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

October 26, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Oct-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 26 October 2006 Jeudi 26 octobre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY

IMPROVEMENT ACT

(HIGHWAY 17), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE L'AUTOROUTE

TRANSCANADIENNE (ROUTE 17)

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY

IMPROVEMENT ACT

(HIGHWAY 17), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE L'AUTOROUTE

TRANSCANADIENNE (ROUTE 17)

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

WORLD PSORIASIS DAY

WATER QUALITY

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS

MAC CUDDY

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

REPORT, OFFICE OF

THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

JUSTICE SYSTEM

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW /

PERSPECTIVES ÉCONOMIQUES

ET REVUE FINANCIÈRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

HYDRO RATES

BROWNFIELD SITES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

EDUCATION

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

HOME CARE

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 26

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

CHILD CUSTODY

LONG-TERM CARE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SPRING BEAR HUNT

LANDFILL

SCHOOL FACILITIES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND

SERVICE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 DU MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

SUR LA MODERNISATION DES SERVICES

ET DE LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY

IMPROVEMENT ACT

(HIGHWAY 17), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE L'AUTOROUTE

TRANSCANADIENNE (ROUTE 17)

Mr. Orazietti moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 149,

An Act respecting the improvement of Highway 17, part of the TransCanada Highway / Projet de loi 149, Loi ayant trait à l'amélioration de la route 17, qui fait

partie de l'autoroute

transcanadienne.

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

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I am pleased to enter into debate on Bill 149, the TransCanada Highway Improvement Act, referring to the Highway 17 portion of the Trans-Canada across

northern Ontario, because it's incredibly important to thousands of people in northern Ontario and, if passed, will have very real benefits for the entire province.

Bill 149 proposes federal-provincial discussions for the development of a plan for the improvement of the Highway 17 portion of the Trans-Canada Highway to enhance the regional economy and improve public safety.

The plan should include not only designated areas to be four-laned but other improvements such as additional passing lanes, paved shoulders, rest stops, and what are referred to as rumble strips, the indented pattern of asphalt on the side of the

road that helps to alert drivers when they are too close to the shoulder of the road. This has proven to save lives.

have this morning, my comments will focus on why this bill is important to northern Ontarians and to the province as a whole and why the federal government should play a role in supporting these improvements. While we all know that highways are a

provincial responsibility, there is substantial historical precedent when it comes to those links in Ontario, and in all provinces for that matter. That says the federal government, in the context of national interest, is at the table, and I'll

elaborate on this later.

In particular, I want to talk about the economic importance of the Trans-Canada, the importance of improving safety, accessing services, and the cost sharing component of the bill.

First, I think it's probably helpful to clarify a few important facts about the Trans-Canada. The Trans-Canada Highway is the world's longest national road, extending 7,821 kilometres from Victoria to St.

opened in 1962 by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, although it wasn't completed until 1971. The total length of the Trans-Canada Highway 17 portion from the Manitoba border to Quebec through Ontario is 2,081 kilometres, and of that portion, only

191 kilometres, or about 10%, is four-laned.

If you compare this to New Brunswick, 80% of the Trans-Canada is four-laned, and it's expected to be fully completed by November 1, 2007. In the province of Saskatchewan, 91% of the highway is four-laned, and

the entire

section is expected to be completed in 2007. In Manitoba, 90% of the highway is four-laned, and construction is ongoing to complete the four-laning. In Quebec, nearly the entire Trans-Canada Highway from the Ontario border to the New

Brunswick border is four-laned. The point is, the longest

section of un-four-laned Trans-Canada Highway is in northern Ontario, and it's a

section of the Trans-Canada that helps to link the entire country.

One of the primary reasons for introducing the bill, certainly of significant concern to all constituents across this province, is safety. While Ontario has the safest roads in North America, even one collision,

one fatality, is too many. Regrettably, people are dying on this highway. Every year there's an average of 488 accidents, with 839 people injured, on the Trans-Canada. Even more unfortunate, an average of 39 people lose their lives each year. As

anybody who has driven it will tell you, when you combine some of the heaviest snowfall in Ontario with oncoming traffic and unpaved shoulders, there's not much of a margin for error and you certainly increase the risk of an accident.

In addition, as members of this House know, there are many health services, as an example, that are concentrated in two regional centres in northern Ontario, Thunder Bay and Sudbury, and if you can't get the

services there, you may need to travel to Toronto, London or Ottawa. The difference is that the distances are much greater, so the cost is much greater to residents. Even in Sault Ste. Marie, which has better access to health care than many other

northern communities, being on the Trans-Canada, residents, many of whom are elderly, travel three hours to receive radiation therapy in Sudbury on what is mostly a two-lane highway. It's like saying to someone, depending on where you live in the

GTA, "You'll receive your radiation therapy in Kingston or Windsor."

My vision for the north is to see a much more modernized Trans-Canada Highway with improved safety measures outlined in this bill that will ultimately lead to a four-lane divided highway. To achieve this, what

we really need is a much greater level of federal involvement.

Another important reason for introducing this bill is to support and expand the economy of northern Ontario, which benefits us all. Each year, 342,000 commercial trips are taken across Highway 17. That's an

average of 938 trips a day shipping valuable consumer goods and commodities that are vital to the north and the province. The annual value of goods travelling across Highway 17 is over $1.2 billion worth of forestry products alone, and up to $14

million a day of furniture, pulp and paper, lumber and other products. In the mining sector, almost $1.5 billion worth of metals and minerals travel across our highway in the north, the Trans-Canada. During high volumes, there's almost $12 million

a day being moved on the Trans-Canada of those goods alone. Nine billion dollars worth of manufacturing products are also shipped on 17. On high-volume days, it's almost $7.5 million.

Major companies such as Algoma Steel, St. Marys Paper, Flakeboard and Tenaris in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie contribute significantly to the volumes of goods on our highways and to our economies. Some $1.4

billion worth of transportation products in terms of vehicles that Ontarians drive are shipped across Highway 17 in northern Ontario.

It's clear that the Highway 17 portion of the Trans-Canada is a vital economic link, not only for northern Ontarians but for all Ontarians and for Canadians. Recently, the federal government announced millions

of dollars for a new container ship port in Prince Rupert. This is a positive infrastructure development step. The port is being built to take advantage of the expected 10% annual increase in container cargo shipments expected to reach North

America from Pacific Rim countries. In fact, China's exports to North America are expected to double by 2020.

The new infrastructure in Prince Rupert represents tremendous prospects for Canada and certainly northern Ontario. We need to increase our capacity on our highways to take advantage of these new opportunities.

We know that border congestion in Ontario costs us over $5 billion a year. Places like Sault Ste. Marie, on an under-utilized border crossing with increased east-west shipments, are well positioned to handle this growth. The Trans-Canada

improvements are critical.

The question is, how many more businesses, how many more job opportunities, how much more would be contributed to the province's economy with improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario? I would

suggest it's substantial.

would share in the costs of constructing a national highway. The bill stated that the federal government would reimburse the provinces for 50% of the cost for any portion built between 1928 and the date of the legislation, which was 1950. The

Federal contributions to our country's major highways continue today through SHIP, the strategic highway infrastructure program, but it's well below the historic level of support. The SHIP agreement has provided

$485 million throughout Canada since 2001. In comparison, our government has committed $843 million on northern highways alone since 2004-05. A study done by the Canadian Automobile Association found that the federal government currently only pays

for 7% of Trans-Canada Highway improvements, a far cry from the historic 50%.

Similar examples could be cited when it comes to the US interstate system. We know that post-World War II, the development of interstate highways in the US led to considerable economic growth in many states.

Here in Canada, provincial governments are responsible for design, safety and construction, and financial support is very limited from the federal government.

We can probably draw a parallel with the Canada Health Act. Where we have expected a 50-50 cost sharing agreement, we know that the federal government has not lived up to that and it falls well below what's

expected by Ontarians. It seems unbalanced, given the fact they recently posted a $13.2-billion surplus, 30% to 40% of which is money paid by Ontario taxpayers. It's time for the federal government to stop running away from the fiscal gap and its

historic commitments and start funding projects that matter to people in the province of Ontario, like the Highway 17 portion of the Trans-Canada Highway.

Businesses and industry will not build our roads, but they will come to the north in greater numbers if they are built. There are some things that everyone expects will be addressed by government, and

improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario is one of them.

I want to encourage members in the House today to support this bill, a bill that has the potential to bring much-needed improvements to northern Ontario infrastructure, a bill that improves safety and supports

Ontario's economy.

I will be sharing our caucus time with the hard-working members from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, Ottawa-Orléans and Nipissing, who are supporters of this bill.

I also want to thank Fiona Watson from the legislative research branch for helping provide such important information.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to add some comments today on the private member's bill from the member for Sault Ste. Marie, Bill 149,

An Act respecting the improvement

of Highway 17, part of the Trans-Canada Highway. Certainly I and John Tory and the Ontario PCs understand the importance of infrastructure improvements, particularly improving Highway 17 in the north. But the member from Sault Ste. Marie is a

member of the government, and this private member's bill is completely unnecessary. He doesn't need a private member's bill to make a plan to upgrade Highway 17; he's a member of the current government.

I note in the bill, in the

section "Implementation of plan," it states, "Implementation of the plan shall begin within five years of its adoption" -- five years. I say that this bill is more about making it look

like the member is doing something in supporting improving Highway 17 than it is about actual action.

I had the opportunity to drive most of northern Ontario, going up Highway 17 and back on Highway 11, a couple of years ago. When I stopped in Thunder Bay, the main issue when I met with the chamber of commerce

and stopped in the cancer clinic was the fact that, where Highway 11 and 17 are one highway from Nipigon to Shabaqua Corners, there had been major concerns about shutdowns. I think they said that that year they'd had 100 shutdowns of the highway,

with concerns about safety. It is something that very much needs to be done.

I also note that on that trip I stopped in Red Rock, just east of Thunder Bay, and heard from the mill manager about all the challenges they were facing. This was a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, that mill

has in fact now closed. Obviously, the government didn't listen to the forestry sector and make the necessary improvements to delivered-wood costs and energy costs in that sector.

As I say, this bill is more about making it look like the member and the government are interested in this. He is a member of the government; he doesn't need a private member's bill to start to make plans to

improve Highway 17.

I happen to have the Minister of Northern Development and Mines' notes from April 2003: "However, the ministry has also advanced the Shabaqua project in portions of the Thunder Bay-Nipigon corridor for

consideration under the joint Canada-Ontario highway programs. In the interim, MTO is focusing on developing future reconstruction projects with adding passing lanes, paved shoulders and other improvements through the Highway 11-17 corridor" --

exactly what the member is talking about.

What I will support the member on is that I do believe it's important to involve the federal government in four-laning and improving Highway 17 and Highway 11 across northern Ontario. I very much believe that

there is a significant role for the federal government in that. However, as I say, it's totally unnecessary to have a private member's bill to accomplish that, absolutely unnecessary. I do support involving the federal government, but this private

member's bill is unnecessary.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It's certainly a pleasure for me to stand today to support my good friend from Sault Ste. Marie on his bill, Bill 149, the TransCanada Highway

Improvement Act (Highway 17).

The member has been a strong advocate for his citizens from the north, from his riding of Sault Ste. Marie, and I think this is just one more example. A comment was made: "Why is the member doing this? Why is

this needed now?" First of all, the member is always advocating for his people. He understands the issues, he understands what's required, and he understands that good modes of transportation in his riding are important for the economy, important

for tourists and important for people just getting around the riding and the surrounding ridings. He understands the importance of upgrading Highway 17. He knows that for public safety and for economic growth, it's important.

He also knows that it's a part of the Trans-Canada Highway that has been neglected in the past. He pointed out that 7% of the costs are presently being borne by the federal government,

whereas at one time it was

to be a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement. If it was 50-50, it should be 50-50, but we have seen downloading in the past; we have seen that at the provincial level. I was in municipal politics and saw that happen. I'm here.

Mr. Orazietti, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, has indicated to us that this 50-50 arrangement is now very unfair. When you have the need for passing lanes, the need for rumble strips for security, for rest

stops, for example -- all of these are ideas to put in place the need to support public safety opportunities along that

section of the highway.

The member pointed out many reasons with regard to the economy of the north. I have never travelled that part of the Trans-Canada in his area, but I certainly have travelled other areas of the Trans-Canada. I've

seen transports; I've seen the moving of goods and commodities across the country. He has pointed out many examples -- the forestry industry, metal and minerals, manufacturing, the moving of vehicles, transportation and whatnot -- all requiring an

upgrade to that

section of Highway 17. Certainly, anybody travelling in the area would know that with the width of that highway -- if we have it in other parts of the province where you have four-lane goods moving very freely, and you get to this

area where there today is a bottleneck -- we do need, and I think the member pointed it out very clearly, to enhance those opportunities for construction.

He also pointed out the need with regard to safety, the fatalities, and certainly there has been an average of 31 fatal accidents per year, giving fatalities in the area of about 40. With improvements to the

safety of that highway, I think we will see those numbers come down.

The member indicated too that with the surplus that the federal government enjoyed in the past, it's time that some of that $13.2-billion surplus is taken to improve that highway, which was originally agreed

upon as a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement. Let's see some of those funds, some of those dollars, move to improving Highway 17, not only in the member's riding but in other sections of that highway. We need a fair arrangement.

I know we just had a comment made, "Why is the member standing up?" He's advocating for the people of his riding, he's advocating for the people of the north, and that's what you need in this House. He's also

working with our minister, the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Donna Cansfield, as I am. I have a highway in my riding, Highway 138, a link to the nation's capital. I have been working with the minister, advocating on behalf of the

constituents of my riding. That's exactly what this member is doing for the good people from Sault Ste. Marie. I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of the member's Bill 149.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I very much look forward to addressing Bill 149 and the member from Sault Ste. Marie. First of all, to Marion and Ernie, Godspeed, and we wish you a speedy

recovery in the Soo.

It's good to hear that the member from the Soo is actually paying attention and listening to petitions, because as I'm sure the member knows, I've presented numerous petitions dealing with this very specific

issue on entering into agreements with the federal government in moving forward with improving the interconnecting highways throughout the province of Ontario.

I believe that the member's bill is probably showing his constituents he's dealing with the issue that's been a long-time concern in the Soo, along with a lot of other parts of the north, whether it's Kenora,

Thunder Bay or Timmins. All through the north, we see a consistent push for four-laning of highways for a number of issues: safety issues, trucking issues and other things. But I think the member would have been far better to address the concerns

that deal with the reassessment issues I'm hearing about from the north in the unorganized townships, because those individuals with camps in the north are living in municipalities such as the Soo, or the question I brought forward to the Minister

of Northern Development and Mines would have been a far better issue, dealing with the closure of the unorganized dumps and the impact on municipalities.

But he's decided to move forward with this bill, trying to push an issue that a government member is trying to deal with the federal government about, in bringing in negotiations for expanded funds. This is

something that MTO has been dealing with since -- well, I can remember it was the same issue in 1995, trying to get some funds to move forward and ensure that consistency was taking place for funding with interprovincial roads. I think the bill is

lacking in a number of areas and is far too limited. The member should have included the concern or initiative of Mayor Rowswell of Sault Ste. Marie dealing with the rail factor as well.

The bill should have taken into consideration his own mayor in the Soo's initiative in trying to use Sault Ste. Marie as a hub for rail transfers throughout Ontario, as a connecting link to bring people from

western Canada through the Soo and then use that link in the Soo as a key location.

That would do a number of things. One, it would reduce the truck traffic that is currently utilizing the highways and reduce the amount of wear. I'm sure the member knows that an improperly loaded truck can put

as much wear on the highway as 100,000 vehicles going over a stretch of the road. So an initiative to reduce the truck traffic and increase rail service within the Soo should have been included as part of that bill as helping out.

There's another area that I thought should have been addressed as well, and that was air transit. For example, I mentioned Ernie. He happened to be in Sudbury and needed air service out of Sudbury into the Soo.

Well, there was no service available to provide that transport from Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie, which was there once upon a time and needs to be there now. The bill should be including things such as air service into the Soo. I know his own mayor

had the transpolar initiative that he tried to address as well, but even within the province of Ontario there is a lack of service going into the Soo dealing with things such as air service. We've also mentioned the issue of rail service that

Mayor Rowswell has tried to bring forward.

I think the other area is that the bill is extremely limited with the ministries it deals with as well. If you look at it, there is one key area that's not addressed and that people are sometimes reluctant to

deal with: It should have included the Native Affairs Secretariat, federally and provincially. The reason for that is that a substantial portion of what he's talking about has to go through treaty lands, and they are not being included there. They

need to ensure that the Native Affairs Secretariat, both federally and provincially, is included in that aspect of the bill so they can resolve the issues, making sure that the natives are completely compensated for and brought into the process so

they can be made part of the Trans-Canada going through that particular area. That's a huge issue.

Also, I'd like to say that once upon a time, so many decades ago, a wise individual in Ontario had the foresight to look forward to the future and see that the 401 was a key connecting link through all of

Ontario and right into Quebec. If you look at that and at the impact the 401 has had on the development of the province of Ontario, the same thing needs to take place in the north. I personally believe that a commitment to put forward a program

that eventually four-lanes the north will give that equivalent of the 401 linking southern Ontario along with all those US jurisdiction states along the Ontario southern border, and would make it far more attractive for business, individuals and

lifestyles to move north. I happened to be at a place and somebody just amazed me. They had no idea. They said, "You go four hours north of here and nobody can live there." I looked at this individual and thought, "You have no idea what it's like

in northern Ontario." There's a huge wealth of forest industry, of mining industry, of development, of quality of life, and so many things to offer there.

I just think that a program coming forward that dedicates and continues on with what the previous government did -- the previous government had been moving forward with four-laning for a number of parts of

southern Ontario and linking the north to the south, whether it's up to Sudbury, which is coming along quite nicely, as well as up to North Bay. Once those key links are done, I think the four-laning of those other sectors as well, moving from

Sudbury to the Soo and Thunder Bay and out, and North Bay up to Timmins, will have a huge impact, in the same fashion as the 401 did.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say I think the bill is too limited in its perspective. It's good to hear that the member is listening and has taken up the challenge on my petition to move forward with

negotiations, but you should include the rail and forestry sectors and other departments that are going to have to resolve issues to make it move forward, which includes of course the native secretariats.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm glad to participate in this debate because I think it's quite a unique debate. I've probably not seen a debate like this one in my 16 or 17 years

here.

What is this all about? First of all on the issue, do we as members agree that we should do more in order to construct highways anywhere in this province, including northern Ontario? Of course. We'll vote for

the bill just on the basis that it's trying to do something positive. I want to put on the record that, as New Democrats, we'll support the bill, because we think in the end any improvement to our highway system -- and specifically, for me, in

northern Ontario -- is a good thing.

But let's talk about what this bill is really all about. This guy has been a member of the government for the last three years and is lobbying, trying to get highway improvements in his riding. He's supposedly

influential within his own government and has not been able to deliver. So he brings a bill into this House as a way of saying to his constituents, "Look what I'm doing for you."

I just say, listen, all of us who have been members around here for a long time understand what the process is. If you want to have a highway fixed or you want to have four-laning done, you basically lobby the

Minister of Transportation in order to get funding for your particular community.

I look at our friend the page Breanna, who comes from Kapuskasing. As a member of the opposition, with your own government we were successful in getting roads fixed through Kapuskasing in regards to

reconstructing that stretch of highway. There have been all kinds of roads fixed on Highway 11. The way that I did that is, I went and talked to the Minister of Transportation, along with the mayor, Mr. Caron, along with Mayor Audet from Moonbeam,

with Madame Réjeanne Demeules from Smooth Rock Falls and, up in Hearst, the work that we've done there along with Roger Sigouin. There's a process, and that process is that if it's a connecting-link funding application, the municipality makes

an application, they work with the provincial member, and together we lobby the minister and the Ministry of Transportation to provide the funding to fix the road. We're successful in doing that, all of us, as members, because that's part of what

we do. I just find it somewhat strange that the member has got to bring a bill in here to try to deliver on something for his constituents when really it's his job as a member to do it in the first place. I want to put that on the record.

If it's a question of saying, "I want a four-lane highway," or "I want to improve the Trans-Canada system," I've got a couple of things that I think the member has to add to this bill. I want to add that the

Trans-Canada system is not just Highway 17; it's Highway 11. In fact, there is more traffic on Highway 11 in the winter months than there is on Highway 17. So if we're going to have a bill to deal with trying to lobby the federal government to up

the dollars from 7% to 50%, fine, but we should at least try to bring the rest of the Trans-Canada system into this bill, because all you're doing is talking about one

section of the Trans-Canada Highway, not the entire Trans-Canada Highway. As we

know, Highway 11 from Thunder Bay to the Manitoba border is the Trans-Canada system, and Highway 11 from Thunder Bay to North Bay is the northern route utilized mostly in the winter by the transportation industry because of the hills along Lake

Superior and along Lake Huron. So I think the member is being somewhat parochial in his approach to what should be government policy.

I guess this is the other point I want to speak to. If the member is saying, "I believe we need to have a legislative initiative in order to deal with the Trans-Canada Highway," don't just do it from the

perspective of your own backyard. You have to look at all of northern Ontario and to say that is something that we should be doing for the entirety of the Trans-Canada system.

But let's be clear: What's this bill about? It's about the member from Sault Ste. Marie not having been able to deliver on highway improvements that are wanted by that community and by northerners, and he is

saying, "Look at me. I've solved the problem. I can go into the next election because I passed at second reading a bill that got the support of New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. Look how great I am." Of course we're not going to vote

against it -- it would be like voting against motherhood and apple pie -- but I just want to say this is really a toothless wonder.

If you look at the bill, the bill in itself is quite unique. First of all, it's only a one-page bill. That's normally the case in private members' bills. But there are basically two sections that are really

important when it comes to the federal cost sharing initiative. It says under 1(3) that you're going to have five years to be able to implement basically -- it says, "Implementation of the plan," so five years to implement the plan, but only if

Well, you know, Dalton McGuinty, Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and Mr. Bob Rae all lobbied the federal government for the past 15 years to get the federal government to pay its fair share when it comes to Ontario

services. To date, none of them have been successful. So what makes you think that by passing and introducing a private member's bill you're going to get a 50% cost sharing agreement with the federal government? We all agree: The federal

government is missing in action. They've been removing themselves from the business of infrastructure and supporting the province of Ontario, as far as our fair share, for many years. Premiers since I've been here, since 1990, have all that made

that argument, and to date the federal government has not responded by way of three Prime Ministers: first Mr. Chrétien, then Mr. Martin, and now Mr. Harper. So this particular bill basically --

Mr. Brownell: We've got to keep on trying.

Mr. Bisson: Well, the guy says we've got to keep on trying. I don't disagree, but I'm just saying let's see this for what it is, because it really is a toothless wonder. If in 16 years we've not

been able to get the federal government to deal on one of the most fundamental cost sharing arrangements, which is health care, where they used to pay 50% and they're now down at about 12% or 14%, what makes you think you're going to be able, by

way of a private member's bill, to bring the cost sharing arrangement on the Trans-Canada up to 50%? It's pretty nil. What it basically means is that if there's never an agreement on the cost-sharing agreement, this bill doesn't do anything.

So what is it about? I'm going to come back to the point. I'm going to be blunt to my good friend from Sault Ste. Marie. He's caught in a bit of a box. The people of Sault Ste. Marie, along with many other

people in northern Ontario, want to see four-laning and passing lanes put on the Trans-Canada system. I know my good friend Madame Smith, myself and all northern members agree with that, and we should do that. We all agree that we should involve

the federal government. That ain't the point. But the reality is that we've not been successful in, first of all, getting the federal government to increase its share. No Prime Minister or Premier or party has been successful in that. He's

basically trying to find some cover for the next provincial election. That's all this is about. I just say to my good friend, we'll vote for it in the end, because why wouldn't we, but I think we need to say what this is all about.

The other thing is in regard to the precedent this sets. I just want to say a few words on that. If the only way a local member from a constituency could get highway construction was by bringing a bill into the

House, we'd never get a highway built in this province. There's not enough legislative time for 103 members to bring legislation into this House asking for some legislation to build some strip of highway somewhere. It's a bit of a ridiculous

process. That's why we've got the Ministry of Transportation. We have a Ministry of Transportation that is charged with maintaining our system of roads in this province, and the way we do that is that there are capital allocations made by the

province and then applications are made by municipalities and others to reconstruct roads, to construct new roads or to do four-laning, and the Ministry of Transportation does that.

If we have to go to the lengths of having to introduce a bill every time we want a highway fixed, I can tell you that it would be a pretty cumbersome process, because every member in this Legislature would

probably have three or four bills per session asking for a road to be fixed. Right now in our particular constituency of Timmins-James Bay, we've got applications for road construction in Moosonee, Hearst -- Highway 11 by Opasatika was done -- the

south part of Kapuskasing in regards to Highway 11. There's connecting link funding in the community of Timmins. There are at least four applications that I'm aware of at this point from my constituency that are going into this year's capital

allocation process that will be basically rolled out this spring. If I have to bring a bill into this House for each one of those -- I understand how this process works. You have very limited time. A member can introduce only one private member's

bill per session. You're lucky if that equals two bills per the life of a Parliament of four or five years. It would virtually mean that you can only get one, maybe two highway projects done in your constituency if we had to go by way of a bill.

So I just say to members, I don't think we want to have a process where we've got to use legislative time to fix highways. That's why we have a Ministry of Transportation.

Again, do we agree with the concept that we need to be able to do more to four-lane Highways 17 and 11 and other important highways in northern Ontario? Of course. We don't argue with that for a second. We

understand that it is a question of making sure that our economy is vibrant in northern Ontario, and one of the key issues is making sure that all transportation -- but in this particular debate road transportation -- infrastructure is adequate. I

would agree with the member from Sault Ste. Marie that the road system is inadequate in northern Ontario. There is much improvement that needs to be done as far as repairs to existing infrastructure and four-laning, especially in those busy spots

along Highway 17 and Highway 11, plus passing lanes. We all agree.

I was a member of a government that did an extreme amount of work when it comes to four-laning Highway 11 and Highway 17, and especially on passing lanes. That's one of the things we did on Highway 11. We had

a program that basically saw, from North Bay to about Kapuskasing or Hearst, five passing lanes built per year. It was a commitment we got from the Minister of Transportation, and it has done a lot to end the bottleneck on that road.

I just say that we agree, but as my good friend the member from Parry Sound had mentioned -- it might have been somebody else, but I thought it was the member from Parry Sound who made this point -- we need to

look at transportation as a whole. That, I think, is probably the bigger debate for us in northern Ontario, because if our northern economy is going to not only survive -- there are some real problems within our economy. We have a bit of a schism

right now. Mining is doing well because of gold and base metal prices, and thank God for that, because it's providing some boom in communities like Timmins, Sudbury and Kirkland Lake and other mining communities. But forestry is in real peril. The

member from Sault Ste. Marie knows, I'm sure, as we do, that St. Marys Paper filed for bankruptcy protection last night. That tells us of the challenge we have in northern Ontario in securing a primary industry. But one of the issues we have to

deal with to secure primary industry is to provide a transportation infrastructure that allows them to compete on the world stage and on the North American market. It is more expensive to ship goods the further you are from market. Of course, in

northern Ontario, we're further than most. Because we're the northern part of the province, we have a longer way to ship our goods.

So one of the things we need to do is look at transportation infrastructure and transportation policy so that we're able to give northern manufacturers and northern employers some sort of equalization of the

playing field when it comes to transportation. I would be bold and say we need to subsidize. I'm going to say it right upfront: We need to find ways of being able to subsidize transportation costs for manufacturers in northern Ontario, either by

way of rail, air or road, whatever makes the most sense.

Now, somebody is going to say, "Oh, well, that's crazy. We shouldn't subsidize." Highway 401 is a provincial infrastructure, or partly federal -- no, it's all provincial -- paid for 100% by the taxpayers of

Ontario. Every manufacturer along that line uses it as a way of being able to ship goods from warehouse to production plant to market. Basically, that road infrastructure is the key part of the southern Ontario economy. The taxpayers of Ontario

pay for that 100%, so we are subsidizing Ford, GM and all of the manufacturers along the Highway 401 corridor, and rightfully so; that's part of what you do as a province.

The problem we have in northern Ontario is that we need to have some way to lessen the cost for our manufacturers so that it would make some sense to situate yourself as far as producing something in northern

Ontario and selling it to market.

I would like to see in this bill, if we get to second reading, some debate and some amendments about how we're able to develop policy infrastructure, transportation policy, in northern Ontario to find ways of

reducing the cost of transportation for northern employers.

If you're a pulp and paper mill in Sault Ste. Marie, if you're a sawmill in Opasatika or wherever you might be, or you're, for example, a value-added plant in Hearst, such as others that are there, that you

have some way of being able to transport the materials you need from southern Ontario to the north, that you're able to assemble them and do what you have to do with them and then transport the finished goods to wherever you're selling them -- we

need to have some way of being able to reduce the cost for the manufacturer so that it makes more sense for them to establish themselves in northern Ontario.

In the last minute I have, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the James Bay, because if we're going to talk about roads, there's a part of the province we need to talk about. There are no roads. The

community of Moosonee is looking for paving inside that particular community. None of the roads are currently paved; there's a real dust problem. The mayor is going to be coming forward, along with his council, with an application this spring. I

am hopeful and will be working in consultation with the provincial government in order to get some funding so we can do some paving on those particular roads.

Then the other issue is that we need to take a look at some sort of a permanent, all-season road from the James Bay up to Attawapiskat and north, if possible, in order to be able to help develop that part of

the province. I understand that is a very expensive project, but I just want to remind members that it was the building of the Ontario Northland Railway, the old TNO, at the beginning of the last century that basically developed all of

northeastern Ontario. All of the sawmills, all of the mines were found, constructed and developed because of the construction of a railway paid for by the province of Ontario.

The next frontier when it comes to development is going to be along the James Bay, for diamonds, gold, lignite and a whole bunch of other metals that are in that particular area, not to talk about

hydroelectric potential.

So, I just say that one of the things we need to take a look at is a policy that would look at a period of time of being able to develop an all-season road system along the James Bay. Thank you very much,

Speaker, for this fine opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'd just maybe start off with two comments: Karl Walsh, the president and CEO of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, "The Ontario Provincial

Police Association congratulates MPP David Orazietti for taking the initiative to approve public safety on our highways through the introduction of the private member's bill"; and Doug Mayhew, manager of public and government affairs for the CAA,

"Highway 17 is the lifeblood road from eastern to western Ontario. It carries not just the goods we produce, the products we need and the tourism we require, but our futures." I don't think there is any doubt that this is an extremely important

issue in transportation in our province and in our country.

I lived on the Trans-Canada Highway as a child. When I went to school, I walked along the Trans-Canada Highway. I recall when it was reconstructed into a new location, and we had both highways passing through

our farm along the Ottawa River. I had a friend -- Ross and Sandy Dunning moved out of Rockland, Ontario. The Trans-Canada went through Rockland then, and you had to travel 20 hours, I think, to go to their place on the Trans-Canada Highway almost

at Thunder Bay. It's a major lifeline of our province, from the Quebec border to the border with Manitoba. It's extremely important.

Ontario has the safest highways in North America. I think we have to be very proud of that achievement of our province. We're investing heavily in infrastructure in the north of Ontario: $357 million this

year, an all-time record. We've proven our commitment by releasing the first ever five-year construction program in June 2006, the northern highways program, an update to the northern Ontario highways strategy released last year. The northern

highways program will be updated every year to ensure key projects are moving forward.

Four-lane sections of Trans-Canada Highway 17 already exist, as we know, in the vicinity of North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and, of course, Ottawa. Planning studies to four-lane Highway 17 to

the Sudbury and Ottawa area are currently under way, where the annual average daily traffic is over 10,000. Even in Ottawa, in Kanata, there's a $50-million project to improve the

section through Kanata, and that's part of 17. There's a recently

constructed portion of Highway 17 near Arnprior, and of course the member for Renfrew has spoken often about the need to four-lane Highway 17 north of Arnprior.

Because of increasing traffic volumes, other parts of Highway 17 will require improvements, so we need to get on with these improvements. In the northwestern part of the province, Highway 17 is the only link

to western Canada. Even with our current funding levels, we are not able to undertake all the improvements needed. We need federal funding now. That's why I welcome this private member's bill.

Last year the provinces and territories completed a national transportation strategy, Looking to the Future. The strategy reinforces the fact that key highways, border crossings, urban roads and transit in

Ontario are critical to Canada's economy. We need an integrated approach to strengthening the transportation system. According to Transport Canada's annual report of 2004, provinces and territories reinvest more than 92% of their fuel tax revenues

in transit and roads. In contrast, the Canadian federal government reinvested less than 10%. The US federal government returns over 90.5% of federal gas taxes to the states where they were collected, worth $286 billion over six years. So while the

federal government is wallowing in excess revenues, where they have $13 billion dollars at their disposal to put energy into the north, to help with the economy of the north, they haven't made the steps forward yet: 10% of the dollars they collect

on gas taxes go back into roads and transit.

Canada has to keep pace with its neighbours and trading partners who are making substantial investments in transportation infrastructure. We depend too much on the industries of northern Ontario to not provide

the investment that they need. This can't be done by the province of Ontario alone. We need the dollars from the federal government.

So I very much support this bill from the member -- how important it is to Ontario, how important to eastern Ontario, how important to northern Ontario and western Ontario. If we want to go out west from our

area, we use the Trans-Canada Highway. The federal government should be there. We certainly feel that this is the right time to put this bill in. Let's get our friends who were in this House, who know how important roads are, to support this bill

in the federal government and to make sure that Highway 17, this lifeblood of Ontario, is improved in the very near future.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I want to join other speakers this morning in the few minutes I have in indicating that this is rather a strange bill. I certainly will support it, as the

Minister of Northern Development and Mines during Mike Harris's and Ernie Eves's time. I'll just remind the previous speaker, who said they're putting in $357 million, which is supposed to be some sort of record -- try $1.8 billion, audited

dollars, truly spent up until April 2003 during our time in office. You won't, as an accumulative over your years, even come close to that, I'm pretty sure.

I find it passing strange that Dalton McGuinty is crapping on the federal government over the fiscal imbalance. He's crapping on the federal government over his problems in post-secondary education. He's

trying to pin the mess in Caledonia on the federal government. He's trying to force the Prime Minister's hand on Senate reform. He's fighting the feds for keeping their promise on child care. The feds kept their promise. In Niagara-on-the-Lake in

the last couple of days, he's been crapping on the Prime Minister for having no innovation agenda in his remarks, which were very, very partisan and inappropriate for a Premier.

Now today, this private member, who is a member of the government, suddenly wants the government that they've been crapping on, which is clearly their re-election plan, to come to the table and, over the next

five years, come up with some plan for the Trans-Canada Highway. Frankly, if I were the honourable member from Sault Ste. Marie, I'd get up and say the feds should pay 100% of the -Canada Highway. When I grew up, I thought they did. We were always

taught in school that the feds should pay for the Trans-Canada Highway. I told every northern mayor who used to come to me that I'd help them out in their communities with the Highway 17/11 corridor, which I've travelled many, many times during my

lifetime, from one side of the province to the other. The fact of the matter is, I agree with the honourable member, but it shouldn't be just 50-50; the honourable member should be asking for 100%.

I also want to say that the portion of highway that this bill pertains to has had fewer accidents than the portion of highway that you cancelled between Stayner and Collingwood over the years. So you don't

care about southerners; you don't care about the people of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and the hundreds of thousands of tourists who go up to Collingwood and Wasaga Beach to go to the skiing area and go to Blue Mountain every year. There are more

accidents in my 6.7-kilometre piece of highway -- I looked it up with the OPP yesterday -- than you have on this piece of highway, and you have the gall to cancel my highway.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): That was a lovely display from the former minister.

I'm proud to be able to support this bill today and speak up on behalf of real northerners, who know the importance of their roads and highways and how important it is to have a link to the rest of our

province and our country.

I want to commend the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I want to just quote his mayor who today, in reference to this legislation, stated: "Ontario needs good transportation infrastructure because our region is

the inner core of Canada -- we tie Canada together. In the global economy, a strong core builds a strong country that can compete globally. David Orazietti's private member's bill advances our nation and the province of Ontario with critical

infrastructure to ensure we are successful for decades to come."

I agree with his mayor. We have shown a strong commitment to the building of highways in the north during our tenure. We have a northern highway strategy that has instituted unprecedented investment in the

north. I don't know where the member for Simcoe gets his numbers, but this year alone we are investing $357 million. Included in that, this year we are investing in my area. We're investing in Highway 11, south of North Bay to Highway 654 junction

to Highway 17 at Laronde Creek, all the way to North Bay, and Highway 63 and Highway 17 west of Mattawa for 26 kilometres -- those are 26 brutal kilometres that I travel quite regularly, so I'm glad to see we're doing some work on that -- Highway

522 and Highway 64 at the Sturgeon River Bridge.

We're making some major investments in our northern highways. That does not even begin to address what we're investing in Highway 11: $120 million over the next two years to continue the four-laning that I

know we've spoken about many times in this House, the four-way laning of Highway 11 that started in the 1950s under one of their governments. Up until this year, we did not have an end date, but now we know that we will have the four-laning

completed by 2012. This is a major initiative and a major commitment to my community of North Bay, which is delighted to see that we are finishing this project that is long overdue.

That's just one of the many indications of our government's commitment to highways and transportation into the north, of our government's commitment to the north. I have to say that I was delighted to hear the

member from Parry Sound-Muskoka say that he was committed to this idea and committed to the notion that we should have the federal government at the table.

I hope he will pick up the phone and call his federal counterpart, Tony Clement, to put pressure on him to come to the table, to recognize the importance of our highways and to recognize the importance of this

linkage of the south to the north. I know the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is all too familiar with the benefits that we've reaped from the Highway 11 four-laning, and I know he can appreciate how much benefit we would reap from the improvements

to Highway 17 of the Trans-Canada Highway.

I agree with the member for Simcoe on one point, and that is that I too thought when I was a kid that the federal government supported the Trans-Canada Highway and was in charge of the Trans-Canada Highway. I

was shocked to see that in fact they had given up that responsibility. I hope that he too will pick up the phone and call his counterparts and friends in Ottawa, who are now sitting on a $6.8-billion surplus, and that's after only five months into

this fiscal year. Surely they can give us some money to help us with our northern highways. I believe the members for Parry Sound-Muskoka and Simcoe believe themselves to be strong advocates for the north. I believe they too will stand up and put

some pressure on the federal government to come to the table and develop with us a northern Ontario highway strategy that will allow us to continue the good work that our government is committed to and has already begun.

As I said, we've announced many projects in the north. We have done a great deal of work in the north on our highways, on our infrastructure -- our roads and bridges -- in various communities, and we are

seeing those benefits, but with federal participation, we could see so much more. That's why we're calling on the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and we're calling on his leader, John Tory, who claims to be such a great fan of the north and who

appears occasionally in the north for photo ops and press conferences attended by few. We want to make sure that he understands that highways and the infrastructure of the north are important to our growth, to our economic development, to our

tourism industry, and to making sure that northern Ontario continues to prosper. That is the focus of this government. We've shown our commitment through a variety of programs, including our investments in highways, and we will continue to do so

as we move forward.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to provide some comments on the bill this morning, Bill 149, the TransCanada Highway Improvement Act.

I'd like to begin my remarks by following up on those of my colleagues. We certainly understand how important infrastructure is to towns and municipalities in northern Ontario and throughout Ontario. When I

considered some of the things I'd like to see in legislation, the prominent thought that kept returning to my mind was how areas throughout the province are affected by infrastructure needs. No question, safety is foremost in the mind. The member

for Sault Ste. Marie has brought forward safety, but from an economic development perspective, we appreciate the benefits of improved highways and routes. It's about making it easier for tourists to access areas; for businesses to ship and receive

products, as mentioned before; to enhance safety and security in our communities.

In my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, residents, businesses and chambers of commerce have been working tirelessly with me in bringing forward signed petitions for four-laning expansion improvements to

Highway 35. I'm sure members opposite can relate to examples in their own ridings, that expanding highways is vital for our safety and economic development for the residents and businesses. The Highway 35 expansion will open up the Kawartha Lakes

area, open up the Haliburton area, open up whole parts of my riding. It needs to be brought through as quickly as possible.

The member who just spoke promised the four-laning of Highway 11 in the first year. Wasn't it in the first year?

Interjections.

Ms. Scott: I'm just saying --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wilson: That's exactly what --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let's all settle down and listen to the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Simcoe-Grey, the member for Nipissing, do you listen to me at all up here? Order. The member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

Ms. Scott: In the few seconds that I have to wrap up, it's good to bring attention to the fact that the infrastructure needs to be developed as quickly as possible, but this private member's

bill is not needed. We need a real plan for northern Ontario, not an excuse to do nothing.

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

Mr. Orazietti: It's a pleasure to respond. Certainly this bill is a significant undertaking; we recognize that. I don't share the defeatist attitude of the member for Timmins-James Bay. This

isn't about the election. This is about northern Ontario's infrastructure, and nobody has a monopoly on saving lives on our highways in northern Ontario.

I recognize the comments that were made today to support the bill. I want to congratulate and thank the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, Jim Brownell, Monique Smith from Nipissing and Phil McNeely

the member for Ottawa-Orléans, for their support and their remarks today.

Our government has supported infrastructure and highway development in northern Ontario, with increased passing lanes -- 15 kilometres -- by Highway 527, a truck-climbing lane outside of Ouimet and a four-lane

section outside of Sault Ste. Marie, something the community is anxiously awaiting the opening of. We've increased the funding by $357 million in this budget. It's a record investment.

This deal is long overdue. The federal government has not been at the table. We're going to stick to the facts on this side of the House. The historic funding for the Trans-Canada is 50-50. That's what we're

asking for; that's what we're going after in this bill. We expect the federal government to be at the table. We expect the federal government to be at the table when it comes to the Canada Health Act as well, and they've been missing in action. We

need to raise awareness of the surpluses that Ottawa has, 30% to 40% of which is Ontario taxpayers' money.

We want you, on this side of the House, to stand up for Ontario, to stop making excuses and to stop talking about your record that was dismal in northern Ontario. We're happy to run on our record as northern

members. We need support from you, on all sides of the House, to get the federal government to come to the table to support this bill.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr. Patten moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 146,

An Act to amend the Election Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Patten has moved second reading of Bill 146. Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm extremely pleased and honoured this morning to be able to bring forward my private member's bill,

An Act to amend the Election Act. This is the second

time I've introduced this bill, so I hope we can carry it through.

The bill in front of us today is a very straightforward, simple piece of legislation but considerable in potential. It amends the Election Act and it implements two ideas: First of all, it requires that a

candidate's nomination papers be accompanied by the endorsement of the registered party; and secondly, it provides for the inclusion of political affiliation identification of the candidate on the ballot, in other words, the name of the party that

the person is running for.

Many Ontarians have advocated for these changes over the years, including past and present members of the Ontario Legislature. In fact, the proposed changes mirror closely the intent of a bill introduced in

June 2003 by Sean Conway, who was the former member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. It's somewhat ironic that Mr. Conway's bill was not debated because of a called election which was his bill's intent to improve. It was widely supported by the

members of the last Parliament, and I'm hopeful that there will be support for this bill from all sides of the House today. Mr. Conway, at the time, had said that he believes this bill will become an important part of the democratic reform of our

government and will champion these initiatives and help increase voting participation. I'm grateful for his thoughts and his support.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Mr. Rossano Bernardi, a graduate of Algonquin College and Carleton University. This young gentlemen sent me a letter in which he proposed changes to the act to allow

placing political affiliation on the ballot, so I'm grateful to him. He spent a considerable amount of time and effort researching and writing his proposals because he firmly believed this change would benefit our democratic system in Ontario.

It's important for us, therefore, to move forward on behalf of Rossano and his generation.

This bill puts into action recommendations from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which approved placing political affiliations on the ballot as far back as 1989. The Chief Election Officer

of Ontario has tabled numerous reports in the Legislative Assembly that have recommended the need to include the candidates' political affiliation on the ballot. These reports from the Chief Election Officer of Ontario have consistently said that

placing political affiliation on the ballot aids electors in making an informed decision at the polls. It is recommended that

section 27 of the Election Act be amended so that a candidate's political affiliation is designated on the ballot, and to

review the wording of

section 34 with regard to the form of the ballot. Today we have an opportunity to follow these recommendations in order to stop restricting the electors' access to basic information about a candidate's political

affiliation.

It should also be said that the electoral law of Canada and, in effect, every other province, with the exception of Ontario, the giant, and the little giant, PEI -- so we have Ontario and PEI that are out of

step with all the other jurisdictions.

On March 15, 2001, in a presentation before the standing committee on procedure and House affairs, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, stated:

"The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the provisions of the Canada Elections Act confining the right to indicate political affiliation on the ballot to candidates of registered parties to be of no force and

effect.

"This declaration of invalidity is founded on an extremely important conclusion: that limiting identification of political affiliation to registered parties infringed on the right to vote guaranteed by

section

3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes the right of all electors to vote in full knowledge of the facts.

"Therefore, in the court's opinion, the right to vote implies the right to full and complete information necessary to vote in full knowledge of the facts, and the political affiliation of a candidate is

information that is necessary to permit an informed vote.

"In fact, in the court's view, political affiliation constitutes basic information for electors."

Amendments to the Canada Elections Act were made in 1970 -- that's 36 years ago -- allowing the placement of political affiliations on the ballot for all subsequent elections. The Office of the Chief Electoral

Officer of Canada has indicated to us that these amendments have worked well. In other provinces such as BC and Alberta, where we contacted their offices, the chief electoral officers indicate that placing political affiliation on the ballot has

improved clarity and choice for voters. So, in effect, Bill 146 will ensure that Ontario is in step with electoral practices in Canada, and our changing demographics and living patterns.

Currently in election campaigns, the political affiliation is present on campaign signage and can be multilingual to represent the multicultural demographics of a particular area. These inclusions improve

clarity, improve choice. These improvements can also be applied to the ballot.

Bill 146 addresses many issues regarding elections in Ontario. It addresses problematic situations when candidates have a similar name or the exact same name. Placing the political affiliation on the ballot

can solve this particular problem. It must be interesting in PEI to see Mr. MacDonald, Ms. MacDonald, Mr. McDonald, Ms. McDonald, because there are so many McDonalds in PEI.

It acknowledges today's reality of voter mobility. The rise of the mobile society has resulted in people moving often and not necessarily residing in the same riding for too long. Mobility, however, does not

change one's beliefs or one's values. Providing political affiliation will allow them to identify with a candidate and associate themselves with the party they feel may best represent their views.

Finally, the bill will help recent immigrants, especially those who speak different languages, to make a more informed choice at the ballot box.

I want to continue by recognizing the importance of democratic renewal in our province. As you know, our nation -- a Confederation that was born in 1867 -- was based on a democratic system of responsible

government which was adopted by all our provinces. However, there have been few changes to our democratic system since then. Parliamentary rules in the electoral system that elects members still very much resemble those of the 19th century in

Britain. Our government believes the time has come to bring these 19th century traditions in line.

Today marks an important day in Ontario, one in which the democratic institution has an opportunity, in a small way, to improve the electoral system by ensuring it is more clear to the people of our province.

I will say at this point that our minister responsible for democratic renewal will direct the newly created citizens' assembly on electoral reform to bring some real change to proposals to this particular Parliament.

I will continue my remarks on a more personal basis. I know that a healthy democracy is an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of every member in this assembly. I recall several years ago writing a paper

on democratic renewal, and I want to say a few words about that.

It's perhaps a measure of the well-being of our democracy that we rarely, if ever, think of it as being in any peril. By and large, we think of the health of our democratic institutions as stable and solid, if

nothing else. On the rare occasions that our thoughts do take a dark turn, we tend to imagine the loss of our democracy not through a singular act, but perhaps some kind of cataclysmic event that would shake us to our foundations, something that

would overturn our world, like an invasion or an occupation by a hostile, undemocratic enemy or a radical military coup from within. But what if our democracy started to slowly slip away in front of us and we did not take notice?

Early in my career, working with international programs in the YMCA, I travelled and lived extensively in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, South America and the West Indies. Those travels illustrated to me

the meaning of having a thriving democracy, as well as the value of keeping it healthy and vital.

Today, while on the government side the sanctity of the democratic process is further confirmed to me, keeping democracy healthy is something that never happens naturally. It must be nurtured and, on occasion,

even fought for. Sometimes democracies can be seen to be slow, burdensome and a difficult exercise. Without doubt, it has its frustrations, but it also has its responsibilities and is one of the best systems in the world.

In closing, I know there are some strong defenders of the status quo. I would of course defend their right to their position and opinions, because we need to have full debate about democracy. However, I hope

that they will eventually realize that Ontario politics, government and democracy are not working as well as they could or should and need change. So I say to them that we truly have an opportunity to do something in a small way for the people we

serve. These amendments will be made in the name of a better democracy.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I want to congratulate the member for bringing this issue again to the legislative floor.

While elections and the method by which we elect people are important, I have stated before, and stated again this week, that how this institution runs once we are elected is really much more important. We do

need huge reform to our institution here at Queen's Park. This place, in my view, is at its lowest depths with regard to how it functions in a democratic way and I blame the government of the day for that degrading of this Parliament. Constantly,

day after day, we have ministers who shout across the floor with gross misrepresentations of what, in fact, the position of the opposition parties is. This does nothing to instill confidence in the public or with regard to our institution or our

MPPs.

With regard to this particular matter -- the name of the party affiliation of the candidate -- I sat on a committee way back in 1989 that dealt with this matter. It was an all-party committee during the

Peterson majority government, just prior to the 1990 election. The committee unanimously put forward a proposal, a report dated July 1989. It recommended the two changes that are a part of Mr. Patten's bill here today. At that time, I supported

them and I continue to support them.

Interestingly enough, in history, it would have been of great help in the 1990 election to have the party affiliation on the ballot. You may remember at that time, Mr. Peterson called the election prior to

three years passing in his term from 1987. The public was bound and determined to throw the Peterson government out at that time. I heard story after story about people walking into the polling place in September 1990, when the election took

place, and saying, "Who is the NDP candidate?"

They didn't know who the candidate was in the area, but they knew very much that they wanted to vote for the NDP. Unfortunately for us, the Conservatives at that time had a fairly unpopular Prime Minister,

which unfortunately transposed onto the provincial election. I think that was probably the biggest telling factor in terms of why Bob Rae became the Premier of this province in that election in 1990.

Having said that, what happened was that there was great confusion in the polling booths, because people were not coming in and saying, "I want to vote for John Smith, " they were saying, "I want to vote for

the NDP." So they couldn't look to the ballot. The lineups got longer, as people wanted to go and find out, as it was posted in the polling place, the party affiliation. But they had to leave the line, go back around, and find out who was who and

all the rest of it. So it's kind of ironic that a legislative committee in 1989 recommended that, and had it been implemented prior to the 1990 election, it would have provided a much smoother polling day in 1990.

The other

part I think is important is that there have been several studies done with regard to how people vote in provincial and federal elections. Some people cast their ballot on the basis of the individual

candidate running. All of us in this place would like to think that we have a great deal to do with the fact that they voted for Norm Sterling or Richard Patten or whoever. Unfortunately, most of the studies that have been done show that the

individual candidate counts third with regard to how a person actually casts their vote. In most cases, people cast their votes first for the party, second for the leader and third for the candidate.

There was a study in the January 2005 issue of Electoral Insight published by Elections Canada, which shows that in the 2004 federal election, 50% of the voters voted on the basis of party, 24% voted on the

basis of leader, and only 20% voted on the basis of the local candidate. You can find as well different kinds of statistics on this, but you will find that study after study points to the fact that most voters vote on the basis of party.

It's also interesting to note that we have stated in this Legislature many, many times that we want to encourage young people to be involved in the political process. According to a study of voters, that same

survey I talked about shows that those who were 36 years of age or younger put a greater reliance on party affiliation than the general public. The younger voters, 59% rather than 50%, voted on the basis of party, 27% voted on the basis of leader,

and 14% voted on the basis of the local candidate. If in fact we are true to our words and we want to engage younger people in the process, we should be transparent about what happens at the polling station so that they can in fact go and vote for

the PC candidate -- as most of them will want to do, as you know. That's a little bias, Mr. Speaker. I make jest.

The other part with regard to the endorsement of the party I think is extremely important as well. All political parties have, shall I charitably say, eccentrics within their realms. We have heard this week

about a particular eccentric who's engaged in our party. I believe that because the party system is so entrenched in our democratic system at the present time, the leader of the party and the other members of the team who are running under that

banner have some right to say to a candidate who presents extreme views, "You cannot register as a candidate of our party because your views are too extreme to be accepted by those people running under the name of the Liberal Party," or the

Conservative Party or whatever. So if a particular person happened to get nominated in a riding and had racist views, I'm certain that John Tory would exclude that individual from ever running under the banner of the Progressive Conservatives as a

candidate in our provincial election. We would say, "You cannot run." Or if somebody made some extreme statements with regard to other kinds of issues, John Tory and the party would say, "You cannot run for our party. You do not express the

overall intent and policies of our party."

Under those two important areas, I do support the member opposite with regard to that. I might also add, on a personal note, that Mr. Patten happens to represent the area where I spent the first 22 years of my

life. It's now called Ottawa Centre; it used to be Ottawa West. I lived very close to Fisher Park high school and Elmdale Public School, where he and I actually went to -- I don't know what year it was, the 65th --

Interjection.

Mr. Sterling: Maybe it was the 100th anniversary of the school that I went to. But I've said to Mr. Patten, notwithstanding the statistics I've read, that I'm sure more than 20% of the people

in his riding vote on the basis of the candidate. If he should ever decide not to run, maybe I'll go back and run in that particular area. I say that in jest, because the people in my area have been very loyal to me and I'm loyal to them. But I

want to congratulate him for persevering on this particular issue.

The other

part I might say is that I am very hesitant to support private members' bills, from various members in here, which are complicated and which deal with complex issues and require wide consultation

before they are in fact put into place. One of the bills which I opposed being brought in through the back door, as I would call it when it deals with a major policy issue, was the adoption disclosure bill brought in by other members of the

Legislature here. I believe, though, that a bill like this is simple in its scope. It has been discussed extensively in this Legislature before and can be considered by this Legislature, and actually not only pass second reading but go to

committee here and offer the public the opportunity, perhaps, to hear what other people have to say about it and be passed.

I will be supporting this, but I want to also indicate that there are other members of my party who have opposing views. I don't know whether we'll hear those today, but I do indicate that this party does have

people with views other than my own on this issue.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It's indeed an honour and a privilege for me to stand here this morning to support Bill 146,

An Act to amend the Election Act, brought

forward by my good friend from Ottawa Centre, Richard Patten.

Mr. Patten, the member from Ottawa Centre, was certainly working on democratic reform, democratic renewal -- whatever you want to call it -- for quite some time before I got into this House. Coming from

eastern Ontario and subscribing to one of the newspapers in the area, I got to know the work of the member from Ottawa Centre, and certainly his passion and his interest in bringing more opportunities for democratic renewal and reform to this

House. At that time I thought it was great. But when he introduced this in the Legislature and during first reading debate, having had an opportunity to say a few words then and seeing the gentleman the member from Ottawa Centre encouraged to come

to this House, a gentleman by the name of Rossano Bernardi, a student who studied at Algonquin College and Carleton University in Ottawa -- in doing that study and supporting what Mr. Patten had done in his research, and to have somebody else, a

younger individual, a student, bringing this information forward, was just another indication that this is important. This is one other step in that process of democratic renewal and reform.

We've already heard from the member that this bill will do two things: It will require that a candidate's nomination paper be accompanied by the endorsement of a registered party; and that the inclusion of the

party affiliation be on the ballot. Certainly, I think we all could support those two notions with regard to that bill.

This being one of only two provinces in Canada not doing this, I think it's time for this Legislature, for this government to step up to the plate and to come into the new century, to come into seeing that

this is going to provide more clarity, more information for those people who step into the ballot booth, for those people who step in to put their check mark or their X beside the name.

I'll just give you an example with regard to clarity. It doesn't relate to the ballot booth, but it relates to the name. The member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Jean-Marc Lalonde, in first reading debate

made a comment about the last election in his riding, the turmoil and confusion between two similar names on the ballot at that time. I look in my own riding right now. I'm the provincial member, but we do have a member of council for the township

of South Stormont whose last name is Brownlee. Just the other day, I had an individual stop me, saying, "I didn't think the election was until 2007." I looked at her and I said, "It's not." She said, "Well, I see your name out on the sign." I

said, "Well, that's not my name; that's Mr. Brownlee." Just on a sign, the confusion that can cause -- I see that all the time. In fact, I had another person approach me wondering if my brother was running for township council. I had to say, "No.

Make sure you understand that's a Brownlee, an L-E-E and not an E-L-L." Those things can be confusing.

I think this information, this idea the member from Ottawa Centre is bringing forward, brings clarity to the ballot itself. It brings to the ballot itself the opportunity for immigrants, those people who have

language barriers thrown in front of them when it comes to that opportunity of casting a vote, for those people in a mobile society -- we know that people today are moving around this province, around this country, and going in and being a new

resident in a constituency where they're not familiar with the candidate but understand the party, understand the party's values and the ideas expressed by that party. Seeing that name on the ballot will certainly allow that individual a greater

opportunity of making the decision that individual wants to make when he or she gets to the ballot box.

This has been around for quite some time. The member from Ottawa Centre indicated that the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, the Honourable Sean Conway, when he was here, tried to get this through the

Legislature. I think he had a private member's bill on June 11, 2003. I was looking back too and seeing that it was also a recommendation of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly in 1989, some 17 years ago, when this idea was brought

forward that it is and should be the right thing to do in a first process of democratic reform and renewal. We as a party made that an issue during the last election. We certainly saw the minister responsible for democratic renewal given the

responsibility of making sure that we move forward in this century with new ideas. From 1867 to now, we need those new ideas, and it gives me great pleasure to add these few words on the bill from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): In the one minute I have, I just want to say that I don't support putting party affiliation, political affiliation, on the ballot, and I don't support party

leadership having to sign off on your nomination papers. I think we should go in the opposite direction. We should make the private member, the MPP, more important in his or her riding.

You know, I arrived here in 1990 when there were just 20 PCs elected, because Mr. Mulroney was a hated person among the electorate in Canada. I happened to work for three years as chief of staff to the

Honourable Perrin Beatty in Ottawa, so my Liberal opponent kept saying throughout that campaign, "You're just a Mulroney kid and you're running." Well, thank God the people in my riding knew Jim Wilson, knew that our family had lived there some

250 years, knew that I had been the assistant to George McCague for six years and helped farmers and small business people, and helped people with their workers' compensation and welfare and all that. I'd like to believe that, at least during that

election, my name had something to do with getting elected, not just the party.

Plus my party, in the last election, surprised me. They were putting a four-lane highway right through my riding. That's what came out in the blueprint document. No one consulted me on that. So I think that

private members should be more important, and we shouldn't allow party brass to run our elections. I run for my constituents first and my party second.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): You know, I wrestled with this when the member from Ottawa Centre first stood in the House and reintroduced the bill that had been put forward by Sean

Conway, the former member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I remember, at the time that Mr. Conway stood, thinking that this is a reasonable bill. When Mr. Patten stood in the House last week and came with virtually the identical bill, I remember

thinking at that point, why is he doing this now? Why is he doing it now? The struggle that I have is I have to question the timing more than I have to question the contents of the bill.

In March 2006, the Honourable Marie Bountrogianni, the minister responsible for democratic renewal, set out to set up a citizens' forum to discuss changes to the way people get elected here. This very week, on

Tuesday, she introduced the bill that will mandate and set out how the citizens are to come to a conclusion and, once they've come to that conclusion, how the electors of the province of Ontario are going to deal with it.

This bill is not going through that process. This bill, should it pass here today, should it be ordered to committee and should it eventually become law, will not be part of the process of democratic renewal

which the Liberal Party ran on in the last election, and the bills -- the very substantial bills -- that are before the Legislature for debate at this time. In fact, what it will do is usurp the citizens' function, the 103 people who are meeting

this weekend, and every other weekend from now through March or April. It will usurp their function, because what it will do is it will change in a very meaningful way how elections are conducted in this province and what the ballot looks like. It

will change it from an election in which individuals run -- sometimes affiliated to parties, sometimes not -- for elected office, and will now include a party affiliation on the ballot.

Now, the question has to be asked -- and I listened with some intent purpose to what the member from Lanark-Carleton was saying, and it is true, that people make up their minds on how to vote on a variety of

factors. It can be the party that people belong to, it can be the leadership or the debates, it can be the policies, it can be individuals; it can be any number of things that go on in an individual's head that make them determine to vote one way

versus another. But it forces those people during an election to weigh and balance all of those factors, only one of which is what party that person belongs to, only one of which is Liberal or NDP or Conservative or Green or Communist or

Rhinoceros. It forces people to become informed voters. What this will do is allow people to be less informed voters. Mr. Sterling made the point. People were lining up saying they wanted to vote for the NDP candidate but they didn't know who that

was. With the greatest of respect, I believe the electors have an obligation to be informed when they vote. They must know why they're going to vote, for whom they're going to vote. I'm not sure that this is going to do it.

I have to state that I'm troubled because the opposition parties in the Legislature the other day spoke about the 60% platform that the Liberal government has set to force change, should we change the way we

vote. This bill will not be subject to the 60% vote. We're not going to go and ask the citizens' assembly to consider this. We're not going to go and ask the citizens of Ontario to meet the 60% platform and plateau so that we can put party names

on a ballot for the first time in 140 years. In fact, we're going to treat this very differently than we treat democratic renewal. Is this renewal? Probably. Is this subject to the same vagaries and the same discussions and the same citizens'

input that we are expecting for every other potential type of renewal? No, it is not.

I have to question why this bill is being introduced this way, when the citizens' assembly will and can determine this very issue. The citizens' assembly can look at this as one aspect of changing the

electoral system; they can look at a great many more. And that's the problem I have with it. Yes, it's a private member's bill. Is it illegal? No. Mr. Patten is suggesting it's not illegal for him to do this, and of course it's not. But it is,

should it pass today, should it be ordered to committee today, going to usurp the function of the 103 individuals, because that is their responsibility. If they are going to recommend that the system remain the same, they can do so by amendment,

and one of the amendments, quite possibly, could be this. I believe we should be leaving that to those individuals.

That is what should be happening, and, quite frankly, that's what the minister had to say the other day. I just go back; it's only a couple of days old. This is what the minister said in the House in

introducing her bill, in response to the bill she introduced on October 24: "On or before May 15, 2007, the assembly will announce their recommendation. If the assembly decides that there should be a change to our current electoral system, a

referendum is needed to allow all voting Ontarians the opportunity to participate in the final decision." That's not what's going to happen here, and that's why I have that problem.

I have to say that the citizens' assembly will look at far more than whether to put a name on a ballot, but they could do that. In fact, that might be all they do, should they decide the system is one that

should be retained. But I do have a problem as well, because the system, as it has existed in Ontario for 140 years, with all of its flaws, is well understood by the people of this province. Notwithstanding that it got as far as an all-party

committee in 1989, there has never been a serious effort to actually have this passed until today. This is the first time it's ever been debated in this Legislature. With all respect, in 2003 it was not debated. In 1999, there was a private

member's bill that was not debated as well. I've done the research on this.

Mr. Patten: And 204.

Mr. Prue: Well, 204 was not debated --

Mr. Patten: You spoke to it.

Mr. Prue: We could not find it, nor could the library.

But I want to let the citizens' assembly do what they need to do, and what the citizens' assembly needs to do is not figure out whether or not to put a name on a ballot, but in fact how people are elected to

this House. There are three basic types of democracy, as the select committee that travelled across Canada and to Europe this year found out. There are three basic ways that people get elected.

One is the system that we have used here in Ontario for 140 years, the Westminster model, also known as first past the post. In that system, it is not necessary to have, and in fact very often does not have,

party affiliation on the ballot. The reason is that, as it was developed, it was possible and is still possible for individuals to run without party affiliation and, provided they get the most votes, they can win. They will be here and will serve

in the same capacity as someone who is elected through the party process or is a member of a political party or campaigns with party literature. We have, over the 140 years of using this model, seen fit not to include the party label primarily for

that reason: to give individuals who are not affiliated the same opportunity as those who are to seek election and to be seen to be fair on a ballot, listing them only alphabetically and in no other way.

There is another type of system that was studied by the select committee, which exists primarily in Ireland and in Malta, and to some very small extent in the state and senate Legislatures of Australia, called

the STV system. It is a system in which parties are important, because the parties determine which candidate they are going to run in the multi-member constituencies. It is the parties that determine the candidate to put forward and the number of

candidates they are putting forward, and where it is literally impossible for people not affiliated with a party to be elected. In that, party affiliation is necessary, because in an STV system it would have to be on the ballot.

The same is true with an MMP ballot, the mixed member proportional system, used, with the exception of Britain and Canada, probably everywhere else in the world. People generally get two votes: one for the

person to represent them in the constituency, who is not named as a party member, save and except in Germany; and a second vote for the party they would like to see in the Legislature, where they would cast their second vote. In that system, party

affiliation is not necessary and ought not to be put on the constituency level, but it would be absolutely essential if you are casting your second ballot in favour of a party.

The reason I'm talking about this is not to confuse this issue but to simply say that this is what the citizens' committee is going to be wrestling with. They are going to have to look at whether or not the

system as it exists is an appropriate one and whether or not it should be changed, and if it's changed, how is the party label attached? This will usurp that function.

I have to say, I'm somewhat puzzled. I remember the heady days -- or at least they were heady days for the new Liberal government back in October 2003. They ran an election and won 72 seats. We in the New

Democrats were reduced to seven seats. We acted very much as a party, the same as everyone else in that election. We had debates, we had leaders, we had posters and all kinds of literature that went out and ads on television and everything as a

party. But when it came to the Legislature on the first day we were here, the Liberal government in their wisdom said we weren't a party. Remember that? We were not a party. We were seven independents. The legislation said we were independents

because --

Mr. Patten: Because the rules said that.

Mr. Prue: Because the rules said that. Then these are the same --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Prue: If we were independents, it's because the election process mandated that you were independent. I have a hard time saying, "You're seven independents in here." It forced Marilyn

Churley to change her name at that time to "Marilyn Churley NDP" so she could be recognized in the House for what she believed was a party. Yet here we have a bill that does the opposite.

Mr. Patten: It's not the opposite.

Mr. Prue: It's the opposite. I didn't heckle a single time when you spoke. I don't know. You must be very bitter about something.

Mr. Patten: You are.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Prue: In the end, we need to do many things. Mr. Sterling was correct that there needs to be a reform of the Legislature, perhaps, so that there is not mindless heckling taking place while

members are trying to debate important issues that are before the Legislature and other things that need to be done. That is important. But in the final analysis, a decision has to be made whether this is a good idea. Were we not looking at

electoral reform, were we not doing anything else, I would say that this is not a bad idea. Send it to committee, see what people have to say about it, pass it if you want to.

But in the whole analysis of what is taking place, what is going to happen next March or April when 103 citizens report, what is likely to happen in terms of a referendum, what is likely to happen in terms of

discussion and education, what is likely to happen on October 4, 2007, when people will not only vote for a new government but will vote on all of the reforms that the citizens are putting forward, should they put reforms together at all, I do not

believe that this should be instituted. I do not believe that it should, if it is passed here today, go to committee. I do not believe anything should happen to it save and except that the citizens' committee should be informed that the members

who were here in the Legislature and who voted on this today think it is an idea that they may wish to consider. That is the only thing that should happen to this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'll just to try to make the point of why we should support this bill, based on being the member for Ottawa-Orléans and a member from the Ottawa

community. I'm really pleased that the member for Ottawa Centre, a good friend and a very hard worker for his community and for Ottawa -- I'll just try to make the point why we should certainly support this bill.

The member for Lanark-Carleton made a good point. It's one of the few good points that I've heard him make since I got here three years ago. He's a fellow engineer; I should be more supportive. But he said

that approximately 50% of people vote party when they get into the booth, so that's an important thing. From my perspective as the member for Ottawa-Orléans, I'd be very proud to have "Liberal" beside my name on that ballot. I think I should

have my name and then the word "Liberal" beside it, because I think the record is what we should be running on.

I'd just like to go over the record in Ottawa-Orléans. What the Conservatives did is they closed the Grace hospital. Well, the Liberals added three MRIs, so I think that's a record that we can be proud

of. They closed the Riverside hospital; we expanded the Queensway Carleton. So again, it's a record. Let's have the record in there beside our name. I think it's important. What have we done in the preceding years so that the voters should support

us?

The Conservatives tried to close the Montfort Hospital, et c'était grâce à Gisèle Lalonde et le groupe de francophones et francophiles à Ottawa qu'ils ont gagné en cour et

l'Hôpital Montfort est ouvert aujourd'hui. Ce n'est pas seulement ouvert aujourd'hui ; the Liberal government, which I'm a proud member of, will double the size of the Montfort Hospital. That will be great for my community of

Ottawa-Orléans. So I want to run on that Liberal record.

The Conservatives tried to close the CHEO cardiac unit. We added newborn screening.

The Deputy Speaker: I know the member is going to bring this line of discussion back to Bill 146 and the content of that bill, please.

Mr. McNeely: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that.

The purpose, I think, of what is being advanced by the member for Ottawa Centre is that we should have our party affiliation on the ballot. It is extremely important. It's extremely important if you look at

what's happened to our health system. It's important if you look at our record on the education system. It's our investments. Liberals invest in our country and in our province. You look at a federal surplus of $13 billion, yet no dollars for

commercializing our great research that we're doing in this province.

So I think that's what we're talking to: What does that mean? What does Conservative mean? What does Liberal mean? What does the New Democratic Party mean? I think that's what we're talking about. I'd just

like to say that I want to run with that label beside my name; I am proud of it. On this side of the House, I think we all want to do that. I can understand that the member from Simcoe-Grey would want to run against the record of that party and so

would not want the name there. But I think that we as Liberals on this side of the House feel it is extremely important that the Liberal name be beside our name, because when people go into the polling booth, as they do in our riding, in

Ottawa-Orléans -- we have a lot of military moving in and moving out, we have a lot of civil servants who are moving in and moving out, and if they move in just shortly before the election, it lets them know what the party affiliation is they

would be voting for. I'm very much in favour of that.

I think there are a lot of reasons why we should run on our record. If a party decides to cut all funding for public transit, if a party decides to not have a good environmental program in place, that it's

going to ignore Kyoto, that name should go against the name of the person running for that party, because those are their historical positions on important issues and those are going to be their positions on current issues.

I am very much in favour of doing this; I think we should. We have a party system in this province. I'm very supportive of the bill brought forward by the member for Ottawa Centre, and I hope very much that it

gets the support of this House. We're all proud of our record. Let's put the name of the party that has that record on the ballot.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to debate the bill brought forward this morning by the member from Ottawa Centre, Bill 146, the Election

Amendment Act.

I do understand and appreciate the intent of the bill in identifying the party affiliation of candidates on provincial election ballots in Ontario, and I support that. There have been times throughout the

history of Ontario where there's certainly been confusion -- candidates with similar names, which was brought forward today, voters who speak different languages and immigrants, just to name a few.

There is a lot to be said for democratic reform, and it takes different angles. I know the member from Lanark-Carleton is certainly a statesman. He's been in the Legislature for many years, and his comments on

this issue also lead us to the behaviour in the Legislature that we need to reform, that this is where a lot of reform needs to take place. I can cite many examples of ministers and members talking back and forth to each other, and that kind of

decorum is not an example that we want to present to Ontarians.

Part of this bill is the fact that we're one of only two provinces that do not list party affiliations alongside candidates' names. In 1989, there was a report commissioned, and it recommended these two

changes that the member has brought forward. So I certainly hope that the government on that side is going to move forward on this bill.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you for giving me the chance to speak for a couple minutes in support of Bill 146. I'm sorry, I was in a committee and didn't hear all the debate

about this bill. But I received Mr. Patten's speech last night and I read it all. I know what he's looking for. There's no doubt about it: The member from Ottawa Centre always brings unique ideas and has a different perspective on many different

issues in this House, probably due to his experience in this place, where he has participated in many elections. I think I will take his wise advice as a person with experience, because he's been, as I mentioned, through many elections.

Also, I listened to my friend my colleague from Ottawa-Orléans when he was talking about a very important element: why we have to attach the name of the party to the name of the candidate. It's very

important when you have a society or a community with a big university or a military base, for instance, where the soldiers and military move back and forth on a regular basis or the students move back and forth from their locations. So it is very

important to attach the party to the candidate's name. Most of the time, people vote for the platform of the party, which is very important. When you have a platform presented by the NDP or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, the people,

before an election, agree or disagree on the platform of the party. As you know, most of the time, realistically, most people in this place, whether they're from the opposition or the governing party, vote with their government, vote for their

platform and fight for their platform.

This gives some kind of democratic process to elections, when we allow the people of Ontario, the electorate, to know exactly what they're voting for when they go to vote, to know exactly what they are getting

when they vote for one party or another party, which I think is very important, because most of the time we vote for the platform; we don't vote for the individuals. Due to respect for many individuals, the candidates, in the province of Ontario,

many people who don't like the party like its members. But in general, to give an indication of a very good range of approaches to the democratic process, I think we have a right to apply some kind of mechanism that will allow the people to know

which party they are voting for.

So I agree with the member from Ottawa Centre. He brings a very unique perspective. As we are reviewing the Election Act at the present time, a part of it should be to look at adding the name of the party

before the name of the candidate. Then I think we will have applied the full democratic process.

I know the citizens of this province are always looking at us as the people who represent them. They want to see a full presentation, they want to see their views being implemented and reflected in this place.

Therefore, I think it's very important to add the affiliation of the party before the name of the candidate. It's very important to allow whatever party has a good platform, whether it's on education or health care or infrastructure, to be

elected.

So in the end, I support my colleague from Ottawa Centre. Hopefully all members of this House will give him support, because it's very important for our democracy.

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

Mr. Patten: I want to thank the members who have spoken on this, regardless of their views. I think it's an important issue, albeit a small step on the long road of democratic reform, of which

many of you have spoken.

I thought the first member who spoke, the member from Lanark-Carleton, shared some insightful information, something that has some validity, by sharing some views of the studies which show that party

affiliation is the basis on which most people do things.

This particular bill, by the way, would identify independent people, so that for the member from Beaches-East York, when he worries about the nature of affiliation, an independent would be identified. I think

of somebody who runs as a Liberal one time and then has a falling out with their party and runs again. People may think, "Well, that person is still a Liberal," but in the next election the person would be identified as an independent, and that

would clarify that for people as they were engaging in this.

By the way, for the member from Beaches-East York, this bill is different from last time. I remember some people were concerned about asking the parties to sign off on who the candidates representing the party

might be. But you'll have to agree that whatever your basis is, each party has to endorse a candidate to use their party affiliation. That's why I took that

section out as to however that is done.

I also agree that the citizens' assembly might want to address this. I'll try to see if there's a way in which I can in fact introduce this concept to them, because it seems to me most members are in agreement

with this. The fact is that we are out of step with our siblings across Canada. There is some reason why they have found this to be useful and continue to promote it, and I hope that members will support this.

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

TRANSCANADA HIGHWAY

IMPROVEMENT ACT

(HIGHWAY 17), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE L'AUTOROUTE

TRANSCANADIENNE (ROUTE 17)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll first deal with ballot item 55, standing in the name of Mr. Orazietti.

Mr. Orazietti has moved second reading of Bill 149. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'd ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: It has been asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item 56. Mr. Patten has moved second reading of Bill 146,

An Act to amend the Election Act. Is the pleasure of the House

that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to refer this bill to the standing committee on public accounts.

The Deputy Speaker: It has been asked that this bill be referred to the standing committee on public accounts. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1201 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): After eight long months of increasing tensions and disruptions in Caledonia, the Premier now says it's time to shift the problem entirely to the federal

government. He is even going to give them a bill for his mismanagement, all of which seems to be an attempt to divert attention from this government's abysmal response in Caledonia. Let me give you some examples of the responses to date by this

government.

In response to questioning about the cost, the minister said, and I quote, it would "cost what it costs." Now that the costs have mushroomed, the Premier has suddenly decided to present a bill to the federal

government, including policing costs, which are a provincial responsibility. Yet the federal government says to date it has received no formal request for compensation.

Earlier this year, Minister Ramsay said, "The dispute really is an accounting claim, by and large. While there are some particular parcels that are involved in a land claim, the overall dispute is an

accounting claim." The minister boasted that the province was taking a lead role in Caledonia, and the Premier stated that he took pride in working hand in hand with the federal government every step of the way. In June, the Premier stated firmly

that community safety was a condition of further negotiations, and yet, to date, the people wanted for serious charges remain at large.

All the people of this province can know with certainty is that this government and this Premier will say whatever is most advantageous at the time.

WORLD PSORIASIS DAY

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): It seems that there are days, weeks and months set aside to celebrate, acknowledge and raise awareness around so many causes, concerns and issues, many

of which -- most of which, actually -- are noted, even founded inside this Legislature. October 29 is no different.

For a number of years, various patient groups discussed the idea of having an annual day especially dedicated to people with psoriasis. In 2004, members and non-members of psoriasis associations all around the

world launched World Psoriasis Day to raise awareness of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. World Psoriasis Day is truly a global event, giving voice to the 125 million people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis around the world. World

Psoriasis Day aims to raise the profile of a condition which needs to be taken more seriously by international and national authorities. People with psoriasis need to know that they are not alone, and others need to understand that while psoriasis

is not contagious, it is a disease that can be quite devastating and cause much misery to its sufferers.

As with many health issues, there is little comfort level with discussing psoriasis, but if we are to achieve better health care options for its sufferers, we need to be more forthcoming in our discussions.

This statement is an attempt to make a contribution to that end. This October 29 is an opportunity for us all to educate ourselves about psoriasis and to show our support for its sufferers.

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to state the clear position of John Tory and the PC caucus with respect to Bill 43. We on this side of the House have stated from the

very beginning that we fully support clean water and source water protection for Ontarians. The McGuinty intention with Bill 43 has never been about clean water; it has everything to do with downloading legal and financial obligations.

It's important to correct what a number of members across the way have tried to suggest, and it's a shame that they have stooped so low in their partisan ways and are trying to make fools of Ontarians. The

member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, the member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Perth-Middlesex, the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, the member for Northumberland, the member

for Huron-Bruce and, of course, the Minister of the Environment, who is gleefully carrying the baton in this relay of inaccuracy -- I say to those members, how dare you turn your clean water into a political issue?

Shame on you for trying to make fools of hard-working Ontarians, and shame on you for breaking your promises and doing anything to get elected. If any one of the members I've mentioned had one ounce of

courage, they would come clean with the people of Ontario and say this bill does not do what they are pretending it does.

The minister says they're rolling up their sleeves on that side of the House. If that's what you call avoiding responsibility, hiding behind yet another layer of bureaucracy, downloading responsibilities and

providing inaccurate information to Ontario, Minister, you're doing one heck of a good job.

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Toronto and Ontario have been witness to great festivities in recent days as three of Ontario's major faith communities all marked significant occasions on

their religious calendars. The Muslim community celebrated Eid, the Hindu community celebrated Diwali and the Sikh community celebrated Bandi Chhor Divas.

In addition to timing, another similarity these occasions share with one another is how they touch upon themes like transcendence over intolerance, altruism and community building. Eid marks the end of the

holy month of Ramadan, a time of worship and contemplation. The month also teaches social consciousness and solidarity. Diwali commemorates Lord Rama's return after 14 years in exile and the victory over darkness. The Sikh community commemorates

Guru Hargobind Sahib's return from being jailed as a political prisoner.

My riding of Toronto-Danforth is home to followers of all three faiths, many of whom converged at Gerrard India Bazaar, also in my riding, this past weekend as it hosted a vibrant celebration to honour this

auspicious time amongst believers.

I wish to take this opportunity in the Legislature to again wish my constituents from all three communities, Eid Mubarak, Shubh Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas Mubarak.

MAC CUDDY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Words like "hard-working, driven, ambitious, competitive and proud" would appropriately describe Mac Cuddy. This self-made millionaire was born

on a farm near Kerwood and was a graduate of the University of Guelph. In 1950, he started his business with the purchase of a farm and 1,500 turkeys near Strathroy.

Mac Cuddy was more than a producer; he was a natural geneticist. Together with his friend George Nicholas, they developed the first white turkey, which was more tender and better muscled than the black birds

we had traditionally seen on our tables. Mac wanted to make turkey more than just a Thanksgiving and Christmas meat, so the business continued to grow as the turkey king of Canada expanded into processing, marketing and transportation.

Soon, one in every six turkeys sold in the world came from a Cuddy egg. By the 1980s, Cuddy Food Products had won the Canadian contract to supply chicken McNuggets and filets to McDonald's restaurants.

He received many honours for his work as an innovator in the agri-food industry. For many years, Mac Cuddy was one of the largest employers in his hometown of Strathroy, and he supported its residents by

generously donating to local charities and events. In return, the community of Strathroy has taken its identity from its association with Cuddy Farms. We have our annual turkey fest and proudly call ourselves the turkey capital of Canada.

The original brick house still stands as the family home. That's where Mac Cuddy died last Wednesday of complications from his 19-year battle with multiple sclerosis. He was 86 years old.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Liberals will say anything to get re-elected, as they've shown with their false rhetoric about the Ontario Landowners and supply management. But

remember, one doesn't look behind the bedroom door unless one has hidden there himself, and the Liberals have been hiding behind that bedroom door for quite some time.

On October 5, I met with the Ontario Landowners. The next day, the landowners sent out a press release, and now the Liberals are calling it a secret meeting. Let me quote a September 21 letter from the Ontario

Landowners: "We are currently making arrangements to meet with the members of the Liberal Party's rural caucus to voice our concerns with the problematic pieces of legislation. They appear to be quite eager to accommodate us." The Liberals offered

two possible dates for their secret meeting. Why are the Liberals being so secretive? What are they hiding?

Yesterday, George Smitherman questioned opposition support for supply management. My question: Why hasn't he signed on his support for FarmGate5? It's not just him; 31 Liberals oppose supply management. I'm

proud that every PC member has signed the FarmGate5 initiative supporting supply management. But this raises the question, if George Smitherman massaged the facts in his most recent press release, can we really believe anything the Deputy Premier

has to say?

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In terms of decorum in the House, I believe a different way of saying that someone told an untruth was just done, and I think it

should be withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): While it is a point of order, I am not exactly certain that that's what occurred. But I know that all members will try to use their best judgment in

ensuring that not only the strict rules are adhered to, but the general spirit of the rules is adhered to.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, often referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve

cells in the brain and spinal cord. Motor neurons die, and the brain's ability to initiate and control muscle movement is lost. Patients in the late stages of the disease may become totally paralyzed, although, for the vast majority of people,

their minds remain unaffected. Sadly, in all cases, ALS is fatal.

Across the country, 3,000 Canadians live with ALS. One of these individuals is Don Genier, who lives in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. Mr. Genier, a former OPP constable, faces his disease

bravely and with the unwavering support of his loving wife, Traci Trottier, and his extended family of Corus Entertainment, our local radio station. Tonight, Corus Entertainment will be presenting a concert at Aultsville Theatre that will draw

awareness to the disease while simultaneously raising funds to help Mr. Genier find alternative treatment for his condition. This concert will feature prominent local talent from eastern Ontario, with performances by Ashley MacLeod, the Bobby

Lalonde Band and Traci Trottier's own sister, Kelli Trottier, who is an outstanding fiddle player.

I wish to draw to the attention of this House the situation faced by those suffering from ALS, and to wish Mr. Genier and his family the best of luck with the concert this evening. Certainly, they will be in

the thoughts and prayers of all those attending