused fundamental changes to our parliamentary system. The context of those initiatives are very much a product of people who operate in the everyday milieu of life in this province. One of the questions that frequently comes up as I travel -- my friends opposite I know will get very, very excited about this; I can just imagine some of them going ballistic momentarily -- is: "Is there no way to get rid of a government, with particular reference to the current government, and how much longer do we have to put up with the government?

When will the next election be?" People are literally praying for some mechanism to precipitate an election in this province.

I would suggest that has been the case throughout history, that from time to time governments come into disfavour, they fall out, and there's an ebb and flow in popularity. I look to my Conservative friends opposite and reflect back to post-1984 when the polls said there would be no possibility of a return of the then federal government, but what happened of course was there was a change and our former Prime Minister, the Honourable Brian Mulroney, returned with a major majority which essentially defied the polls of but a couple of years previous to that.

However, in that context, I think a lot of people are saying there is a sense of despair and a sense of frustration that has never been felt before in the province of Ontario. In the time that we have, I'm sure we'll be talking about some of the reasons for that.

As I said, one of the things that people say is: "Is there no way that we can compel the government to be responsive? Petitions don't work. Government members opposite laugh when we bring petitions to them. They say, 'We agree with you but,'" and if anything evidenced that more than anything else, it was the recent debate on Bill 48.

If you look down the list of people who sit on the government benches who had previous ties to the labour movement and the union movement, there was but a handful who had the courage of their convictions and the principles that they held, as many of them that brought them to this place, and stood by those principles. I pay tribute to them. That's a tough, tough thing to do. Some of us on this side have been in that position, and that's an awfully hard thing to do and my hat goes off to them.

I give them full credit for having the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believed in and what they said and would not fall into the trap and the glib response that they hear from their leader, the Premier, who says: "Well, that was then and this is now. This is the reality of government and we can afford to be politically crass. We can abandon our principles, abandon the things that we believe in, abandon the promises we made.

We'll just do whatever we please because, after all, we are in power and we will exercise that power with a view to our own benefit and not the benefit of the people of the province of Ontario. And furthermore, we will abandon those very people who supported us and got us here in the first place."

Loyalty is a very fleeting commodity, and the electorate requires and expects loyalty to them, constituency by constituency, across this province. This bill provides a mechanism that is, in point of fact, relatively onerous for the people of any jurisdiction, for the people of the province of Ontario: to force an election.

If you were to look at the provisions of the bill, it requires, in short, two thirds of the people of Ontario in a prescribed, controlled format with a registration-type requirement, to put their names on a petition compelling the Premier of the province to go to the Lieutenant Governor and ask for an election. Now, there are some other provisions in the bill, that it could not happen within a time frame of one year following any previous election.

You will know, Mr Speaker, as will my friends opposite and friends in the third party, that in the United States in recent history there have been situations where because of particular circumstances and things that are, quite frankly, untoward and very, very compelling, the population of a jurisdiction -- by way of example, in the state of Nevada, I believe, a few years ago, there was such a groundswell of public opinion that they were able to secure a requisite number of signatures on a petition, file that, and compel the governor in that case to resign and call an election and put his mandate to the test of democracy through the people of the province.

Everywhere I go, everywhere, day by day, I get asked: "How much longer do we have to put up with this government? Is there no way to get rid of them?" A recall provision would take a tremendous amount of courage for all of us as elected members to proceed with, but bear in mind the requirements that would be imposed upon the people of the province. They would be required to have two thirds of the people signatory to a petition. None of us, I dare say -- well, there may be some exceptions with some of the veteran members, but I doubt if anybody in the chamber presently sitting here, and I say this with all due respect to all of my colleagues, has ever secured two thirds of the vote.

In fact, I recall, after being elected for the first time in 1987, being, if you will, in the right place at the right time and enjoying good political fortune. Quite frankly, that was in large measure why I was elected with a substantial majority in 1987. It was no tribute to any particular qualities, I say in all honesty, that I brought to the people as a candidate. I hope I presented myself in an adequate fashion, and obviously there were a sufficient number of people who had confidence in my ability to represent them and do the job.

But in point of fact, I was the beneficiary of, in political jargon, a "sweep-in." I was on the tide of a very popular, fresh government that came in in 1987 with a substantial majority.

Those of you who know the history of Brampton will understand that prior to my colleague Bob Callahan being elected in 1985 for Brampton South, the then riding of Brampton was served by the former Premier, the Honourable Bill Davis, for a number of years. Some of the people who worked on his campaign, and indeed the former Premier himself, reflected upon the fact that over the course of time, very few of them in majority years had received even 50% of the population. I had the good pleasure of being elected for the first time with over 50% of the popular vote in my riding.

That was substantial in a race with three major parties, with five candidates running. It was a happy accomplishment. I was happy to have those numbers, but those numbers in many respects are illusory. Most of us got elected by getting less than half of the votes. In fact, the government of the day was elected with 38% of the popular vote of the province of Ontario. I'm not a great mathematician, but that tells me that 62% of the people did not vote for the government.

In the provisions of this bill that I'm bringing forward to the House today for second reading, it would require even a greater number of people to not simply show up on election day and voice their displeasure, but to take a proactive step towards moving the dissolution of Parliament and forcing an election.

This bill responds to those two fundamental questions that people have: Is it not time to reform our parliamentary system so it becomes more responsive and more accountable, where people will be held truly to account for the promises that they made, for the representations that they made that got them elected in the first place and measure their walk with their talk, to say it's one thing to promise things and to come up with a people's agenda and it's another thing shortly thereafter being elected to abandon it virtually in total and to refigure and reconstitute our party platform and our position?

Things change, governments change, the realities of the world change. That's the world we live in. But there's a significant difference between change and fundamental abandonment of what a party said it stood for. Out of that has grown a despair and a despondency across this province that I believe has never been experienced before in this province, indeed this country.

That despair has led me, as I said, everywhere I go literally without exception. People ask me, "Is there no way we can get rid of this government?" This would provide an opportunity for this government and other governments to meet the test of accountability and responsiveness to the people of the province.

I would urge people to seriously consider this, because what you are doing when you're looking at this legislation is saying, "I'm prepared to measure my performance, to risk my performance against the test on an ongoing basis as well as the election," recognizing that it would require a significant proactive initiative by a vast number of people across the province to trigger the mechanism that is set forth in this legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. All recognized parties in the Legislature now have up to 15 minutes to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill 59.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 59, the Recall Election Request Act, 1993, brought by my good friend the member for Brampton North, Mr McClelland.

I am going to vote with Mr McClelland on this particular bill. I want to put on record some of the potential difficulties that I have with it, but I recognize that this bill is put forward as an honest attempt to try to address some of the great concerns that exist in the electorate today, and I must say these are concerns which exist throughout Canada at both the federal and provincial levels. I dare say that any government anywhere in the world would be somewhat concerned about this bill, because it would realize that its own mortality was endangered by this kind of bill.

Governments today are having to make very difficult decisions, decisions which, in the normal turn of events, they would not like to make. I would start out by saying that I think it's a fair bet that this NDP, this socialist government that we have at the moment probably doesn't like at all the things it's having to do. In fact, I'm sure they don't like many of the things they're having to do.

These are very difficult circumstances which would challenge governments of all political stripes. Ultimately, difficult and unpalatable decisions have to be made, decisions which the electorate quite frankly doesn't like. But they still have to be made.

In considering a bill like this, you have to balance the fact that perhaps, if we make a bill so easy that we can sweep away a government which has been elected to a majority Parliament and is trying to do the difficult things that have to be done, even if you don't agree with it, it becomes unfair and we'll never be able to solve the very intractable problems we are faced with today.

Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation at the moment where the electorate is quite honestly coming to all members of the opposition parties and saying, "Can we not get rid of this government?" They are talking about it in terms of, "Can we not sanction them in some way that they would be forced to resign?" I have to reluctantly answer them: "No, there is no way we can force this government to resign. You can only wait for the general election."

But just to reflect on my own private member's bill, which I introduced last year, which was known as the Provincial Public Consultation Act, and I reintroduced it since the Legislature reconvened, because it died with the order papers when the government prorogued the last House, the objective of that bill was to make sure there was some outlet for people who were concerned. In fact the thrust of my private member's bill was to allow the electorate -- if 15% of the eligible voters were to sign a petition on the prescribed form, they would be able to force on to the next regularly scheduled provincial general election questions which were of concern to them.

Also, the government of the day would have the right to put questions, I would suggest questions that probably would fit a lot better with the electorate than having to have the present government struggle with things like Sunday shopping and casino gambling, things which certainly this government did not run on and are now going in exactly the opposite direction to their main planks. If we look at auto insurance, they have made complete U-turns on their position.

Quite frankly, some of them might be right. I don't happen to agree with any of the things the government is doing, but that doesn't matter. I wasn't elected to the party that is governing. They are faced today with very difficult decisions where they feel that perhaps they were wrong.

We should not in opposition totally abhor the fact that governments change their minds. I think there is a certain lack of consistency with this government and a lack of intellectual honesty about the direction they're going, because they are actually turning back on their main platforms.

There's no doubt about it that in the last provincial election, I sat and listened to the NDP candidate in my own riding preaching to the fact that they were against Sunday shopping and that they were going to bring in a system of public auto insurance and a whole raft of other things that they haven't done. In fact they've done quite the opposite.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Tories wanted bang, bang, bang.

Mr Turnbull: Nevertheless -- and I hear one of my friends across the floor beginning to heckle -- I'm trying to reflect on the fact that I understand you have difficult decisions to make, but it obviously sits very badly with you, the fact that you are doubling back on all of your platform from An Agenda for People.

At the time of the last election, secretly I applauded you for the fact that you had the courage to put forward a document which is called in Britain a manifesto. I really do believe that all parties should put forward a manifesto at the beginning of each election, stating what they stand for. But quite frankly, it should be a better-researched document.

The amazing thing is now we have the government, when we talk about this, suggesting that they didn't read it when they went into the last election. That is a rather sobering thought for the people who voted for them, the fact that now we're having the members who got elected on this platform say, "Oh, I didn't read it, so therefore I'm not bound by it."

I think the day for party manifestos from all parties has come, but it has to be a much more intellectually honest document, and I think we have to accept that there will be particular items in these documents that, once you get into office, if you haven't been in office before, you're going to recognize you may have to make some changes to. But when you start absolutely prostituting the very values that you have stood for as a party, then the public have an entitlement to look to legislation such as the legislation which has been brought forward today, Bill 59.

The hurdle that Mr McClelland has put in his private member's bill is two thirds of those people who voted in the last general election. In the last election, in 1990, 64.4% of those eligible voted. Therefore, 42.9% of eligible voters would have to sign this petition to force a general election.

Coincidentally, the NDP received 37.8% of the eligible votes that were cast in the last general election. So in other words, you would have to get a number which was equivalent to all of the people who cast a vote for the Liberals and the Conservatives and then some of the people who cast votes for the NDP just to sign the ballot. Let's just think about that.

I have never, ever heard of a hurdle as high as that. In the United States, where they have had referenda legislation for many years in most states and which I reviewed for my own private member's legislation, the highest hurdle was that 15% of the eligible voters would have to sign a petition to force a question on to a referendum ballot. But we're talking about a number, if we look at the last general election, of 42.9%. This is a massive hurdle.

I have to say, despite all of the rumbling and dissatisfaction in the electorate, I frankly question whether you would be able to get that number to sign a ballot. Perhaps they may today because, indeed, not only has this government broken all of the promises it made in An Agenda for People, but it has also moved massively in a direction that it certainly didn't have as its platform. They have moved to essentially kill the private residential landlords.

I hear Mr Mills laughing about that. He thinks it's funny that he is a member of a government that is killing the private sector. And what is the effect of killing the private sector? The fact is, we now in this province have a more serious economic problem than any of the other provinces in Canada. We have the largest debt load of anything outside of sovereign nations in the world -- not my words, these are the words of the Minister of Finance, lifted right out of his budget document.

That is a rather sobering thought, that we have taken this province, in those few short years since the Conservatives brought Canada prosperity through their labours in the Ontario Legislature -- and we had a prosperous, successful province. Now we have a province that has become, after sovereign nations, the largest debtor in the world bar none.

Mr Wood: Fifteen years of Tory spending, year after year.

Mr Turnbull: It's interesting. I hear Mr Wood from the NDP heckling that we were the big spender. It's very interesting that when we left office, we left, in my estimation, too large a debt. It was $30 billion. Let's just concentrate on the numbers. The Liberals in just five years --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Members will have the opportunity. The member for York Mills has the floor.

Mr Turnbull: The Conservatives, since Confederation, had achieved a debt level of $30 billion. The Liberals, in the best five years this province has ever known, added $10 billion in just five short years. One third of the debt since Confederation was added on again by the Liberals. But my big-spending friends across the floor are adding that amount of debt each and every year.

The Minister of Finance, when he was asked a question about his budget some year and a half ago, was spot on. He was so spot on that he was billions off the mark, increasing the debt. With all the foofaraw that comes from the government saying, "Oh, we should be getting more transfers from the federal government," the fact is -- and these are irrefutable because these are provincial government numbers -- that this provincial government has received more each year from the federal government in increases than the rate of inflation.

Those are, unfortunately, the facts, my friends. You may not like them. This is very different to this provincial government which is actually cutting back the amount of money that it is giving to its transfer agencies. The fact is that this government has to make some very difficult choices and I am not trying to take away from it the right to make those difficult choices. These are difficult times and any political party that would be in office today would be having difficult times and, frankly, would be unpopular with the people. I give you that.

All I am suggesting is that it is reasonable, in view of the tremendous concern, the unease, about the political process that is abroad throughout the world, that perhaps we have to look at measures such as this which will provide a safety valve for the electorate, so that they can gain back confidence in the political system. Throughout the world they are having to do these things now.

The interesting thing, if you look at what is happening in Italy today, is that in Italy they have had for many years a system of proportional representation and they have found that proportional representation is not working for them. It is establishing people. They are so entrenched in politics that they are there for a lifetime. So the Italian electorate are saying, "We want to get rid of proportional representation."

The interesting thing is that there's discussion in Britain at the moment where they have first-past-the-post system like we have here. People are beginning to say, "Maybe we need proportional representation." It is a reflection to a great extent of the fact that the electorate are fed up with the problems. They're very intractable problems and we have to allow the public to be a party to solving these problems.

So for this reason, I will be voting for my friend Mr McClelland's bill, and I recommend that the government at least consider the ability to let the electorate have their say.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's my pleasure to speak to this bill, having a great interest in opposing it. I listened very carefully to what Mr Turnbull has said, and apart from his rhetorical digressions and political hyperbole, he said some interesting remarks and stated earlier on some good points as to why he would oppose it, and continues by the very end, after all the other hyperbole, to support it. It's quite interesting to listen to political arguments because you can never really tell what people argue.

I also listened very attentively to the member for Brampton North, trying to understand the intent of his bill. He begins to talk about parliamentary reform, being responsive to the people and being accountable, and he says, "This is in no way intended to get rid of this government." Five minutes later, he says he listens to people saying, "How do we get rid of this government?" He comes up with a bill that is designed to do just that, so he contradicts his intent, I believe. He might want to clarify that as he speaks later on in his two-minute rebuttal.

Within our system, petitions are only meant to express an opinion, not to bring down a government. The member speaks about petitions and says, of course, that these petitions are inadequate, that expressing your opinion contrary to what a government is doing is simply not enough, that what we need to do is to propose a bill that can dissolve this government, and how do we proactively do that? That's the real intent, not parliamentary reform, not making it responsive to the people, not making it more accountable, because we do have a mechanism in this parliamentary system that makes us accountable.

I have no problems with the system as it currently exists to make individuals like himself and all of us accountable.

If the bill were proposed in such a way that it would build cultural development, political development, that it would make people more politically active in the political process, as opposed to signing a petition that says, "We don't like this government; we want you to call an election," if we had done something different that speaks to that political development, I could support it. But nothing in this bill speaks to that.

Petitions do not politicize the public. Petitions do not involve the public in a way that they would understand either the difficulties or the profundities of a particular issue, or all of the issues that we face as a government. They do not do that. That is not the intent of what the member's trying to do.

The intent clearly is that he wants to bring down the government. What it says to me is that this particular Liberal is so unhappy being out of government that he wants to find a way to get back in, in a hurry. They have not accepted the fact that the NDP is in power and that we're governing and that we're making tough decisions. He doesn't like it. The Liberals don't like being out of power and they want to get back in. That's the real intent.

But he doesn't want to speak to that. He alludes to a number of people to whom he speaks who say, "How do we dissolve this government and what mechanism can we put into place to do this quickly?" That's the rhetoric this member brings.

The concern expressed by supporters he speaks of, that Canadians have few opportunities to hold their MPPs accountable is dubious when assessed against Canada's recent electoral history. I read here:

"Since 1945, Canadians have gone to the polls in 15 general elections. The results have created nine majority and six minority governments. Only twice have governments been re-elected to two consecutive majorities. From 1945 to 1988, the average term of Parliament was 3.1 years. Compared with the US, there is a high legislative turnover in Canada."

That's the fact. There is a high legislative turnover. We are accountable to the public. We're seeing that across Canada, nationally and provincially. When people do not like what governments do, they express it in their vote, and in the meantime they allow us the freedom, as governments, to govern and to make tough decisions.

We've made some good decisions on many different issues that neither this party, the Liberal Party, nor the Conservative Party, would never do. We speak about our record on labour rights, which the member spoke against. We talk about a workers' protection fund to help people who have been laid off work when companies go bankrupt, and an investment employee ownership program to increase workers' ownership of private industry. We've increased the minimum wage. We're investing more than any other government in the country in job training and job creation, and we're opposing free trade, very definitely.

We have done some great things that are of interest to the majority of Ontarians in this province. We have done employment equity in a way that they do not like on the opposite side. We have moved on pay equity in a way that the other governments would not have moved, as we have. We have done things that these other parties would never do. They don't like it, so this member proposes a bill that would have the effect of bringing down the government.

Decisions that are arrived at within an environment seething with emotion, as he proposes, is not an environment marked by calm and collected debate. What we want is reasoned debate that lasts over a period of time, and not to allow a political party, in this case the Liberal Party, or the Conservative Party, to be able to force a vote through a petition to undo the things a government should do.

I oppose this not because I'm in government right now, because if the Liberals were in government I would say that they have a right to govern. I would oppose their views, and I will do that for as long as it takes and will wait for an election, but every government, every party, if in power, needs to be able to govern to do that.

This is a bad bill, it's a nonsensical bill, it doesn't give us genuine parliamentary reform, it doesn't build political development or political culture in this country, and as such we need to oppose it.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today during private members' hour to discuss Bill 59, which has been put forward by my colleague Mr McClelland from Brampton North. I believe the reason this bill is before us is because what Mr McClelland is hearing, what I'm hearing and I think what most members of this Legislature, particularly those on the opposition side but I suspect those in the government caucus as well, from their constituents is, "How soon can we have the next election?"

People in Ontario today are feeling cynical, they're feeling frustrated, they're feeling a sense of despair, they're feeling anger and anguish and alienation, and one of the reasons they're feeling that way is their sense that there's nothing they can do to influence the government.

In the summer of 1990, in the wake of a very real and legitimate process within our democracy, the people of Ontario made a decision. They voted for a party that had put forward their Agenda for People. They thought they knew who they were voting for, and frankly they're feeling a tremendous sense of betrayal.

We've seen Ontario suffer through a recession, through difficult economic times in a way which many of us never could have contemplated or anticipated because of our belief that Ontario was fundamentally strong. Because we had outperformed our neighbours during buoyant and good economic times, many of us felt we would outperform our neighbours in difficult economic times, and yet we know that Ontario's performance has not been as good as that of her neighbours. Ontario's performance has been worse because of the policies of this NDP government.

What I hear time and time again from my constituents is: "Isn't there anything you can do, Elinor, to cause an election? Isn't there anything you can do, Elinor, to see that we have an opportunity to influence this government in a way which will stop it from doing the damaging and dangerous things that it never talked to us about during the election?"

What Bill 59 does is put forward a mechanism which is not available today in Ontario. It is a remedy when the normal democratic safeguards don't work. Normally, you will have a caucus revolt if you have a government attempting to do things that its caucus does not support. But unfortunately, you have a caucus of NDP members who are so afraid of losing their jobs and having to face the people that they are like sheep following along in the wake of the disastrous policies of this government and not taking the strong and important role of defending the public interest and attempting to influence their own government.

The opposition has done what we can do to be both effective and responsible. We have stayed here in this House. It's now the end of July 1992. We have insisted on debating legislation --

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): I's 1993.

Mrs Caplan: It's 1993, and I thank the minister. It is July 1993, and we are here in this House working, debating the legislation. We refused to allow the government to ram its agenda through without debate. They had anticipated that if they said the House was going to sit here at times when people thought we would all be on holidays or doing our committee work, they could just get the acquiesence of the opposition, and we've refused to do that.

We have used every parliamentary tool that is available to influence the government to make sure that its policies will reflect the public interest. We've used every democratic rule that we can to attempt to defeat this government. We have encouraged and supported its caucus members to speak out and to try to influence, within the government caucus, the important changes so necessary to recovery and job creation in Ontario.

Bill 59 is a remedy which is not available today, and that is the ability to recall the government. One of the ways to restore confidence in the province of Ontario, to say to those people who are cynical and alienated and despondent and angry and frustrated, what we can say to them is that by support of Bill 59 we can give you a remedy not only for this government, but for future governments so that you can take action to cause an election before the Premier decides that he wants to go to the polls.

It's a sad day that I stand here to say that our democracy is not working well enough if people are feeling so alienated and so cynical, and it's with a sad heart that I support a recall provision as proposed in Bill 59, but I do support it.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to rise and join in this debate today. I won't pass any judgement on the constitutionality of this bill, which may indeed be suspect, and I won't advert to clause 3(1)(c), which I find very obnoxious in that the petition could contain names of only those people who voted in the last election. So all of those people who may object to the holding of another election prematurely would not have a vehicle by which to register their opposition to that petition.

I find it quite peculiar that the member for Brampton North, who was just a few moments ago reflecting on his election in 1987 and his years of office in the Legislature since that time, did not bring forward this legislation back in 1987, 1988 or 1989, because I put it to you that we had in Ontario, between 1987 and 1990, the most bloated, arrogant, complacent and do-nothing government this province has ever seen. If there was ever a need for this kind of legislation, the member for Brampton North should have brought it forward at that time.

I believe this legislation is of a fraudulent nature in that it attacks the results of the democratic vote. It's an attack on representational democracy as it has evolved since the times of the ancient city-states in Greece, when direct democracy ruled. It's like saying, "I like baseball, but I'm losing the game, and because I'm losing the game, I'm gonna change the rules, or we're going to abolish baseball." I mean, it's that kind of attitude, which, as my colleague says, is certainly a pernicious one.

We all agree there should be more accountability in the parliamentary process. We all agree that, especially in this political climate, people need to be heard and need to know that they're being heard. However, at election time, we trust the good voters of this province to choose representatives to judge, to reflect, to deliberate, to compromise, to lead and respond to their concerns. People accept the need for responsible governance. We respect the voters' ability to choose responsible representatives.

The existing recall provisions in the US have been seldom used and in fact don't extend to senators, congressmen, the executive council and the President. Individual states have recall mechanisms; they too are seldom used. In fact, one expert on the subject matter of recall in the United States concluded recently that the recall device has not significantly improved direct communication between leaders and the led; neither has it produced better-qualified office holders or noticeably enriched the quality of citizenship or democracy in those places permitting it.

We, as elected members of this House, when in government, walk a fine line between advancing the greater good, as a collectivity of members, for the people of the province, versus responding to the needs and aspirations of the people in our own local communities. We can't be held hostage in our decision-making by the threat looming over us each and every day of petitions being circulated around the province, often fuelled by large, powerful lobby groups with considerable resources and money.

It's interesting that Joseph Zimmerman observed that because these weapons of direct democracy have been employed by fiscally conservative groups -- the weapons of course, he says, are available to all groups, and successful use of the weapons by one group is an inadequate ground for their abolition. Interestingly, he says, these devices originally were advocated and employed by liberal reformers, such as the member for Brampton North.

In conclusion, because I know my colleague behind me wishes to have a little time left as well, I would say that this particular legislation has to be opposed by all those who have a firm commitment to democracy, because what it suggests is that a validly held electoral vote under existing rules, providing for a fixed mandate for a majority government, can no longer apply simply because Liberal members happen to be out of government.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 59? Members from the government side still have two minutes.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Just very briefly, I read this bill, and if this bill at all empowered people, I'd support it; if it increased people's representation in this place in any way, I would support it. I'm one who does not believe that a majority government should be won with 38% of the vote, nor 42%, nor 45%, nor 49%. I believe it should be won with 51% of the vote, because that's how people have a voice in this place.

The member says, "Well, let's conduct a petition." What that would suggest to me is that government should be delivered on the basis of polls. You take some money, you pay for a poll, you find out what's popular with people and what people want and that's what you do. That doesn't make government right or honest or truthful with people, because it's simple to ask the question: "People, do you want a higher deficit?" No. "Do you want increased services?" Yes. "Do you want to pay more in taxes?" No. "Do you want less government?" Yes. "Do you want faster services?" Yes.

Let's do that, let's poll everybody in Ontario. Let's ask them what's popular and what they would like and then let's be dishonest and try to deliver. That's what this says: Let's be dishonest and try to deliver. The Liberals governed during the 1980s and their popularity level was always over 50%. They did nothing. Nobody would have undertaken a petition to boot them out; nobody would have done that. But in 1990, when they issued the writ, what did the people of Ontario say? "We've had enough of you."

People want tough decisions. They want the truth. They want you to govern in the best way you can and not by polls.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has elapsed. Further debate on second reading of Bill 59?

Mr McClelland: I want at the outset to commend the member for London South who obviously did a little bit of research, took a look at some literature and some academic review of some similar legislation in the United States and drew, I believe, an opinion that was based on his assessment of the data and literature available. I want to commend him for that and pay tribute to the fact that he took time to do some work on behalf of the people he represents.

It seems to me that my friend from Downsview particularly summed it up very, very well. He talked about what happens in elections, the ebb and flow of popularity. Herein lies the issue and the pivotal point. This has nothing to do with being in power or out of power, I say with respect to my friend the member for Fort York and the member for London South. This would apply to any government of any political stripe. Therein lies the issue and the essence of what we're talking about. It is not a matter of current popularity.

This requires a fairly onerous task undertaken by the general population to do something that is not simple and straightforward, as the member for York Mills alluded to, taking in parallel with that his I think very thoughtful Bill 16, Mr Turnbull's Provincial Public Consultation Ac,t which requires people to take initiative.

This is not a matter of people responding at election time in response to six weeks of campaigning and people presenting their message; if you will, people having the ultimate poll in terms of parliamentary democracy. This is an opportunity for people who are so frustrated, so angry and so upset that they are desperate for some way to respond and make their feelings known to the government, a government that has betrayed them and betrayed its supporters consistently since the time it was elected.

The member for Oriole makes a very, very good point. The member for Oriole says that the real recall provision should be caucus. It should be caucus, based on women and men who have the courage and the convictions to stand by their principles and to say to their leadership: "No, we will not allow you to push us around and tell us what to do, when we know that the people who got us here don't want us to do that.

Our supporters are opposed to what you're doing and the population generally across this province is sick and tired of the way you have been mismanaging and mishandling the government and putting it over on the people. We will not put up with it any more. Get your own house in order," a caucus would say to its leadership. That would be the appropriate recall provision in a parliamentary democracy, but sadly and unhappily, that's lacking at the present time.

This has nothing to do with which party is in power. It has to do with the mechanism to provide people with the opportunity to respond to the concerns they have.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Downsview is out of order; he's out of his seat. Please allow the member for Brampton North the time to participate in the debate.

Mr McClelland: I looked, as the Minister of Finance would say, in one of the local tabloids yesterday. It had an editorial, and the concluding comment was, "How do you like socialism so far?" It's a question I've seen on billboards, a question I've heard asked tongue-in-cheek and rhetorically by countless people all across the province.

It's really quite amazing to look at the sources of despondency. They are people you would have thought would be true right to the end. I was almost going to say true blue, but of course that would be a misnomer -- but true right to the end with their NDP friends. They are absolutely outraged at some of the things that are happening.

They applaud people like the member for Welland-Thorold, who says, "I'm going to stick up for what we said we were going to do." I don't happen to agree with the position on public auto insurance. I think it's absurd and ludicrous. We'll talk about that some other time, I'm sure, because they'll be back again trying to undo the damage they did with Bill 64. At least the member for Welland-Thorold said: "We had a position and we went to the people five times on it. Then when we got elected, what did we do? We abandoned that position."

Consider Bill 48 and the abandonment. We have the minister standing up and saying they're almost in tears, in fact basically crying in their seats, when they get up and vote for it; none the less, they don't have the courage of their convictions but for one minister, who said, "I'm going to stand by what I believe in and I'm going to vote my conscience and vote for the people who brought me here and the people I represent."

Day care: They are the people who say ideologically, "I want to wipe out day care," in the region of Peel right now putting home day care in jeopardy for people who really need it, people with special-needs kids, and that's because they're bound to this ideological conviction that there's something wrong with profit, that it's a dirty word.

I met somebody on Monday night who had no idea what I did, a gentleman who lived in Ontario for many years and is now operating a business in Hong Kong. He said to me, and I quote: "There's no way I will put another nickel into this province until we get rid of the Commie government. I'm better off investing in China, where I'm investing." Those were his words. He had no idea of the business I was in at the current time. That's indicative of the kinds of things I hear everywhere I go.

A local bartender, a gentleman who runs a pub and a bar, a strong supporter in Brampton of the New Democrats, still remains on the executive, says, "I wish there was some way we could get rid of the leadership and get the NDP back to what it used to be and why I committed myself to this party." He said to me, "McClelland, I'll do everything I can to defeat you in the next election, but I want to do it on the basis of an New Democratic Party that is truly a New Democratic Party."

Medical laboratories, efficiency, cost efficiency --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Profit.

Mr McClelland: And profit. Isn't that a terrible thing, I say to Mr Mills. "Profit": What a dirty word. Profit only drives the economy of this province, it only drives the opportunities that existed for you, sir, that brought you to immigrate to this country and this province and build a good life for yourself, and now you say "profit" is a dirty word.

The folly of the socialist ideological idiocy is: "We can make the experiment work in Ontario when it's failed everywhere else in the world. We'll drive people away, we'll drive investment away."

I say to the member for York Mills that I have a seven-year-old son and I fear for the future of him and kids like him in this province, because it will take decades to undo the nonsense that you have perpetrated on the people of this province.

You don't care about long-term care and the efficiencies that are available there, medical laboratories, because profit -- my God, profit has only worked and built one of the highest standards of living in the world for our province. It has drawn people, ironically, from other parts of the world, like yourself, sir, to come here, and then you throw it away with some ideological dismiss.

Casino gambling has just totally gone contrary to every position from the now Minister of Natural Resources, the former Attorney General, things that the Premier had said himself, and what do we have? We have one member who has the courage of his convictions to stand up and say, "I'm not going to put up with that." I'm not here to debate casino gambling; we'll have ample time to do that, I suppose, in the next week or two. The point is, again, another reversal. People are upset about that. They're angry.

Playing games with numbers and saying we're going to set up crown corporations is not really part of the deficit, playing games with the social contract and saying, "You're in, you're not in; $30,000 if you're under, but you're not under, and we'll change those roles and we're refer to the niceties of the act to manoeuvre things to our advantage."

Young physicians who have invested years of their life, women and men who have prepared to practise medicine in this province and whom the taxpayers have invested in, saying, "We're going to go to the job lottery at the Royal York Hotel and get out of this province because we're not welcome here and there's no future."

Budgets start out with a government that says, "First of all, we're going to spend our way out of the deficit." Then the next budget says, "We're going to balance it, a little bit of spend, a little bit of cut and slash." Then the next budget says, "A little bit of slash," a constant moving target.

The Waste Management Act says, "We will abandon all the principles that we ever had," and, ironically, try to go with the environment assessment reforms, at the same time throwing out that very process available to the people of Ontario.

You wonder why there's cynicism. It's not a matter of the ebb and flow of popularity, as my friend from Downsview says. Governments rise and they fall; I alluded to that in my earlier comments. The former Prime Minister was at an all-time low. He had an opportunity to go to the people, and the people, over the course of a campaign, came up with a decision and re-elected him with a majority.

This is an extraordinary remedy for extraordinary times and the extraordinary despondency that exists now in the province of Ontario. I can tell you, when I walk around my community, whether it be the emergency services at Peel Memorial Hospital that are in jeopardy at the current time, people are concerned. They want to make sure that they have it there, and they're concerned about the future of their children and the safety of their families.

I look at what happened with the development in my community, the Chinguacousy health care facility, ready to go, on the verge of being delivered, and pulled at the last minute by a government that now refuses to consider it. Notwithstanding their philosophical commitment to community health, community care, they're going to pull that one.

Look at day care, at the hundreds of women, primarily single women but some single men, who are depending on in-home child care that is at jeopardy and is being cancelled because of the impact of the social contract by this NDP government.

Think of long-term care, people who are getting bills now, and moms and dads who have made a family decision and are have been denied the option of going to the marketplace and looking at private sector care for them, because again, my friend from York Mills would say, "Profit, what a terrible thing," profit that has built one of the best places. We have essentially a sound infrastructure. It needs some work. We have essentially a sound educational system, but the point of fact is --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've listened to the member all morning and he hasn't said once how this bill would empower people any more than they're empowered now.

The Acting Speaker: It's not a point of order; it's a point of view.

Mr McClelland: In conclusion, as my friend has very cleverly taken off the last few seconds of my last minute, let me say this to the member for Downsview: The opportunity for people is this, the empowerment to people is this: When there is such despondency and despair and an absolute total lack of confidence, as there is, in the mismanagement and incompetence of the government of the day, it would provide people with an opportunity. If they were to overcome some relatively onerous provisions of the act to initiate a process that would give them an opportunity -- and people want that opportunity today.

Everywhere I go, everyone I speak to says, "Is there no way we can get rid of this disastrous government," and this bill would provide them with an opportunity to have a remedy.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for the second reading of Bill 59. We will deal further with this bill at 12 o'clock.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr David Johnson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Election Act / Loi modifiant la Loi électorale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Don Mills will have 10 minutes, after which every recognized party in the Legislature will have 15 minutes to debate. The honourable member for Don Mills will then have two minutes in response.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I don't think this matter may be as contentious as the previous one. Indeed, this private member's bill is a straightforward, simple amendment that I think we can all endorse. It simply extends the categories of those who can get a proxy vote during a provincial election to include the elderly, the disabled and those who are away on vacation.

It also extends the period of time during which a person can get a proxy vote. At present, bona fide electors who are qualified to receive a proxy vote can do so up until the day in advance of polling day, but on election day itself you cannot get a proxy vote. This bill would address that situation and would permit bona fide electors to receive a proxy vote on election day itself.

I think we would all agree that the most fundamental, the most basic, the most important right that we enjoy in our society here in the province of Ontario and here in Canada is the right to vote. Indeed, many Canadian citizens have fought, have served in the First World War, the Second World War and in Korea for this kind of right.

I have had the honour and the privilege to be a member of Branch 10, the Todmorden branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. Through my association with the legion members, I know not only of the suffering, the sacrifice and the hardships that took place during those wars, but I know of the great pride of the men and women who served and that they fought for the rights and the freedoms that we enjoy here within our country today: the rights and the freedoms of free speech, of worship and of course to vote and to select and choose a government that will set the policies and the decisions for the future of our country.

Through this voting process we are shaping our own future, and it's very important that we all be able to participate in this procedure.

It's ironic as well that many of the same people who value the right to vote, value the right to participate and indeed consider it beyond a right, consider it an obligation and feel that in fact they are not being a good citizen if they don't vote, are the ones who have the greatest difficulty or the greatest restrictions in terms of actually being able to get out and to vote. I'm speaking specifically of the elderly, the frail and the disabled.

I also wanted to note that after each election, the chief election officer prepares a report, and I have a copy of two of those most recent reports in my hand here at the present time. I have a copy of a report dated 1988 and a copy of a report dated 1991 from the chief election officer. In both of these reports, the CEO has reported on the proxy voting system and he has made recommendations through these reports with regard to the general election procedures, but specifically with regard to proxy voting.

I suppose we all know, but perhaps for the benefit of anybody who may be watching, proxy voting is the right of a bona fide elector who is not able to vote on election day to get someone else, another bona fide elector, to vote in that person's place. The Election Act does permit a number of different categories of proxy voting, even at the present time.

It still excludes some people but it does permit, for example, Canadian Forces members or their spouses or their families -- those who are bona fide electors -- to receive a proxy vote. If they're not able to be present, somebody else can vote in their stead. It permits those people employed in the business of long-distance travel, either by air or water or rail or motor vehicle, to vote by proxy. It permits people who are away on business to vote by proxy. It doesn't permit their spouses or their children, but the people themselves are able to vote by proxy.

It permits people who have medical problems to vote by proxy, although I'm not sure if the

interpretation of "medical reasons" is uniform across the province of Ontario, but at least there is that category. It permits students who are away at registered institutes to vote by proxy. It permits people in job training or retraining to vote by proxy. The interesting category -- and I'll come back to this a bit later, either in my remaining four minutes or in the subsequent 15 minutes -- is it permits people who are inmates in penal institutes or correctional institutes to vote by proxy.

Now, coming back to the chief electoral officer, I'm going to quote from his most recent report. He's indicated that "eligible electors who are unable to vote solely because no administrative mechanism has been devised to accommodate them are as effectively disenfranchised as persons to whom the legal right is denied." Basically what he's saying is, if you're an eligible voter, and because you're away or because of some physical restriction you are unable to get out and vote, then you have been denied that right to vote. In our society, that is not acceptable.

The chief election officer goes on to say, "The democratic principles interpreted in the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms support the elimination of administrative disenfranchisement where reasonably possible." Again, what he's saying here is, in a modern society we should do all we can to assist people to participate in the most important aspect of our society: to form government and determine how government is created. I believe my amendment is in that spirit.

I might say that, having talked with the chief election officer, he fully supports what I'm putting forward. In fact, he recommended that

section 17 of the act be amended to grant the right to vote by proxy to any elector with reason to believe that he or she will be unable to vote, both at the advance poll and at his or her regular polling place on election day. So the chief election officer is saying: "Throw out all the different categories. You shouldn't have to justify it on medical reasons. You shouldn't have to justify it because you're in the armed forces or any other specific reason. There should be any bona fide, valid reason whatsoever that you can't attend on voting day, you can't attend at the advance polls, and you should be able to get a proxy."

This recommendation, I might say, has been before this Legislature for some time but, I guess, in terms of priorities, it hasn't come to the top and it hasn't been implemented. My amendment doesn't quite go that far but it certainly does broaden the number of categories.

Inevitably, there are seniors and there are disabled people who will earnestly wish to vote but who, on election day, for whatever reason -- reasons of health, physical limitations, extremely bad weather -- will simply not be able to get out and vote.

In my municipality of East York -- I might say that I represented it until I came to this House -- over 16% of the population are 65 or over. This is Ontario of the future. In East York perhaps there is the highest proportion of senior citizens of any municipality in Ontario, but this will happen in all our municipalities as the years go by. We have an aging population and more and more we are going to have higher proportions of elderly people.

My 10 minutes are coming to an end. I'm simply going to say at this point, although I'll be commenting later, that our society is changing. There are needs of the elderly that need to be accommodated. I think this is one small step, this proxy vote for the elderly, that could be accommodated and I'll speak further to it later on in this period.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I am very proud to be able to participate in the debate of the private member's bill introduced by the member for Don Mills. I listened carefully to the points he raised, and I think he has some very valid points and concerns to ensure that we respect the rights of people to be able to vote, for example, people who are disabled or seniors. I believe he is very well intentioned to make sure that people have access to that vote, and it's an important point that he raises.

But I do have a problem with this private member's bill. When we really look at the bill, I think in the current situation it does not prevent people who are disabled or who are seniors from voting, so I think I'd like to clarify a couple of points.

I think the bill seems to give the right to people who are seniors or who are disabled that does not exist, but there is one line in the present act that enables people to have a proxy vote for people who for medical reasons are unable physically to go to polling places. That is 17(1)(d).

The elderly or disabled who cannot get around to go shopping or to movies or to visit relatives are already provided with the ability to vote by proxy, and now most polling places are accessible. However, if the polling place is not accessible, the same

section of the act then enables the voter to deal with the inaccessible polling station by the opportunity of proxy vote.

From my own experience within the riding of York East, I think most places are accessible. I have seen many seniors and many persons with disabilities who have been able to go out to the polling stations, and I think they have really made the places accessible.

Another point to make: I think the only group that really will be added to the list of those who are entitled to vote by proxy are people who are away because of personal travel plans, and I have a little bit of difficulty with that because we do have advance polls before election day, so that provides the opportunity for people to vote at them.

But if we're thinking in general, if we open up this process, I think the current act provides for proxy on any day, including the immediate day preceding polling day, then the polling day will be extended to include election day. I think what could result is that there would be additional administrative complexities at the polling station and it could increase the potential of fraud. That point is one that really concerns me.

As you know, there was the recent federal report released by the Conservative government and in the report -- I have the report here and I would just like to quote from it -- it's the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie commission. It recommends that the proxy vote be abolished, and the recommendation is 2.2.5(e), and it says, "Voting by special ballot." I think that's a recommendation that they make and this would be to reduce the potential of fraud: "A special process should be developed, one that can be administered well."

Clearly, the Election Act wants to ensure that people who are disabled or who are seniors have polling places that are accessible. I think we're looking at people who have disabilities who cannot get to the polling station for whatever reason. Because of illness or disability it is impossible for them to go to a polling station. Under clause 17(1)(

d) we do permit them to vote by proxy. For example, it's talking about deaf people, people who are in wheelchairs.

We're talking about the number of people who have disabilities, they have the ability to go to polling stations to vote, they are able to do that. So then why would we permit people with disabilities to be given the special treatment who can take advantage of the system in this way? We want the system to be fair. I think we have to maintain that question of fairness and the question of people having the same treatment.

We understand and recognize that people who are disabled or seniors who are very vulnerable or who are very ill and it's impossible for them to get out -- the act already permits them to have a medical certificate or they register with the election officer and then they are sensitive to the needs of those people and they are allowed to vote.

But I'm concerned that if we look at people specifically, because of their personal travel plans, who have difficulty -- but we do already take that into consideration by having the advance polls. I think we have to look at the administration of the voting, we have to look at the procedures, and if it becomes very complex or very open, we are leaving ourselves open to fraud.

Just to wrap up, I strongly believe that the member for Don Mills has very good intentions in the bill, a very caring person, to make sure that people with disabilities and seniors and other people do have access to use their right to vote. I think the intention is right and I support the intention or the principle, but I think the problem is with a very specific line where it's permitting persons who have personal travel plans to keep it a little bit open.

I think the current Election Act does not prevent people from having the opportunity because of illness or medical reasons; it does not prevent them from voting by proxy. I think the current act is very clear that it does not prevent people from this.

I wish to congratulate the member for Don Mills for the good intention behind the bill, but this is a point that I raise in the debate on this concern and I would be interested to hear the other members, and the member for Don Mills, convince me, if he perhaps could give some very specific, valid examples, so that I may be able to then reconsider my position.

I look forward to hearing more in the debate and I encourage the other members of government to listen to the points that are raised. I think perhaps we need a little more convincing on how people could benefit from this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on second reading of Bill 60. The honourable member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I'm certainly pleased to be able to stand in support of the bill presented by the member for Don Mills because I think it's very important. It's very important to encourage people to vote in all elections in the wonderful democracy that we have in this land.

I was pleased also to hear from the member for York East about the elections review commission and the proposals they are making, a special ballot. But the problem is, when will that be completed? When will action be taken on it? So it's an unknown length of time until the problems, as I see them, as responded to by this bill, will be faced and indeed solved.

While many citizens don't agree that we have a true democracy, and that's because of the restrictions, rules and regulations placed upon them by all levels of government, we certainly do have a democratic form of government where people can be nominated, can run for office, and some be elected. So those are important procedures, and in the election procedure it is important to include all and make possible access to all regardless of personal problems and disabilities.

Of course, once people are elected, we should take the opportunity to report back to our constituents on an ongoing basis and indeed be responsible to the constituency for some of the things that we stand for after being elected, as well as saying what we're going to stand for previously. That almost refers back to the previous bill, which I did not have an opportunity to speak to but certainly support and will be voting for.

This bill will provide additional access to the election process for many people, and that indeed is very important. Millions of dollars are spent by candidates, riding associations and governments to encourage people to vote, but the turnout is often very disappointing. In many cases people cannot go to the polls on election day; indeed cannot vote in the advance poll.

I found this out particularly in the by-election held March 5, 1992, in the riding of Brant-Haldimand, where many people were -- they weren't so upset that they couldn't vote for me; they were more upset at the fact that they wouldn't be able to vote in the election, and it was because of precommitted travel plans and various other things. So I think it behooves us to encourage eligible voters to vote in elections as much as possible.

On the rare occasion, as a locally elected municipal official, when I was confronted with statements by citizens that they didn't vote for me and probably wouldn't, but they didn't vote for me and that many others hadn't either -- in other words, I did not represent all the people -- I had to admit, and did on many occasions, that indeed I was elected by the majority of the minority of citizens who took the opportunity to vote. Wouldn't it be a real accomplishment in our society if indeed candidates were elected by the majority of the voters eligible to vote? That would be certainly an improvement.

Now, there is a Municipal Elections Act, of course, governing municipal elections, and it's interesting to note that proxy voting is much less restrictive there. I hasten to add that there are problems with that particular act that are being addressed by the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, as I understand it, at the present time, and so some changes will be coming forth. I realize the importance of wanting to provide proxy voting but also having it protected, that such a system cannot be abused. That's very important. So I think we'll see some change to that.

I recall that when I went to public school many years ago, we were required to take a course called civics. Civics was a course where we learned about the operation, responsibility and services of our federal government, of our provincial government and of our municipal governments. It was intensive, and of course the result of that course was to try to instil in every student the wonderful future opportunity to be able to vote for candidates of our choice to represent us in the various levels of government.

I think that's very important, and I understand there are some moves to go back to teaching those very important things. I hope that indeed is being pursued, because it's important in my view.

Indeed, many of the people who are unable to vote at the present time, and would be able to vote through the proxy system recommended by this bill, consider voting not only a right but an obligation. There are many people who feel very strongly about that. So I say let this House facilitate additional access to elections for the elderly, ill, disabled and those who have pre-committed travel plans, because that does happen for various reasons and they are not able to vote.

There are many other problems of course with elections and with the election procedures and ridings. One of the very confusing things I find in Ontario is when you talk to people about the riding in which they're situated. It's a very complicated system. In the provincial riding of Brant-Haldimand, parts of the riding are in four different federal ridings and three upper-tier governments plus two first nations governments. It is quite confusing. One riding goes east and west, another will go north and south and criss-cross. I think that's something that in the future we should be looking at in some way too.

I realize that's a big job, a task that would involve maybe changing the population bases for ridings, but it's particularly troublesome in rural areas because with both the province and the federal government, when there is a riding distribution, the large urban centres are allocated ridings first, the boundaries are set and then what's left over is fitted together in various jigsaw puzzle manners to form ridings. It is very confusing.

Indeed, the term "Brant-Haldimand" doesn't really represent in entirety the riding I serve, because I have the township of North Dumfries, which is in the region of Waterloo in the north, as well as the county of Brant and two first nations, as I've said, and part of the old county of Haldimand, which includes the town of Haldimand and the town of Dunnville.

It does make it very confusing, but of course, Mr Speaker, I want to assure you that I'm doing my best to make people realize that I am the member at the present time -- the current member, as someone termed it -- of that riding and doing my best to serve it, and that includes reporting back to the people and giving them the opportunity to speak their minds to me.

Coming back to the bill, and I have wandered a bit, I am pleased to support it because it was, I assure you, a particular problem in the by-election in my riding. I hope we will be able to correct that.

I appreciation the presentation by the member for Don Mills and encourage the House to support it. Let's get on with the change even though there may be some very good changes in amendments coming through from the elections review commission.

Another favourite subject of mine is the matter of the designated terms of members of this House, where we're called MPPs. I still get many letters addressed to me as MLA. It's unfortunate, I think, that the term wasn't corrected in legislation. It was simply a resolution in 1938 by the government of the day and the term was changed from MLA to MPP.

I understand that except in Newfoundland and Quebec, in all of the other provinces, except Ontario of course, the members of the provincial houses are members of the Legislative Assembly, and I must say there is considerable confusion. Many times, I have been introduced as "the MP" and the MPs in my area have on many occasions been introduced as MPPs, and I think there's confusion.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I just call you Ron.

Mr Eddy: That, of course, is what I hope most of my constituents would call me -- Ron or Eddy. It doesn't matter which when you have two first names.

It really is confusing to the general public to have those terms so close. I was researching the matter and found that indeed it was simply by resolution the change was made and not by legislation. I really think that we should proceed to determine the issue, and I would hope to see it changed. I found that several members over the years have attempted to make those changes but have not been successful. I'm hoping that will come forward.

Back to the bill again, I would say that I'm pleased that it has been presented, because it's one of the things that I would have liked to have had the opportunity to present myself. I think it's very important and it meets the problems of proxy voting for many people. I think that's important and I urge you to support it. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to rise in support of Bill 60, brought by my colleague the member for Don Mills, Mr Johnson.

It is indeed appropriate that we look at all possible ways to encourage greater participation in the democratic process. When we consider that in such countries as Italy, the Italian government mandates that everybody has to vote, I'm not suggesting that we adopt that kind of posture, but it shows how other countries deem it necessary to ensure that as broad a number of people as possible will vote. In fact, I remember that the Italian government used to send trains into Germany and Switzerland to get the so-called gastarbeiter to go and vote in their home town in general elections.

Any way that we can enhance the ability of people to vote should be considered. It may not be perfect, and I listened attentively to the member for York East commenting on perhaps the need to go to mail-in voting. Indeed, the advantage of mail-in voting would be that you would ensure that the person who had received the proxy would be voting the way you wished. I suppose if you don't have that trust level, that is always the concern.

In the meantime, this would be a very reasonable step to make sure that people who at the moment are not able to vote for various reasons, elderly persons particularly -- when I consider what happened in the by-elections which occurred in the springtime of this year, there were many elderly people who, in the particularly severe weather we had during that time, didn't feel they would be able to come out to vote. There were other people who, for health reasons and other personal reasons, were going on holiday down south because of the inclement weather, and this would allow them to exercise their franchise.

As to the whole question of people being away at the time of an election, it's reasonable for us to review that because nowadays we know that with the changes in work patterns, it isn't always possible to plan your holidays and then just simply change them because there's a general election going on. Even though you may very much want to cast your vote in the election, at the moment you are shut out from that process because we don't allow this.

Yet at the same time, we allow, under the present electoral rules, inmates in penal or correctional institutions who are not under sentence at that time to cast a vote through a proxy. It would seem only reasonable and fair that we'd extend that same principle to those people who, through disabilities or through their elderly age, cannot get out to vote or, alternatively, those people who cannot change their holiday or other travel plans.

I very much hope that the government members will vote in favour of this so that we can send this out to committee and then we'll be able to consider it. Indeed, the suggestions that Mr Malkowski was mentioning could be brought forward, I presume, as amendments at that time.

My own particular desire would be for us to look at a permanent voters list. A permanent voters list would have great advantages for the taxpayers and the government, both in this province and in Canada. We are facing, according to the newspapers, the very likely election date for the federal election of October 25, because on the following day the list which was prepared for the referendum last year will expire, and that would involve the expenditure of many millions of dollars to do a new enumeration.

When we consider the cost of enumeration, it is indeed massive and is often very inaccurate. The irregularities which have been regularly reported by all parties over the years about voters lists are something which we could address by having a permanent voters list. To the extent that governments collect data as to the eligibility of the citizens in that province to be able to draw certain benefits from the state, this demonstrates that we have the data, and with some relatively simple changes, we would be able to achieve a permanent voters list which would be (

a) more accurate and (

b) much less costly to the taxpayer.

At a time of desperate need for fiscal restraint, it would be a reasonable step for this government to contemplate, and that could be achieved through an amendment brought in if it was sent to committee, and indeed the discussions, as I have said, that Mr Malkowski, the member for York East, brought forward. These are all reasonable considerations that we should reflect on and allow to go forward in the best interests of the electorate and the taxpayer. Usually, the two are one and the same.

I applaud this amendment to the Election Act brought forward by my colleague. I would say that his concern is to make sure that the exercise of our democratic rights are ensured. They are fairly modest steps, but would ensure that we'd have a better chance of letting more people participate. I will be voting for this and I urge the government and the Liberals to vote along with this.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is a pleasure for me to rise and take

part in this debate this morning on the member for York Mills's bill, Bill 60. I must say that I am in agreement with anything that affords people the right to vote.

There are one or two flaws in it. As most times when private members' bills are presented in this House in the morning, there are flaws. The only flaw that I can see is that the only group that is being truly added to the list of those entitled to vote by proxy at the moment are people with travel plans. I would think that would include the snowbirds, but any government that calls an election when the snowbirds are down south has got to have rocks in its head, so I don't know.

Anyway, I feel that the right to vote is precious, very precious to us, and it's unfortunate that not enough of us in this country realize how precious that is. I have this idea in my head -- it might not go over very well -- but I would like to see that when you go to the polls to vote, the elections officer, the table officer, pulls off a bit at the bottom of your thing, hands it back to you, and then you can attach that to your income tax and you can get a rebate because you participated in the process. That might seem a bit draconian to some people, but I think it would encourage people to vote.

As I said before, voting to me is precious. I was brought up in England in a place called Brighton, in Sussex-by-the-Sea, and my dad was a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I can tell you that in our House the privilege of taking

part in an election, the privilege of voting, was uppermost in our minds all day. We used to have a family prayer before every meal, every day. Goodness knows, it's 60-odd years ago now, but I can remember my dad burying his face in his hands and praying for the defeat of the Tory party in England. It wasn't until 1945 when Winston Churchill was booted out and Clement Attlee became the Prime Minister that our prayers were answered.

Mr Turnbull: That was the beginning of the demise of Britain.

Mr Mills: I'm going to talk through you, Mr Speaker. We were brought up in my family to respect that preciousness, that being able to vote is so vital to the whole framework of the country we live in and the country I used to live in.

The municipal council was run by Tories in Brighton. They ran everything: They were the federal, they were all over the place like flies. Come election day, we used to champ at the bit: "Let's get to the polls. Let's round people up. Let's get them to vote." I was only a boy at the time, knocking on doors: "Please vote, please vote." Unfortunately, we would end the day just absolutely played out and my father was absolutely exhausted. Then we'd hear the results coming in. We'd sit there, and my dad would say, "Son, how come we keep losing? There's more of us than there is of them. What's gone wrong with the system?" And I used to really feel bad about that.

Anyway, the member's bill is very encouraging. I'm going to speak to the bill; I know he's getting edgy over there that I'm wandering off the bill and reminiscing. I'm going to support the bill. I'm going to support anything that encourages Canadians to take

part in the democratic process. If this needs some refinement, if we have to have some discussion to make it possible, so be it, because we cannot do enough to encourage voters to vote in the municipal elections, in the federal elections and in the provincial elections.

I've got a little bit of time left. One of my colleagues wants to say a few words.

To you, sir, I will be supporting. I applaud your effort and I'm wholeheartedly behind absolutely anything that would encourage Ontarians to take

part in the democratic process.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments and, might I add, in a not trite or offhand way to Slugger Johnson, to pay tribute to his athletic prowess in a very worthy cause, for cystic fibrosis. I know this is probably not particularly in order, but I couldn't help but make reference to his outstanding accomplishment last Saturday.

I want to join my colleagues in paying tribute to and indeed thanking the member for Don Mills for his thoughtful bill put before the House today. I think it's the kind of amendment that makes the process more user-friendly. Ultimately, people want to participate, and sometimes, through a variety of circumstances entirely beyond their control, they are unable to participate in the most fundamental right of parliamentary democracy: to cast their ballot.

It's one of those things that many people would perhaps dismiss as a housekeeping measure. I think it's much more than that. The member for Don Mills, who has had a distinguished career of public service, is saying that he wants, in the early months of his service in this place, I must say, to provide something in a very positive way for people across this province to continue the opportunity of participating when circumstances would otherwise prohibit them from doing that.

I think it sends more than the particular message. The particular message and the particular provisions of the bill are very, very important, but it sends a message as well. The message is this: It's important for people to participate.

We have our battles in here all the time. Some of it is political rhetoric -- let's be honest about that -- and some of it is fundamental disagreement about philosophical or policy positions, but the one thing I think we all share, or we wouldn't be here, and I say this to all 130 members who are in this House from whatever extreme position they might have politically on the right, left, centre or wherever they fit, is that we believe in the system or we wouldn't be here and we believe we need to have people involved.

I've heard so many of my colleagues say, "Even if you disagree with me, get involved and vote." To the member for Don Mills, you've extended that opportunity to more people, and for that he's to be applauded.

The Acting Speaker: The government members have a very short amount of time.

Mr Huget: I'd like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the member for Don Mills for bringing the bill forward.

The bill on its surface appears to give rights to, for example, elderly and disabled persons in the province that they currently don't have. I think that's an inaccurate reflection of our present act, because there is already in place a proxy voting procedure for people who, for example, for medical reasons are physically incapable of attending a polling place. They can already cast a vote by proxy.

When you look at the bill, although the elderly and disabled are mentioned in the bill, the only group I can see which, truthfully, is being added in terms of a proxy vote are those with personal travel plans. I think one could have quite a lengthy debate as to whether or not that's an issue that needs to take the same priority, for example, as elderly and disabled persons. There is and currently exists in our system an advance polling mechanism that would allow people to vote in advance should they be away on election day.

It's interesting to note, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, that the Lortie commission has recommended that the proxy vote be abolished altogether and replaced with a special ballot.

I feel this bill will cause a few more problems than it'll solve, and I won't be supporting it.

Mr David Johnson: I would certainly like to, first of all, thank all those who've participated in the debate, the member for Sarnia -- I'll come back to him in a minute -- the member for Brampton North in particular. He is one of the people who caught the essence of what I'm attempting to do here today; perhaps not doing it as well as I should. He used the term "user-friendly." Those are two words that came to me as I was contemplating this bill.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, to make the system easier for people to vote, because we want people to participate, and I think the member for Durham East has said this as well. We want to do anything we can to encourage Canadians to vote, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do and all I'm trying to do: to make the system more friendly, more available for people to participate.

I thank my colleague the member for York Mills. As usual, he's got some excellent ideas, different ideas. He brought in the international scene. If this bill is put forward to committee, many of his ideas could be looked at.

The member for Brant-Haldimand has a great deal of experience, as usual, and brings in a number of ideas. I've often wondered whether we were called an MPP or an MLA myself, but perhaps we can get that straightened out.

The members for York East and Sarnia have indicated that really what we've got here is already accommodated within the existing bill. I'm just going to read you a letter that I got after my by-election recently. The letter says, and this is from one of my people, one of my scrutineers, I guess:

"During the final hours of voting I was busy phoning a number of known PC supporters," naturally, because we're the PC Party, but think to yourself and substitute "Liberal" or "NDP," if you wish, "who were enumerated but had not voted. Several, four at least, pleaded that they were taken too ill to come down to the polling booth located in their apartment building." They were too ill to come down. These were elderly people. "These invalids" -- and he names a certain gentleman -- "seemed to live alone.

I was advised by the PC lawyer that the only way these no-shows could vote was by the usual proxy," the usual proxy that has to be organized at least a day in advance, and we're talking here of election day itself. "I was also advised that it takes some hours, if not days, to arrange a proxy. Hence the PC supporters I referred to were disenfranchised. This is surely a violation of their human rights and one day could be a cause for legal action."

I don't know if there'd be legal action or not, but I think the point is there. Yes, we've made strides for the disabled; yes, we've opened up the polling areas. But there are people, for example, who may have an arthritic attack on the day of the election, and it's too late; they cannot arrange a proxy on that particular day. They would have had to have done it before. The other part of the bill that I'm introducing today, in addition to formally including seniors, the disabled and those who go away on vacation, is to allow them to get that proxy on the day in question.

Then the concern comes up: "What about fraud? People will abuse this system." Bear in mind again that we're trying to make a user-friendly system; we're trying to get Canadians to come out and vote. But what about fraud? The chief election officer says that's a concern that does come up but in actual fact is not borne out. It's something that people are always concerned about, but it's never borne out.

He says: "The existing act prevents any person from voting by proxy on behalf of more than two electors" -- and his wording is a bit unusual here -- "and establishes a number of corrupt practices relating to abuse of proxy rights. These provisions should be sufficient to regulate expanded proxy entitlement."

What he's saying is that we should expand the proxy entitlement, that we can handle any potential fraud or abuse, and the basic thing we should do is to make this system more friendly and more accessible to people who have a legitimate excuse for not being there and not being able to vote: Let them have a proxy.

I might say that the issue of travel plans comes up as well. This is part of the amendment. Again this is trying to be user-friendly, trying to recognize that in our society today people do travel, people go away; people go away for a month. Somebody said "snowbirds" earlier today. Snowbirds go away for two or three months. As a matter of fact, I've had people come to me after the by-election we had in April. They went south. I was the mayor of East York. There was no by-election even contemplated.

They spent some time down south, and when they came back I was a member of provincial Parliament or MLA -- one or the other; whichever the member says we should call it -- and there was a new mayor. The whole process had taken place, and they were shocked and they wondered what happened: "How come you're no longer mayor? Why are you a member of the provincial Parliament?"

Mr McClelland: We're wondering the same thing over here.

Mr David Johnson: All right. The point is that the proxy system wouldn't help those people. But there are other people who take shorter periods of time, who arrange their vacations with their spouse, with their children, and then they're put in an awkward spot. What do they do when an election comes up? Do they cancel their vacation? Do they disappoint their spouse and their children? Or do they miss their opportunity to vote and to participate in the decision-making and forming the next government? That's a difficult place to be in.

If we get back to those words "user-friendly," we would like to create a system where they could get a proxy. It's valid. They're not abusing the system. It's not fraud. It's legitimate. This is something the chief election officer has indicated. A lot of those people say: "Look, I planned this vacation for months in advance. I'm a bona fide elector. I've lived here. I've paid taxes for years and years. I want to have a say in my government, but I can't cancel my vacation. A prisoner in a correctional institution or a penal institution can get a proxy, but I can't get a proxy." They say something's wrong with the system and something should be changed.

That's a concern that comes up time and time again, along with the concern for seniors, the disabled, who may not fit within the medical category that exists at the present time, and certainly there are different

interpretations there.

I would just say that this is only intended to be a bill to encourage Canadians to participate, to vote, and I hope all three parties could support it and we could get it to the proper legislative committee and get on with it. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member still has some time.

Mr David Johnson: All right. In the final two minutes, I'll just mention that one other concern that has come up is in terms of the administrative problems that are associated with this. I just want to assure the members that I've talked to Mr Bailie, who is the chief election officer. This is the way I like to do things: I like to talk to the people who are going to be responsible for implementing this sort of thing. He says the administrative problems can be handled and he is recommending that indeed we go ahead and do this.

The last point I would make is that to make this user-friendly, the way I would like to see this system work and I think the way it could work is that on election day itself, if a senior citizen has an arthritic attack and can't get out to vote, right then and there on that day, a form could be brought to them. Any one of the three parties, I'm sure, or any one of the candidates would be more than happy to bring a form. The form could be filled in, the person who is going to vote the proxy could take that form right that same day to the polling location, could have the form validated right then and there on election day and vote, all in the same motion.

This would be a very streamlined process, it would be a process that the chief election officer said can work and it would be extremely user-friendly. I think it would involve people who are currently disenfranchised, and I hope it's something this House will consider.

The Acting Speaker: This completes private members' business.

RECALL ELECTION REQUEST ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉCLENCHEMENT D'ÉLECTIONS PAR PÉTITION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will deal first with ballot item number 23 standing in the name of Mr McClelland. Are there any members opposed to a vote on this ballot item? If so, please rise in your place.

All those in favour of Mr McClelland's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. We are dealing with ballot item 23, standing in the name of Mr McClelland.

All those in favour of Mr McClelland's motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the table.

Ayes

Callahan, Caplan, Cunningham, Eddy, Fawcett, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, McClelland, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr McClelland's motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Cooper, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Fletcher, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Kormos, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Waters, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 12; the nays are 38. I declare the motion lost.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We now proceed to deal with ballot item number 24. Do we have any members opposed to a vote on this ballot item? If so, please rise. Ballot item 24 stands in the name of Mr Johnson.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Johnson's motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1213 to 1218.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Can I have all members take their seats. We are now dealing with ballot item number 24, standing in the name of Mr Johnson, the member for Don Mills.

All those in favour of Mr Johnson's motion, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Cunningham, Drainville, Eddy, Fawcett, Johnson (Don Mills), Kormos, Kwinter, Malkowski, McClelland, Mills, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Rizzo, Stockwell, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Johnson's motion, please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Waters, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 20; the nays are 31. I therefore declare the motion lost.

This completes private members' business. I do now leave the chair to return at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1222.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On January 27, 1992, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario became the first in Canada to ban its doctors from performing female circumcision. Unfortunately, this ban has not ended the practice and procedure in Ontario. Ontario doctors are reporting cases of female patients who have had circumcisions performed on them.

Female circumcision varies in degree of mutilation involving surgical removal of the female's external genitalia. This procedure can lead to a range of medical problems, from vaginal infection to death in childbirth.

I understand the cultural sensitivities that female circumcisions involve. However, when the college announced its ban it stated, "These procedures are not based on religious beliefs."

Last month in Vienna, the United Nations held a conference on human rights. Ed Broadbent was one of many who participated in the conference and listened to women tell their horror stories of abuse. It was found that the abuse of women has too long been dismissed as private, family, cultural or religious.

In Ontario today, I'm asking the Attorney General, also the minister responsible for women's issues, to take action. The CPSO has led the way; it's now your turn, Minister. The practice of female circumcision should be declared illegal and punishable by law. We must stop parents from having their young girls circumcised. I believe that with the cooperation of the federal government, the mutilation of young girls can be stopped. This is clearly child abuse. By changing the attitudes of Ontarians through laws and education, we can stop this form of child abuse.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This afternoon I will be presenting a petition containing more than 1,500 names which petitions the region and the province of Ontario to immediately invoke and follow the jury recommendations arising out of the death of Laurie Brain which occurred on the Conestoga expressway in Kitchener and, more particularly, for the installation of median guard-rails and reconstruction of the roadway to make it safe for the travelling public of Ontario.

This petition was organized by Brock Cober, Rob Huber, Jonathan Weatherdon, three of the friends of the two young men killed in the June 15 cross-median accident on the Conestoga Parkway, and it is being done in loving memory of the seven people who have been tragically killed since 1990. I congratulate and support these young men in their efforts to persuade the minister to adopt the jury recommendations to build these barriers now before any more deaths occur.

They are supported in this endeavour by Waterloo council, who have unanimously approved a motion calling for the reallocation of the money intended for sound barriers to the installation of median safety barriers. The Waterloo County Board of Education has also written to the minister asking for the immediate installation of median barriers.

I urge the Minister of Transportation not to wait until 1996. Please respond to these pleas from the families and friends of those who have been killed and from the citizens of Kitchener-Waterloo and act immediately to install median barriers on the Conestoga Parkway.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Bill 48 was introduced to allow public sector employers and workers across the province to negotiate agreements following the principles of the social contract. It also includes measures that will permit the government to meet its target of reducing compensation costs.

This government is committed to saving $2 billion in public sector compensation costs over the next three fiscal years. This, together with the additional $4-billion cut in government spending and $2.7 billion in revenue increases, will ensure that Ontarians will not see a massive transfer of its wealth from education and health care to interest on a monstrous debt.

The Liberals were obsessed with not allowing the NDP to be seen as champions of the public purse. Leader Lyn McLeod insisted she supported the principle of Bill 48, but nitpicked on technicalities in an attempt to woo votes from discontented public sector employees. Tory leader Mike Harris became offended when the government voted down his proposed amendments that attacked low-income workers, and when he thought there was a possibility of forcing an election, he cast the principles of the legislation aside to give precedence to forcing that election.

The Liberals and Tories are unable to accept the fact that this NDP government is proving its ability to govern and is leading the way in showing them how to save money. In a recent

article in the Hamilton Spectator, freelance columnist Eric Dowd wrote, "Rae is a cut above the critics." Eric, you're spot on.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to announce the release of a discussion paper which I have produced with the support of my Liberal colleagues concerning the critical state of Ontario's forest industry and the individuals and communities that depend upon its strength for their survival.

It is no coincidence that since the NDP assumed power, the forest industry in many communities in northern and eastern Ontario has suffered considerable financial and employment losses. While it is true that the global recession has hit Ontario's resource industries particularly hard, the NDP has magnified the losses of the forest industry by proposing regulations and implementing policies that have stifled investment and saddled the industry with unprecedented production costs.

Interestingly, we have heard nothing from the government's forestry industry action group. To date, a task force that was presumably designed to assist in meeting the serious economic challenges confronting the forest industry and many northern and eastern communities in this province has not been heard from.

The focus of our discussion paper is on promoting sustainability; that is, sustainable forestry practices and sustainable jobs in communities that depend upon the forest industry. We have taken this initiative because of the tremendous void left by the Rae government in addressing this important issue.

Ultimately, we hope that through this undertaking we can generate enough discussion around this important issue to wake up the Minister of Natural Resources and have him take action to ensure that the forest industry remains a vital and integral component of the economic development of this province.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Since its election in September 1990, the Bob Rae NDP government has repeatedly attacked seniors.

In 1991, the NDP restricted OHIP coverage for seniors who travel to warmer climates for health reasons. In 1992, they reduced the seniors' tax grant, then changed it to a tax credit that is received by lower-income seniors only. The NDP also increased probate fees. On an estate of $500,000, probate fees have risen from $2,500 to $7,000. The NDP Minister of Finance hasn't ruled out the possibility of introducing estate and wealth taxes.

Last year, the Bob Rae government removed several drugs from the list of medications which are free to seniors under the Ontario drug benefit program. This year, the drug program is under attack again. Soon many seniors will have to pay for their own prescriptions.

One of the most punishing NDP measures is a new user fee for long-term care in residential facilities. This fee, which came into effect on July 1, 1993, can be as high as $12 a day, or $372 a month. The NDP government has failed to consider the PC Party's suggestion that the fee increase at least be phased in over four years.

The NDP has also switched to multiple-year drivers' licences, which require seniors to pay up front for six years' fees at once, even though they may not be able to drive for six more years.

Enough is enough. Seniors have already paid their fair share. They do not deserve this assault by the Bob Rae socialist government.

GRIMSBY ROTARY CLUB

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to the Grimsby Rotary Club. This group recently raised $1,000 towards the $3,000 cost of purchasing a new tracking dog for the Niagara Regional Police. The new dog, a German shepherd named Saint, replaces a police dog killed in the line of duty last summer. Saint's arrival means there is presently a dog on duty every night in the Niagara region.

While Saint is not trained to track explosives or narcotics, he can track suspects, lost people or stolen property. He is also trained to protect his master, Constable Scott Johnston, from potential harm.

Saint is worth a lot more than his purchase price. He's now valued at more than $40,000 because of his advanced training. I'd say that puts him up there with many of our university graduates.

According to police, this is the first time a local service club has helped offset the cost of a police dog, but it's likely not the last. Other rotary clubs in the Niagara region are considering making fund-raising an ongoing project. I would like to congratulate the Grimsby Rotary Club for doing a doggone good job of helping keep the streets of Niagara safe.

RODNEY JOHNSTON

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On behalf of the official opposition, the Liberal caucus, I would like to congratulate Mr Rodney Johnston of Ajax, Ontario, on being named 1992 firefighter of the year.

On March 25 of this year, Mr Johnston performed a singular feat of bravery which saved the lives of two people. On his way home from his shift at the fire station that night, Mr Johnston observed that a neighbourhood house was on fire. After contacting police, he entered and searched the house, finding two men and helping them out. Mr Johnston did this without breathing apparatus or protective equipment, in life-threatening conditions.

Mr Johnston's efforts and dedication in this instance were indeed heroic. I'm informed that the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs will honour him at its annual meeting in Quebec City in August. We join with them and the sponsor of the award, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in congratulating Mr Johnston.

This award is an important way of recognizing the very real danger in which Mr Johnston placed himself on that night. More generally, it is a reminder to us of the countless other incidents where firefighters and police across Ontario have put themselves at physical risk to help and protect others.

Today, our hats are off to Mr Johnston and to the thousands of men and women in the province who perform the often unseen duties involved in fire and police service.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): To the Premier and to the Minister of Finance, I suggest that your treatment of the Metro Toronto school board under the social contract legislation is unconstitutional. Provinces do not have the power to impose indirect taxes. Your demand that Metro send you a cheque for $93 million is precisely that; it is nothing more than property taxation through the back door.

There is no question that people are willing to do their part to fight the deficit and to support quality education, but Metro property taxpayers are already doing their part. They are taxed to the hilt. The fallout from the social contract is that the government will have the power to control wages, to disregard legal contracts, negotiated wage agreements and even our nation's Constitution.

Treasurer, we've seen your targets for achievable savings shift from day to day, just as the numbers about the savings needed and the size of the deficit fluctuate on a daily basis. Come clean with us, Mr Premier. If you intend to have province-wide pooling of education taxes, tell us that. Have the courage to make it an election issue, but don't bring it in through the back door.

This money belongs to Metro property taxpayers and not to the province. The Metro Toronto school board does not receive any transfer payments from the province and it is unfair to request that money that has never been paid in the first place by the province be given to the provincial government to pay for its incompetence.

TOUCHSTONE YOUTH SERVICES

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On Saturday, July 17, I was very happy to participate in a fund-raiser for Touchstone Youth Services. Myself, along with Reverend James Garland of St Luke's Church and also Reverend Ian Noseworthy from St Cuthbert's Church, as well as a host of other volunteers, flipped hamburgers and hot dogs on the barbecue at the corner of Bayview and Merton.

East Yorkers were quite generous in their support. All in all it was a successful event, a beautiful day, and the cooks made some of the best burgers and dogs I've ever tasted.

The proceeds go to Touchstone Youth Services, which is a shelter for homeless youth. Located in York East, Touchstone serves Metro Toronto youths 16 to 20 years of age. They provide shelter, food and counselling and, most importantly, an alternative to the street.

Although the need for emergency shelter for young people in East York was first documented several years ago, the community's struggle to establish a centre was only attained when Touchstone finally opened its doors in September 1991. Thanks to the concerned efforts of our community and the staff of Touchstone, our young people have an opportunity to improve their circumstances.

Young people have much to offer, a lot to contribute. Let's support them.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today the CBC Radio Noon phone-in topic is to have callers call in on their vacations and what their vacations are like, why they like where they are on their vacations. This is a hard-hitting call-in show today. There are still 15 minutes left. I don't know if any members of the Legislature would like to call Radio Noon to tell them about the vacation that members of the Legislature are enjoying today.

The Speaker: I don't think the honourable member wants me to comment on that. It's not a point of order, though it is a point of great interest to many.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm somewhat disappointed with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who didn't make a statement today, who will be introducing legislation for first reading on the Ottawa-Carleton review.

I think this is very unfair when we have to sit in this House in July and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is in Ottawa making a major announcement and no minister without portfolio, the parliamentary assistants, even the minister responsible for the Ottawa-Carleton area, is making a statement or at least saying something about the Ottawa-Carleton review.

The Speaker: To the member for Ottawa East: I can indeed handle points of order, but points of disappointment I am not able to assist you on.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Labour. He will probably be aware that this morning our public accounts committee attempted to deal with last week's report by the Provincial Auditor on the Workers' Compensation Board building. That report was a very damning report.

But this morning, Minister, as I'm sure people have told you, the government members on that committee stonewalled. They passed a motion that said essentially we would not be dealing with this until 1996. The motion says, "That the standing committee on public accounts return to the issue of the WCB's new headquarters after the WCB has reported back to this committee in 1996...."

The opposition members then tried to get a motion passed that would allow us to have before us the chair of WCB to answer some very serious questions. The government members stonewalled. They refused to allow the discussion to go ahead on the report.

My question to the minister is this: Will the minister undertake to the House today to assure us that you will instruct the government members on your committee to allow a full and open discussion of this report that has been prepared by the Provincial Auditor on WCB's building?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The government is complying with the recommendation in the report that states, "In early 1996 the WCB should report back to the standing committee on public accounts detailing all costs associated with the relocation." That is in fact what we have every intention of doing.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): What a joke. That is really a joke.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Brampton South.

Mr Phillips: I can't tell you how angry, among other things, the Provincial Auditor was. I've never seen a Provincial Auditor who expressed such outrage as the Provincial Auditor did this morning in the refusal of this government to permit a full and open discussion on the report. Believe me, this will not be allowed to stand, Minister. It is time for you to step in and to ensure that the public accounts committee, the committee of the Legislature that is designed to deal with specific issues like this, is allowed to deal with it thoroughly and openly.

The only conclusion -- I say this as sincerely as I can -- that the public can reach as they listen to the debate this morning is that for some reason or other the government doesn't want a full and open discussion on this. So I repeat what I said earlier: Will you undertake today to ensure that the public accounts committee will have a full, open discussion involving the senior people at Workers' Compensation Board, so that we can get to the heart of the matter on this very damning report on Workers' Compensation Board's new building?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The issue of the new WCB building has been public from the beginning. Our members on the public accounts committee voted in favour of having the Provincial Auditor do a report on the building, and I might say that the committee held two days of public testimony on the building and there was ample opportunity for members to question the Workers' Compensation Board on the reasons for proceeding with the building.

Mr Phillips: I assure you that the public will not allow this not to be debated in a full and open discussion by the all-party legislative committee, and you may try and stonewall this, but it will not be allowed to stand. I assure you of that. I will say again that the auditor's report could not have been more damning, and it is littered with significant concerns about Workers' Compensation Board's decision to locate this building and to build this building.

Surely, recognizing the significant concerns, recognizing that the Provincial Auditor wants an opportunity to have a full and open hearing on this, recognizing that Workers' Compensation Board just today issued, I think, a 51-page report that the committee has had no chance to have an open discussion on, I repeat to you again and I would urge you to carefully consider your answer: Will you undertake to the Legislature today to ensure that the government majority on that committee will allow for a full, open discussion quickly?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are following the advice given to us in the report. There have been hearings on this. The member knows it. I don't know where he was when the hearings were held in the committee on the WCB building.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): My question is to the designated Deputy Premier, I think, of the day. I would ask the acting Deputy Premier if she would outline the provisions for the government's expenditure control plan for last fiscal year, including the measures taken to ensure that there were not overexpenditures made by government ministries on a last-minute