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

June 14, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2001-Jun-14 (PDF)

L030 - Thu 14 Jun 2001 / Jeu 14 jun 2001

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 14 June 2001 Jeudi 14 juin 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Ipperwash Provincial Park

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Water extraction

Kids’ fishing day

Nursing homes

Georgina business excellence awards

Northern cancer treatment

Personal needs allowance

Grand Valley Lions Club

Visitor

Northern cancer treatment

Bowmanville Museum

Special report, Ombudsman

United Counties of Prescott and Russell Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 sur les Comtés-Unis de Prescott et Russell

ORAL QUESTIONS

Education funding

Northern cancer treatment

Education funding

Northern cancer treatment

Hospital funding

Doctors’ services

Air quality

Stevenson road interchange

Personal needs allowance

Hospital funding

Summer school

Cedarvale ravine

Occupational health and safety

Air quality

Business of the house

PETITIONS

Municipal restructuring

Education tax credit

Lord’s Prayer

Sale of schools

Education tax credit

Personal needs allowance

Education tax credit

Nurses

Diabetes treatment

Education tax credit

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Victim Empowerment Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 sur l’habilitation des victimes

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Ipperwash Provincial Park

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This is a resolution:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

Acknowledges that the letter from the George family dated May 30, 2001, now removes the basis upon which the government defeated a motion calling for the establishment of a public inquiry into the events surrounding the shooting death of Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995; and

Endorses the proposal of the George family for a process that will finally determine the facts about the events at Ipperwash Provincial Park and provide advice on how to prevent future occurrences.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Phillips has moved private members’ resolution number 7. Pursuant to the standing orders, the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Phillips: I want to make three points. The first is, should there be some form of an independent public inquiry into the events at Ipperwash Provincial Park?

Let’s remember that this event took place shortly after the Harris government was elected. A First Nations person was killed in this confrontation—the first time, I might add, in well over a century that a First Nations person was killed in a confrontation about a land claim—and an OPP officer was convicted with criminal negligence causing death.

There are an overwhelming number of questions about the events and there are an overwhelming number of instances where the Premier, the cabinet, and the government say one thing, and then evidence comes out that contradicts them.

I say to the public, if you’re interested in this issue, log on to—there is a six-page

summary of the evidence. People say to me, “What evidence do you have about this?” I say, “Here are six pages of written evidence from files, from memos, from police records, from Hansard, where there are contradictions.” If you want to get this six-page

summary, log on to www.ontarioliberal.com.

For those who are watching who would like to have a chance to read the evidence, I want to go through merely three or four of dozens of examples.

The Premier has indicated he had no involvement at all in this issue. On December 20, 2000, here in the Legislature he said, “Oh, yes, that document confirms that the OPP commissioner was at a meeting that I was at, something I indicated quite freely five years ago at the time of the Ipperwash situation. I can tell you the OPP commissioner sought an injunction and we gave him one.” He was saying he was at a meeting on September 6, the day Dudley George was shot.

The next time we had a chance to question the Premier about this, he had changed his mind completely: “I think I may have indicated that we did meet with the OPP commissioner. I’m told we did not meet with the OPP commissioner.” That’s one example.

Second, the First Nations took over the park because they have evidence of a burial ground. The government said there’s no evidence. Sure enough, after the shooting death and when they were examining their files, the government found in its own records here at Queen’s Park evidence of a burial ground and the government was forced to drop all charges against the First Nations. That’s the second example—no burial ground, there’s no reason for them to go in there, and then the government itself finds the evidence.

The government said they had no influence on the approach of the OPP, the type of injunction they were seeking and the approach the OPP was taking. Here is a transcript of the two commanding officers talking with each other about two hours before the shooting. They’d found out that here at Queen’s Park things had changed from what they wanted. The one commanding officer said, “Well, that injunction surprises me ... they [the government] went from that, the regular type of injunction to the emergency type which you know really isn’t in our [OPP’s] favour ... we want a little bit more time.”

Another example of records from the police: the disappearing files. This is Mr Runciman himself. When asked about key files that were eliminated, erased the day a senior OPP officer left the employment of the Solicitor General’s office, here’s what Mr Runciman said: “There was a deputy minister prior to my current deputy who was in office during this period of time. Indeed we are concerned about the loss of these files in terms of our ability to retain very important and critical files. I share your concern” about that.

Anyone who wants more of this is welcome, as I say, to log on to our Web site. I don’t think there’s any doubt there is an absolute need for a public inquiry. I believe there’s substantial evidence of inappropriate behaviour, but I am totally prepared to let an independent, hopefully a respected judge, look at the facts and make a determination for all of us so once and for all we can reach a conclusion on this.

The second point I want to make is that the government is now essentially saying, “Oh, well, let the civil case be the inquiry.” For the public’s information, the George family has launched a civil suit against Premier Harris, three cabinet ministers, the local member and others. This is a gross injustice, to force the facts to be determined by a civil case.

Point one I want to make is that it is the George family, the survivors of Dudley George, who are funding this. Sam George would love to have been here today but he can’t afford to be here. He has to work. He is a man of very modest means. I filed with all the members here the fact that fighting him in this civil case is the Premier, who has already spent $430,000 of taxpayer money on outside lawyers. We have asked how much money is being spent by Mr Runciman, Mr Hodgson, Mr Harnick and Mr Beaubien and have been denied that information.

But it’s clear that with similar defences, well over $1 million of taxpayer money is being spent fighting the George family. This is not fair. If we believe there’s a need to find out the facts about what happened there, and the truth, surely we can’t expect the George family—and believe me, they are fighting this with modest means—to be able to fund a court case that will bring out the facts.

The second thing I’d say is the government’s saying, “The George family decided this is the route they wanted to go, so tough luck. They’re just going to have to live with the civil case.” Let me say to the public that the George family, from the day they launched this civil case, said, “We don’t want to do this. The only reason we’re doing this is because we have no confidence that the Premier will call a public inquiry. This is our only option.” They’ve said from the first day they started this that they would drop it. They sent the Premier a detailed letter dated May 30, 2001, saying, “Listen, true to our word, we will completely drop our civil case.”

They say they are willing to fully and finally drop their wrongful death lawsuit. The lawsuit would be put in abeyance during the inquiry process and would be “formally and finally terminated” when the inquiry final report is presented. It could not be clearer. They want to make absolutely certain that there is actually an inquiry conducted. That’s why they said they would drop it fully and finally the day that report is tabled.

The thought that to get at the truth of what happened at Ipperwash we are going to force a family of one of the victims to fund, essentially for the public, the case of finding out the truth—if this were Walkerton and we were to say to the family of someone who died at Walkerton, “Listen, we’re not going to have a public inquiry into Walkerton. If you want to find out what happened there, sue us. You go and hire a lawyer and you take us through court. We’ll fight you every step of the way, and we’ll spend millions of dollars fighting you. If you want to know the truth, then you take that approach.”

I say a gross injustice has been done the George family. The judge said that an unarmed man was killed and an OPP officer was convicted of criminal negligence. They went in there because of a burial ground that the government itself found out about. That was an injustice. Now, the second gross injustice is, to get at the truth, we, the Legislature, are going to force them to fund the very inquiry to find out what happened. Surely the matter is now in the hands of the Legislature. Whatever injustice was done at that time, we have an opportunity to not commit a second injustice.

I urge us to look inside ourselves on this. All of you read the facts about what happened and the contradictory evidence. Make up your own minds, and I think you’ll reach the conclusion that we owe the George family and the people of Ontario a fair inquiry. We cannot condone forcing the George family to fund this inquiry on their own backs.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I wish to provide some comments this morning on the resolution introduced by Mr Phillips, who is the member from Scarborough-Agincourt.

First of all, there’s no question the death that occurred at Ipperwash Provincial Park was a tragedy that touched all of us, that touched the people of this province and prompted an outpouring of sympathy from the people of Ontario.

As Mr Phillips has indicated, there is currently a civil action that’s related to this incident now before the courts. It’s important for all members of this House to realize that statements within the Legislature are public statements, and when these statements refer to matters that are before the courts, the court case could be affected. It is for this reason that caution must be used in the matter at issue.

I’d like to say that it is the best policy for any member of the Legislature, as it is a fundamental principle of our justice system, to refrain from commenting on these matters until the court process has been completed. In fact, I’d like to refer to the standing orders of this Legislature,

section 23(g)(i):

“In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he ...

“(

g) Refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding

“(

i) that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination.”

The position of most members in this matter has been clear and consistent from the beginning. It is based on respect for due process under the law.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if the member might, in order to be clear to the public, read the entire thing where it says—

The Acting Speaker: No, that is not a point of order.

Mr Tilson: Members in this place should avoid trying to prejudice any case before the courts. That’s been a long-standing practice in this Legislature. Mr Phillips has debated this matter before and has asked numerous questions. On each occasion, the government has kept its remarks brief. And it is for this reason that I will refrain from being drawn into an improper debate.

Once again, as the Attorney General of the province of Ontario has stated, it is because these matters are before the courts that the government has repeatedly stated that other options will not be considered until all court proceedings are completed. It would be improper and premature to make a decision or to comment further while these matters remain before the courts. Relying on the courts and the due process of law was the action taken by the government. It would not be appropriate to argue the court case in this Legislature. This is not a court of law. It does not make judicial decisions and does not interfere with the court process.

Mr Phillips has told this Legislature that the plaintiffs have offered to hold their action in abeyance if a public inquiry is conducted. As I understand it, there is no provision in the rules of civil procedure for an abeyance. Accordingly, the parties would have to obtain a stay from the court subject to the terms agreed upon by the parties as to a continuance of action at a later date. Even if the parties agree to a stay of proceedings, it may well be that the court would exercise its discretion to move the matter forward.

Five years ago, the plaintiffs, as referred to by Mr Phillips, chose to commence a lawsuit. That civil action is underway. The same issues are the very issues that Mr Phillips wants to have reviewed in a public inquiry. As the member knows, the public inquiry process is rarely used, and for good reason. Under the terms of the Public Inquiries Act, a public inquiry is normally launched only when broad systemic issues are involved, issues that transcend the conduct of individuals. For situations where the conduct of individuals is questioned, the civil and criminal courts are well equipped to find the truth. Thousands and thousands of litigants have recourse to the court system each year.

The head of an inquiry is normally a judge or a retired judge, while a civil proceeding, of course, is also conducted by a judge. A public inquiry is based on terms of reference given it by the government,

whereas a civil proceeding turns on the issues as defined by the parties themselves. The parties to a civil action are the plaintiff and any defendant they choose to involve, and such third parties as the plaintiffs and the defendants may choose to involve. The plaintiffs set out the parameters and the boundaries of the lawsuit. The party suing for damages establishes the issues that they believe need to be examined.

An inquiry normally holds public hearings, and of course court proceedings are generally open to the public. The recommendations of a public inquiry are generally broad in nature and address systemic problems, not just individual actions.

An important difference in outcomes between an inquiry and a court is that an inquiry cannot make a finding of civil or criminal liability. The action currently before the court is asking for a determination of civil liability.

An inquiry can, after giving due notice, include in its report what is analogous to a finding of misconduct against one or more individuals. It cannot find them liable in a criminal or civil sense. In fact, under the Public Inquiries Act, evidence given to an inquiry cannot be used in a criminal or civil proceeding against the individual who gave it. Even if an inquiry finds that misconduct occurred, the aggrieved party cannot collect damages on the basis of that finding.

A civil proceeding, on the other hand, can clearly assign blame and impose binding consequences. Discoveries can go on for several days if the parties disagree. A judge decides on what is relevant and can require a party to re-attend if necessary. This discovery process is not available in a public inquiry.

Another step in a civil proceeding is a requirement for the parties to produce all relevant documents in their possession, subject to claims for privilege on such grounds as solicitor-client or public interest immunity. Requirements for document production and claims of privilege are also features of public inquiries.

In a civil action, there is normally a pre-trial to get ready for trial. Copies of expert reports and other exhibits are provided to the parties at this stage, just as they would be during the course of a public inquiry.

Ultimately, there is the trial itself. The plaintiffs can be called as witnesses. They’re examined by their own lawyer and then cross-examined by defence counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel can then reply to points brought up in cross-examination. The defendants can call witnesses, who are examined and cross-examined, and the defence replies. Both then can make closing submissions on all issues of fact, negligence and damages.

Finally, the judge renders a decision and provides reason for the decision to the parties. All court documents—transcripts, evidence, exhibits and the decision—are ordinarily available to the public.

That’s the civil litigation process.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is no potential finding about the causes of the events at Ipperwash that could be made by a commissioner that could not be made by a trial judge. Again, I remind members that there is a civil action before the courts, the very civil action that is referred to by Mr Phillips. Surely the member has faith in our civil justice system. For hundreds of years, our country has relied on the justice system. Every year, thousands and thousands of litigants rely on the civil courts to obtain justice. As the mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes, the civil courts have been a foundation stone for our very civilization.

The resolution suggests that the justice system in this province is an inferior process. The similarities between public inquiries and civil proceedings are quite striking. Typically, both are presided over by judges, both have the power to call and examine all relevant evidence and witnesses, and both make their records and findings public. The most important difference is that a commission cannot make findings of civil liability,

whereas a judge can. There is a strong case to be made that a civil trial would be a better way of getting justice for the parties to the lawsuit.

The government of Ontario did not launch this civil proceeding. Other people took the government to court, which they have every right to do. The proceeding is well underway. It has progressed significantly since 1998. A

schedule has been put in place. Thousands of documents have been exchanged. The case is being managed by a judge assigned to deal with all pre-trial matters. I am confident that this process will ensure a swift and sure progression of the case.

Numerous court proceedings have already taken place. Over the next few months, all the parties will be examined for discovery. There would be no point, as is being suggested in this resolution before the House by Mr Phillips, in starting from scratch with a whole new process. There would be no point in that at all.

The Premier of Ontario has said—he’s said it in this House; he’s said it in scrums outside this place—that when the court proceedings are exhausted and there are any questions that remain unanswered, the government would look to the best ways to answer these questions. The appropriate steps would be taken at that time to ensure that all matters have been reviewed.

In the meantime I, and I hope all members of this place, have confidence in the justice system. I have confidence in the courts that they will answer all of the questions that the plaintiffs are raising and that justice will be done.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution introduced by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

I want to start again by lauding the conviction and courage shown by my colleague. Gerry Phillips is deeply committed to finding the truth surrounding the circumstances at Ipperwash Provincial Park. He has worked tirelessly behind the scenes and in the public eye to get at the truth. His continuing work on this issue is a testament to this man’s decency, his work ethic and his commitment to doing simply what is right. I think all members, and I mean all members, should acknowledge and applaud the attributes of this member.

Mr Phillips’s work is proof, in this age of cynicism felt by so many for what we do in this place, that this place is still quite relevant, if only because one MPP can still make a very real and positive difference.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt would be the first to tell you, however, that his contribution has been small compared to the contribution of the George family. There is no doubt about that. This is a family that has shown enormous courage. They suffered the deepest personal loss one can imagine when their loved one, Dudley George, was shot dead in a protest outside Ipperwash Provincial Park. They lost someone they loved suddenly and without warning and, perhaps the unkindest cut of all, without explanation.

One would understand if the George family simply walked away to take time to heal. But instead, they have taken on the most powerful interests in the province. They’re not seeking revenge. They’re not seeking attention. They’re not seeking personal gain. All they are seeking is the truth, the truth about Ipperwash. Despite very modest resources, the George family has fought for the truth now for six long and gruelling years.

They have fought both in the courts and in the court of public opinion, and they have fought tirelessly and courageously, which begs the question, why has it been such a long and difficult fight for the George family? There’s only one answer to that, and that’s because of the government’s deliberate stonewalling.

The family was given no choice. They had no alternative but to bring a suit against the Premier and members of this cabinet. But what it really wants, what it really seeks at the end of the day, is a full, impartial public inquiry. And who would blame them, when they have lost so much in such mysterious circumstances? Who can blame them when the government’s and in particular the Premier’s story keeps changing? The Premier’s own version of the truth recently changed and then he backtracked, and then he backtracked a second time.

Throughout this, this Premier and this government have shown nothing but contempt for the George family. This government has been more than willing to subject the George family to the undue financial hardship that results from their having to pursue a civil case so that it can obtain the truth. The George family has now indicated it is prepared to drop the suit if this government would simply begin a public inquiry. Throughout, the government has maintained it could not proceed with a public inquiry because of another matter before the courts.

Now the George family is telling this government, and particularly Mike Harris, that they are prepared to relinquish their right to pursue this matter in the civil courts if the government would merely undertake to do what it has committed to do all along, which is to hold a public inquiry. Now, faced with that reality, this government has answered that it will not grant any such inquiry.

It’s ironic that a government that felt so threatened by a roadblock at Ipperwash Provincial Park is now throwing up roadblock after roadblock in the way of justice and finding the truth. I have to ask, what is the government so afraid of? Months ago, Ian Urquhart of the Toronto Star put it eloquently in a column. Mr Urquhart wrote, “There is one downside to a cover-up, no matter how well it is executed: it tells everyone that there is something to hide.” It seems to me that if the government had nothing to hide, surely it would support a public inquiry.

The George family has said that all it wants is the truth: the truth about Ipperwash, the truth as to why something went horribly wrong despite and—this is important—the OPP’s lengthy history of dealing with these situations peacefully and successfully.

The George family wants the truth about the government’s hard-line approach. They want answers to some very important questions. They want to know what really happened at Ipperwash. They want to know whether the Premier himself was directly involved. They want to know what political direction, if any, was given to the OPP by members of the cabinet. They want the truth about Ipperwash. That’s all they want, and that’s all the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has been fighting for on their behalf: the truth.

At the end of the day, if we collectively, as members of this august assembly, are committed to anything, surely it is to finding the truth. It is for that reason that I, without reservation, support this resolution.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I rise in support of this resolution. I think it’s important at this point in time to reflect upon what got us here, why we’re here and how similar situations have been handled by governments in the past.

The facts are reasonably well known. Dudley George was shot dead by a member of the Ontario Provincial Police in the summer of 1995. We have seen a number of media stories that indicate the Ontario Provincial Police did not follow their own guidelines for dealing with disputes with First Nations, particularly in the case of land claims, that the OPP for some reason ignored their own guidelines. We know the OPP also did not follow their own guidelines for the use of the OPP tactical squad or the OPP special unit. It’s incredibly unusual for the Ontario Provincial Police not to follow their own procedures.

Something must be incredibly important or incredibly powerful to force the Ontario Provincial Police to abandon not one but two of their codes of procedure.

We also know, and this is quite strange, that at the time this was happening an elected member of the Legislature, who happens to be a government member, was in fact in the OPP command post on site. That is incredible in itself, because what it suggests is political interference in the day-to-day activities of a police force; in other words, a mixing of the discretion and the law enforcement responsibility of police forces with political activity or political interference. That’s a very serious situation, almost as serious as the fact that the Ontario Provincial Police abandoned two of their own procedural codes in this context.

We then have memoranda that indicate that some direction from the Premier’s office was exercised with respect to the conduct of the OPP. There are memoranda that link either the Premier or someone in the Premier’s office to the statement, “Get the”—I’ll delete the word—“Indians out of the park.” Another memorandum says that the Indians must get out of the park and the OPP must ensure this. I’m paraphrasing what exactly it says but that’s the content of it.

That again suggests political interference by the Premier’s office in the conduct of the OPP, which is most unusual in a democracy, which is frankly totally out of sorts in a democracy, that there should be that level of political interference in the day-to-day conduct and exercise of the authority of a police force.

So we have not one strange situation here, not two peculiar situations here, not three unusual situations here, not four incredible situations here, but more than that, we have a government that in the face of all this refuses to call a public inquiry to determine how it could be that an unarmed, innocent man could be shot dead by the police force, a police force that has abandoned two of its own protocols, a police force that has a member of the government in their command post leading up to this situation, and a police force that, it would appear, received instruction, either directly or indirectly, from the Premier’s office.

This is an incredible number of events that are linked together, yet there is a refusal by this government to call a public inquiry into this situation. Instead, what do they do? They literally force the family of the deceased person to go to court to try to hold the government accountable. Imagine how outlandish that is: a government that preaches accountability, but has done everything it can to avoid accountability in this instance, forces individual citizens to go to court to try to hold it accountable. That is even more outlandish.

It’s worth noting, it’s worth comparing how the government has dealt with this situation where its own activities, its own statements may somehow be connected to the events. It’s worth noting how they’ve handled this situation with respect to Dudley George and then comparing it to other situations.

In the first two years of the first term of this government there was another situation here at Queen’s Park where there was a conflict, an altercation, between OPP officers and people who were protesting here at Queen’s Park. In fact, it was such an awful, such an ugly altercation that it made not only the national news but the international news.

No one died in that altercation—it was a conflict, it was an altercation, but no one died—yet almost immediately the government agreed to call a public inquiry to determine what had happened, how this altercation came to be and what could be done to avoid such awful situations in the future. The government immediately was prepared to call a public inquiry.

I think it’s passing strange to anyone that the government would be prepared to call a public inquiry in one case almost immediately, yet the government has done virtually everything it can within its capacity to avoid calling a public inquiry in another incident where an innocent, unarmed citizen was shot down, was killed, and where all kinds of evidence has come forward that indicates that there was something quite untoward, quite unusual, very peculiar, that happened here which really cries out for a public inquiry. That is the direct comparison.

But there is another comparison that I think needs to be made with respect to the Walkerton situation. Again people died and several other people became very ill—over 2,000 people became very ill. The government did not want to call a public inquiry into that situation, but after some of the information, some of the evidence percolated into the public view, the government felt it had to call a public inquiry.

I can only suggest that what finally forced the government to call a public inquiry there was the fact that information did percolate into the public view, information which indicated that there was something terribly wrong in the water testing, something terribly wrong in the way the results of the water testing were not forwarded on to provincial officials. There was evidence that percolated into the public view that indicated that something had gone very wrong in the normal process of things, such that contaminated water killed people.

With respect, I think we’re faced with exactly the same situation surrounding the death of Dudley George and Ipperwash park. All kinds of information has now percolated into the public view which indicates that there ought to be a public inquiry, which indicates that the situation is very similar to Walkerton: something untoward, totally out of sorts, something that indicates that officials were either not doing their job—information that indicates that the Ontario Provincial Police abandoned two of their own protocols, two of their own directives in terms of how they ought to conduct themselves.

These are very similar circumstances to Walkerton that call out for a public inquiry, yet again the position of the government is that they’re going to force this family—a family that does not have a lot of financial resources, a family that is not well connected in either legal or political circles—to spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to get information from a government that, if you believe the government’s rhetoric, should be willing to step forward and hold itself accountable by means of a public inquiry.

What has the government done? Initially, the government’s response was that once all the criminal cases are out of the way a public inquiry can be held. Well, the criminal cases are out of the way. They’ve been disposed of. My God, they’ve gone to the Supreme Court of Canada. So the criminal cases were disposed of and the request was made of the government, “Will you hold the public inquiry now?” No. The response of the government then became, “There is still a civil case outstanding, and a public inquiry cannot be held until the civil case is dealt with.”

The George family has now come forward and said they’re willing to, in effect, terminate the civil case. They are saying, despite the fact that they have been forced by the government to spend thousands of dollars they don’t have, “We are willing to abandon this. We are willing to terminate the civil case. We’re willing to do away with the civil case. Will you hold a public inquiry now?” And what is the response of the government? The response of the government is once again no.

A government that preaches accountability, a government which has so much rhetoric and propaganda about accountability, is unwilling to hold a public inquiry to demand accountability about how an unarmed, innocent citizen of Ontario was shot down.

The farther you go down this road, the more you follow this government’s expressions, this government’s excuses, the more absurd they become, the more unbelievable they become. Thus we have the need for this resolution today.

All members of the Legislature who’ve watched this sad, sad episode over the last six years since the summer of 1995, if you’ve followed the statements of the Premier and the former Attorney General and the former former former Attorney General and the now Attorney General—I think we’re all forced to conclude that this resolution should have the support of all members.

The criminal cases have been disposed of. The George family is willing to do away with the civil case. The government should call a public inquiry as they did in the case of Walkerton and as they did in the case of the altercation, the conflict which happened here in the first two years of the government between a number of protesters and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The government is running out of excuses. Every excuse they have brought forward has now been disposed of or can be disposed of. Yet the government refuses—refuses—to hold a public inquiry to find out: who was accountable, what happened, why did it happen, how was an innocent, unarmed man shot down by the Ontario Provincial Police force in this province? It refuses to hold an inquiry to determine how these things can be avoided again, how this very sad, very sorry situation that resulted in the wrongful death of a citizen of Ontario could be avoided.

The government refuses to take that step of accountability. The government continues to try to find sorry excuses, lame excuses, to avoid that kind of accountability, thus the need for this resolution.

I hope all members who follow this discussion and this debate will feel compelled to support this resolution.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul’s): I rise today in support of this resolution, of course, and really want to direct my comments to the government’s arguments and respond to those arguments.

We’ve heard today some of the same old stuff that they have been peddling for some time, and it’s time they be held to account in a public arena for these straw man arguments.

Laced with contradictions and an obdurate, paranoid insistence on avoiding a full airing of the truth, a full airing of what happened in a tragic incident involving government ministers, involving public servants and involving the tragic shooting death of Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995, today marks the latest lame offensive by this government.

The first argument made by the government in opposition to Ipperwash is that the defendants want to have their day in court. It is as if it were a criminal trial: the defendants have somehow been wrongly accused and they want to clear their name.

When you talk about the defendants having their day in court, that’s what they’re referring to. But not in this case. This is a civil action, and the joke is that these same defendants, some of them, actually went to court and said, “We don’t want to have our day in court.” Today in the House, and before, the Attorney General has said that the defendants want their day in court, yet outside this Legislature particular defendants have gone to the courts and tried to have the case dismissed against them.

They said, “I don’t want to have my day in court.” So either they are telling the truth now or they were telling the truth then, but it can’t be both ways. This argument that the defendants want to have their day in court is a crock.

Next, the argument is made that the civil case is already under way. The Attorney General knows very well and the parliamentary assistant knows very well that most litigation is not settled until the discoveries are done and the pleadings are all in and the motions are complete, and often the settlement takes place on the courthouse steps on the eve of a trial, or in the middle of a trial, or even after all the evidence has been submitted. Why? Because you wait for the other side to blink. The argument that the civil litigation is already under way is as circular an argument as you are ever going to hear.

On that basis we will never, ever have another public inquiry held in the history of this province.

Another argument is, “The justice system can serve the full airing of these issues well.” He knows very well that that’s not the case, and that is why we didn’t rely upon the victims of Walkerton to hold civil litigation in order to hold the government accountable for what happened, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt argued.

Let’s be clear here: there are very important differences between a public inquiry and civil litigation, and the government knows that. But to hear the government argue about the virtues of civil litigation, you’d think they were having second thoughts about the merits of holding a public inquiry in Walkerton. Based upon the arguments made today in this House and before by the Attorney General, we ought never to have a public inquiry, because somehow the civil litigation system will solve such matters. I say to you that they have no support for that opinion. They know it is not the truth.

They know that, in fact, it is not an accurate statement of the difference between civil litigation and public inquiries.

I’ll back up my arguments and I would like to see the government back up theirs. I have in my hands a legal opinion from Professor Patrick Macklem of the faculty of law at the University of Toronto. He has provided a legal opinion as to whether there ought to be a public inquiry in Walkerton based upon any alleged legal obstacles. He sets out, and I’m going to quote at length here, but it is worth quoting at length on this point, why you’d want to hold a public inquiry. Professor Macklem writes:

“Public inquiries are often able to investigate, inform, and educate in ways superior to those available to the judicial and legislative branches of government. The judicial process,” he says, “according to the Ontario Law Reform Commission, tends to assign blame by ‘fragmenting issues into a limited set of categories established by existing norms,’

whereas a public inquiry enables a broader examination of social causes and conditions.” I will continue: “Accordingly,” he writes, “public inquiries often perform an important social function, contributing to”—and he takes this from the Ontario Law Reform Commission—“‘a dramatic transformation in popular perceptions of some previously poorly illuminated aspects of Canadian society and institutions.’”

What is the poorly illuminated aspect in this case? We have the spectre of a scandal. We have the spectre of government ministers being inappropriately involved and being involved in some way in the shooting death of a citizen of Ontario. Well, that’s going to hang out there. That’s always going to hang out there, until we get a public inquiry that gets to the bottom of it.

As Professor Macklem argues, the civil litigation process will determine rights as between parties, the civil litigation process may result in determining who owes what in terms of damages, but a judge, as the government knows very well, cannot make any recommendations for the future, as a public inquiry can. A judge is constrained by legal and evidentiary rules that should be there but are by and large not there. They’re free to get to the bottom of matters in a public inquiry.

So Professor Macklem concludes in his letter of September 8, 1998, to the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into the Death of Dudley George: “The government of Ontario faces no legal barriers to the establishment of a public inquiry to identify the causes of the death of Mr George, to determine whether or not his death could have been prevented, and to recommend means for preventing the occurrence of similar events in the future.” He goes on to say that not only are there no legal barriers but he recommends an inquiry.

In his words, “There are strong policy reasons for establishing a public inquiry as quickly as possible and no valid policy reasons for refusing to establish such an inquiry. Given that both law and policy fully support the establishment of a public inquiry, the government of Ontario’s continued refusal to hold an inquiry can only be explained in terms of a politically motivated unwillingness to subject certain governmental decisions, procedures and actions to public scrutiny.”

It is a damning indictment of this government. It’s not coming from the official opposition; it’s coming from an esteemed scholar from the University of Toronto, a faculty that a number of government members are graduates from. Professor Macklem also wrote a letter in regard to this particular resolution, making it very clear that “in light of the fact”—in his words—“that the plaintiffs have offered to drop the litigation in exchange for an inquiry, a public inquiry ought to be called into this matter immediately.”

There is no support for the government’s position that an inquiry ought not to be called. Their arguments are strong-arm arguments. There is a paranoia here, and the paranoia is backing up our insistence and will continue to drive us to get to the bottom of this matter on behalf of the George family and on behalf of Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes to respond.

Mr Phillips: To wrap up: first, I say to the public of Ontario, any charge I’ve made on the Ipperwash situation is backed up by facts. I ask you and urge you, if you’re interested in this, to log on to www.ontarioliberal.com, and there’s a six-page document that will indicate the hard written evidence to support the fact that there was inappropriate behaviour by the government. There is no question of the need for a public inquiry on this.

The government is saying the civil case will do it. Surely that argument holds no water. Would we ever have said to a victim in Walkerton, “You don’t like what happened at Walkerton? Sue us. Go to court. Fund your own case of going after us.” But that’s what we’re asking the George family to do. It, frankly, is a disgrace. I say to the member who spoke on behalf of the government that this family, the George family—I talked to Sam George and I said, “Sam, it would be helpful if you were here.” He can’t afford to be here today. He can’t take another day off work.

The government has spent $1 million defending themselves. Believe me, the George family, residents of Kettle Creek reserve, are fighting the best they can to get at the truth. They said from the start that the only reason they launched the civil case is because they’ve got no confidence that Premier Harris will ever call an inquiry. They’ve said from the start that they would drop the civil case the day that inquiry was properly called.

There is no doubt about what’s happening here. The government made a huge mistake, in my opinion, around those events at Ipperwash. The government is afraid to let the truth come out and the government is now doing another gross injustice. The Legislature today unfortunately may very well make that gross injustice, and that is, to force the George family into bankruptcy to get at the truth about Ipperwash.

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

Mr Tilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Police Services Act / Projet de loi 59, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services policiers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): This bill started off as an issue which involved a large portion of my riding, mainly the town of Caledon, which is served by the Ontario Provincial Police. The south half of the riding, which includes Brampton and Mississauga, is served by the Peel Regional Police Service. It’s been found for the last number of years that those two police forces should be one, and agreements have been made from time to time with the Solicitor General of Ontario to allow the Ontario Provincial Police to continue.

Originally I was going to introduce this bill for the purposes of simply solving the problem that existed in the town of Caledon, because policing in the town of Caledon is quite different from policing in, for example, Brampton or Mississauga. Caledon is basically a rural community,

whereas Brampton and Mississauga are urban communities.

However, in researching the topic, I discovered that this situation existed throughout Ontario. It existed in Sudbury, it existed in Timmins, it existed in Kenora and it existed in the Kawartha Lakes area, which, as you know, is Lindsay.

I then decided I would make the bill apply to all of the province, and hopefully members, particularly members who are in those areas or members who find themselves in a similar situation, will support the bill to alleviate this discrepancy that exists in the Police Services Act.

The bill, I would say to you, amends the Police Services Act to allow municipalities an additional choice in the provision of police services, which is called hybrid policing, which is based on criteria.

Section 5 of the Police Services Act requires municipalities to provide police services by means of only one of a number of listed methods. So this bill, if passed, would allow municipalities to combine two or more methods where the municipality contains remote or widely dispersed communities or where police services have historically been provided by a different method in a discrete area of the municipality.

That, in

summary, is the intent as to why this bill has been introduced. It’s a very short bill. It consists of one page, which members have before them, and it’s quite clear what the bill is trying to do. As representatives of the public, we have the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that the residents of this province are protected by adequate and effective police servicing. The bill aims to make sure that our communities have the flexibility to determine the police service delivery arrangement that suits them best. In my particular area, I can say that overwhelmingly the people of Caledon believe that the type of policing they have in that area serves them best.

Bill 59 provides municipalities that are responsible for providing such police services with another option in service delivery. Under the current Police Services Act a municipality must choose one of six delivery alternatives: maintain its own police service; contract with an adjacent municipality for police services; contract with the Ontario Provincial police, either alone or jointly with one or more municipalities; amalgamate its existing police service with one or more municipal police services; form a joint police service with one or more municipalities; or adopt another method approved by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

As I have stated, all of these options require a single provider or delivery agent per jurisdiction. That is the problem that exists in my riding and, I know, the ridings of Sudbury, Timmins, Kenora and the Kawartha Lakes area.

It provides more flexibility in police service delivery by adding the option of what I have said is commonly described as hybrid policing. Hybrid policing, for those of you who don’t know what that means, is an arrangement that allows more than one police service to provide services to different areas within a single municipality. Typically, the need for hybrid policing arises from municipal restructuring that incorporates, amalgamates or merges areas that were policed by the Ontario Provincial Police and other police services.

Currently, municipalities that have restructured must adhere to the requirements of the Police Services Act and adopt a single police service under one of the service delivery options that I have mentioned.

If Bill 59 is passed by the Legislature, it would be possible for the local police service to continue in its traditional jurisdiction while another police service covers the balance of the new municipality. Bill 59 takes into consideration the needs of areas with remote or widely dispersed communities; for example, a municipality with remote or widely dispersed communities might derive cost-effectiveness or efficiency benefits if the outlying communities are policed by a neighbouring police service or the Ontario Provincial Police while the core of the municipality is policed by the municipal police service.

The bill allows some municipalities to maintain historic policing relationships, as exist in the town of Caledon, when undergoing restructuring and amalgamation. This legislation provides more flexibility and choice in providing police services while maintaining the requirement for adequate and effective policing services.

I urge all members of this House to support Bill 59, which allows municipalities more choice and an opportunity to choose the method of police service delivery that suits them best. I assure you that all the current government’s mechanisms will remain in place to ensure municipalities satisfy their responsibility for providing adequate and effective policing services.

In the few minutes that are left, I’d like to look at the benefits of amending the Police Services Act to require a single police services board in hybrid policing situations. Under the Police Services Act, the local police services board is responsible for ensuring adequate and effective policing services in the municipality. However, the mandate of the board with governance over municipal police service differs from that of a board overseeing an Ontario Provincial Police contract.

Therefore, without the requirement for a single police services board, as proposed by Bill 59, two separate boards would be required in some hybrid policing services. Caledon, incidentally, for the last number of years hasn’t even had a police services board, which I’m sure is a strange situation in this province. Each board would have a different composition and role according to whether governance was exercised over the municipal police service or the Ontario Provincial Police contract.

In such situations, there would be duplication and greater possibility of differences and inconsistencies between policing services in the different parts of the same community. Bill 59 eliminates this possibility by requiring a single board. This would facilitate consistent police services within the municipality and would give the local police services board the authority to fulfill its responsibility to provide adequate and effective policing services.

In conclusion, I would ask that all members of this House support Bill 59. We want to make sure that our communities have the flexibility to determine the police service delivery arrangement that suits them best.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I am pleased to rise and speak to the private member’s bill introduced by the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. Before I get into the specifics of the bill, I have to give some background on why this bill has a profound effect on the city of Greater Sudbury. It wouldn’t have had any effect on the former regional municipality of Sudbury, but we’re forced to look at this hybrid policing because in the government’s quick move to amalgamate certain jurisdictions, they didn’t really think out the process of policing too well.

So this is not really all about choice; this is about a need to fix a situation that was caused by amalgamation in Sudbury, amalgamation in Ottawa-Carleton, amalgamation in Kawartha Lakes, amalgamation in any jurisdiction across Ontario.

Let me talk a little bit about this amalgamation, first of all, and then I will deal directly and specifically with how it affects our now city of Greater Sudbury.

Under our municipal restructuring, we ended up with less representation. In fact all the amalgamated areas ended up with less representation. We also ended up with more costs. The amalgamation in our community involved seven municipalities, along with underserviced areas and some areas that were not being serviced. We took seven municipalities that were virtually debt-free—several of them had surpluses in their budgets. They were running effectively, efficiently and were certainly meeting the needs of the constituents they represented. The government forced amalgamation upon us.

We now have one city of Greater Sudbury that is approximately $10.3 million in debt. None of the promises the short-lived Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Steve Gilchrist, made have come true or will come true without drastic alteration. We have a city, made up of seven area municipalities, that is now in debt. I wouldn’t think that was in the best interests of the citizens of the new city of Greater Sudbury.

You also have increases in user fees. We now have a sewage fee. That’s a tax. Before, we had a water rate; now, we have a sewage rate as well, almost doubling almost the fee that citizens of Greater Sudbury have to pay.

We have a council that is burdened with a 100-page agenda when they meet. There is not adequate time for discussion of issues pertaining to the protection of citizens in Greater Sudbury, items such as Bill 59, which is an important bill for the citizens of Greater Sudbury. We have a council that has virtually no time to discuss this bill or these types of issues.

We have centralized power. We have area councillors who are unhappy: they feel they’re being excluded from the decision-making even though they represent the 162,000 people who make up the city of Greater Sudbury. So we have some major problems in our city that we have to address, and certainly councillors are doing that.

One of the deputy mayors of Greater Sudbury, Eldon Gainor, who sits on the police services board, understands this problem, understands the problem that was created with the amalgamation when you have more than one police force policing this vast area. So we have to do something to ensure we address proper policing, effective policing, cost-effective policing, meaningful policing, policing to meet the expectation of Chief Alex McCauley, Deputy Chief Jim Cunningham and Inspector Ian Davidson.

I was approached by Andy Humber, a police services board member and also a fundraising Tory, for the other side, to support this bill. Upon first reading it, I had some concern, not so much for the city of Sudbury—and at the end of the day I’m going to be voting in support of this because it will help the city of Greater Sudbury save some money, because amalgamation certainly didn’t save the city of Greater Sudbury any money; in fact, it’s cost us $10.3 million so far. But there are some concerns with the bill, and I would hope this bill gets to committee because we will want to address some of them.

In discussion with the chief of police for Sudbury and asking him about Bill 59, he doesn’t have any major opposition to Bill 59. To be honest, if the administration at the city of Greater Sudbury police services has no problem with it, then I have no problem with it.

The bill, as they read it, would allow for a form of hybrid policing, which is exactly what the member said. In the case of Sudbury this is important, because some of the area that was recently amalgamated to form the new city of Greater Sudbury—specifically the areas to the north and east of the new municipality—is largely surrounded by the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Police and has been policed in the past by the OPP.

The cost to the new city of Greater Sudbury to assume policing of these specific areas would not be proportional to the service requirements, and that’s one of the main reasons why I will be supporting this. It would mean that the service would have to obtain certain types of vehicles, such as snowmobiles and boats, in addition to the equipment they already have, at an excessive cost amount. On the other hand, the Ontario Provincial Police, in this particular jurisdiction, are already equipped for that as they have policed in the past and they are policing the particular area around the city of Greater Sudbury.

Here is a very important point that I want to make and one of the strong reasons why I’m going to be supporting this. We’re probably going to be saving about $2 million by supporting this bill. Listen, our community has to save money. It is imperative that our community be provided policing services in a cost-effective manner, but in an effective manner as well. We had that and we need this bill to ensure that that continues, because of the forced amalgamation by the government on the citizens of the city of Greater Sudbury.

I think this bill provides measures to allow for the continued progressive type of policing that we’ve had in our community in the past, without disruption and without an inordinate amount of extra costs to our taxpayers. That’s a big reason why I’m going to be supporting it.

I also think it’s important to understand and to make clear to the people of the city of Greater Sudbury and to the people of Ontario who have experienced amalgamation—forced amalgamation, mostly—that these are the types of problems that the government either didn’t think through, didn’t anticipate, or weren’t good business managers in seeing what was going to happen once amalgamation took place.

It’s imperative that Bill 59 be sent to committee, be passed, I would hope, and then be enacted into law so that the citizens and the people I represent in the city of Greater Sudbury can remain confident and have the high confidence level they have in their police force with the addition of this hybrid policing which will take place.

I must commend the member, who did come over to see me. He sat down in a spirit of co-operation—isn’t that unusual? This is a private member’s bill. I believe the government can learn from this Conservative member. This member came over. We sat down; we had a conversation. He said, “This is how I think this bill can help your citizens. What are your concerns?” We were able to have a very good dialogue, and I thank the member for that. This is the way I think government should happen.

There should be mutual understanding, mutual confidence in each other, and I have confidence in the member who is presenting this bill, because I know he’s clearly thought this bill out. I would hope that the government learns from this member. You can get support from the opposition when you deal in an open, effective, efficient manner to ensure that all citizens are protected.

This bill will allow for that in the city of Greater Sudbury, and so, Speaker, I stand before you to say I will be supporting this bill when it comes time for a vote. I thank the member for helping out my community, for ensuring that my community doesn’t have to spend unnecessary dollars because of the wrong-spirited amalgamation that took place, that wasn’t well thought out by the government. Again, I ask the government to learn from the member that there is a way to effectively pass legislation in a very, very short period of time, through consultation and meaningful opportunity for input, for the greater good of all.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to spend a few moments to talk about why I think this private member’s bill has been brought forward. I think the public needs to understand what happened here.

Over the last six years, up until two months ago, we had a number of forced municipal amalgamations, where the provincial government, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, basically took the position that from on high, from his office in Toronto, he knew best about how municipalities should be organized, about how municipalities should be forced to amalgamate; he knew best about what services should be provided in municipalities and how they should be provided.

So the government passed a number of pieces of legislation which have forced some municipal amalgamations in the province that frankly, in many cases, don’t make a lot of sense. Or they’ve forced municipal amalgamations where, as the municipalities have tried to do what the minister from on high has ordered them to do, they’ve discovered that it’s incredibly expensive, they’ve discovered that there are indeed direct and specific contradictions, and they’ve discovered that there are institutional obstacles that have to be overcome and there’s no legislation which will help them do it.

So ostensibly this private member’s bill has come forward because in many cities, towns, municipalities across the province, forced amalgamation is a mess.

I think if we were real sticklers in this Legislature, if we as private members of the Legislature adopted the same position that Ministers of Municipal Affairs of the government have adopted, we would be taking the position that the government should fix its own mess. It was this government that created, in several municipalities across the province, not only problems with police services, but problems with fire services, problems with ambulance services, problems in terms of social assistance and so on and so forth. We would be saying to the government, “You created this mess.

You forced municipalities into these amalgamations,” which now, it occurs, not only did not make sense in terms of service delivery, but don’t make any financial sense either, because in fact they are proving to be more costly. Bigger is not better, bigger is not cheaper; in fact, bigger is proving to be more expensive. If we were real sticklers and if we were following the kind of position that this government has traditionally taken, particularly the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we’d be saying to the government, “You created this mess. Now you fix it.”

But the problem is that I don’t think the government is willing to fix it, because that would require it to admit that it was wrong. It would require the government to admit that they didn’t have all the answers, that their initial round of forced amalgamations in many cases was not thoughtfully prepared, was not well thought out and in fact has left municipalities, in many cases, in very serious circumstances, some would say in almost disastrous financial circumstances. So the government of the day doesn’t want to admit that it badly misplayed this, didn’t think it out very carefully and has saddled municipalities with some very difficult problems.

How do you escape from this? Well, what you do is you find a government member and you say to the government member, “Why don’t you present this as a private member’s bill? You’ll save the government some embarrassment and you might even get some credit for doing something that needs to be done out there: bailing the government out of some bad amalgamation decisions.”

I think that’s how we got here. I’ll give the member, Mr Tilson, credit: this is needed legislation. In my riding, there are two cities, the city of Kenora and the city of Dryden, where, in effect—and these weren’t forced amalgamations; these were what I would call gun-to-the-head amalgamations where the municipalities were told, “If you don’t do this, the province will do it.” So the municipalities, with a gun to their head, said, “I guess we better do this.”

In each case it’s proving to be expensive and it’s proving to be cumbersome, and in each case now they have this problem with police forces. The rural municipality has traditionally been handled by the OPP and the former urban municipality has had its own municipal police force. It has created rivalries. It has created in effect, some would say, from the public perspective, a not very attractive competition. And it’s resulted in something that’s quite expensive.

There is a similar situation in Thunder Bay where they did make a decision under the present act without the proposed amendments, and now you have a situation where the OPP used to patrol the rural areas. In fact, they have a beautiful new command centre, a beautiful new set of offices, but they don’t even patrol that area any more, because once the municipal amalgamations took place, the municipality was forced to decide, will it be OPP policing or will it be municipal policing? So now you have the municipal police, in effect, policing the area around where this brand new OPP command centre is located. So some real problems, some real sore spots have resulted.

This kind of legislation is needed. But I would hope that we would hear the member—since I think he’s going to get virtually unanimous support from all sides of the House—say once again that this legislation is necessary because the government didn’t think through its forced amalgamations and its gun-to-the-head amalgamations in the first place.

If the government of the day had thought this through carefully, they would have recognized that they were going to create these scenarios: that it was going to create duplication, it was going to create rivalry, it was going to create conflict, in some cases it was going to result in an overexpenditure, in other cases it was going to result in the kind of duplication of services wherein you have ongoing additional costs.

So I would hope that we would hear him address that issue and that we would hear him point out that by taking action as a private member, he is actually saving the government from having to admit it didn’t think it out very well or very carefully, and that the government has egg on its face now in several municipalities across the province because it didn’t figure it out.

How will this work? I suspect this will help some municipalities, but even with these provisions, at the end of the day I think we’re still going to see municipalities caught in a difficult spot and I think I owe it to people to tell them why.

There’s another issue here, and that is the degree to which, besides creating these conflict situations between OPP policing and municipal policing, the province has in addition downloaded all kinds of services on to municipalities without downloading any revenue sources. Even if this private member’s bill passes, you’re still going to have municipalities stuck in the situation where they’re saying, “How can we find a way to get our policing costs down?” They have much more responsibility now, but they don’t have additional revenue.

This provision will help some municipalities. It’ll help them out of the difficult spot where you’re actually seeing two police forces, the OPP and a municipal police force, forced into a sort of rivalry. It may create a truce for a while, it may create a peaceable space for a while, but the other reality is that municipalities, with the downloading of ambulances, seniors’ housing, social housing, a major chunk of social assistance and a number of other issues, are going to be forced to try to find ways to amalgamate, eliminate, downsize, resize, all in an effort to provide these services without the financial resources necessary to finance the services.

In fairness to the member, his bill couldn’t deal with that problem because a private member’s bill cannot deal with finances, cannot deal with the appropriation of public funds. That’s the other side of the problem, and I think that needs to be acknowledged here. This legislation will help. It will help some municipalities, but I would say it is only going to create a peaceable space for a while. Because of the added issue of downloading, municipalities are going to have to continue to find ways to amalgamate.

For example, some municipalities are amalgamating fire service and ambulance service and calling them both emergency service, hoping they can do away with some positions or amalgamate some responsibilities.

That’s just by way of evidence that this uncomfortable situation is going to continue for municipalities even with this legislation.

I would hope the member would acknowledge that if we’re really serious about dealing with the badly thought out, some would say the thoughtless, forced amalgamations, his private member’s bill will help some municipalities in the short term, but that the problem out there is much bigger, is much more expensive and will force municipalities into a continuing uncomfortable position.

It probably would have been better for the government to have brought forward legislation, because if the government had brought forward legislation, then we could have dealt with the whole problem. But I have to say again I understand why we will not see government legislation. We will not see government legislation because the government doesn’t want to admit it created many of these problems. It doesn’t want to admit that when it forced the amalgamations or put guns to the heads of the municipalities and said, “You must amalgamate,” it had no answer, it hadn’t considered these.

The government won’t bring forward legislation because then the other side of the envelope, the fact that services were downloaded on to municipalities without downloading the revenues necessary to provide the services, all of that would be open for debate. That’s why we won’t see government legislation. That’s why this issue will be handled, in effect, piecemeal by means of a private member’s bill.

This will help, but I would say to the member that I think we are going to be back here time and time again over the next couple of years, dealing with other piecemeal issues, because I think you know, as I know, that there are several other contradictions in terms of municipal services that have been created out there by this government’s ill-thought-out rush to force amalgamations.

Another way the government has admitted they didn’t have all the answers and have created problems by doing this is that they admitted earlier this spring that as a government they’re not going to force any further amalgamations. They were forced to admit they could not find any so-called cost savings from the forced amalgamations that have happened so far. Bit by bit, piece by piece, we’re getting admissions that this hasn’t worked.

I would say to Mr Tilson, the member who brought this forward, that I think we’re going to be here on several occasions over the next couple of years dealing again with these issues in a piecemeal fashion, very likely dealing with issues, for example, of social housing, seniors’ housing and ambulance services, very likely dealing with a number of other services that have been downloaded on to municipalities, or that have been forced on to municipalities through amalgamation or that have created problems in terms of service delivery because of forced amalgamation and the government doesn’t want to acknowledge it, so I expect the acknowledgement will come through private members’ bills.

Having said that, I congratulate the member for bringing forward something that is necessary. I think government members should congratulate him for saving the government from having to admit, in an embarrassing forum, that it didn’t have all the answers, that in fact it had some very wrong answers.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I’m very pleased to join in the debate on Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Police Services Act, put forward by the member from Dufferin, David Tilson. I’m going to speak in favour of the bill, and I would like to start my comments by commending the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey for his efforts on this legislation. I know he’s worked very hard on this.

Bill 59 is a good bill that the government believes will benefit many communities throughout the province. The bill would amend the Police Services Act to add a further choice for municipalities that are considering, or will be considering, their policing options.

By allowing the option of hybrid policing, some remote or widely dispersed municipalities will be able to retain cost-effective hybrid policing arrangements.

For example, the Sudbury transition board and the task force on police services have identified an additional $2 million in costs to service northern communities in the newly amalgamated municipality, if required to use only one police service. These communities are currently policed by the Ontario Provincial Police. Bill 59, if passed, would allow Sudbury to choose to either expand its municipal service and incur the additional cost, or allow the OPP to continue policing these communities. This bill gives Sudbury and other municipalities that choice.

Bill 59 would also enable some communities that have a historic relationship with a police service to retain that relationship through a municipal amalgamation, subject of course to other relevant sections of the Police Services Act. The town of Lindsay within the city of Kawartha Lakes, for example, could fit these criteria. In some cases, a hybrid policing arrangement would allow a community to retain a police service they are familiar with and with which they are comfortable. This bill gives Kawartha Lakes and other municipalities that choice.

The government believes hybrid policing is now a viable option for municipalities because the government recently implemented new policing adequacy standards. Adequacy standards will ensure consistency throughout each municipality, including municipalities with a hybrid policing arrangement.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services is in place to ensure that each municipality is providing adequate and effective police services regardless of the policing option they choose. This is essentially about choice.

As well, Bill 59 mandates a single police services board in hybrid policing arrangements. This single police services board will ensure consistency and prevent duplication. I know the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards is supportive of Bill 59. The hybrid policing option also has support within the policing community.

For example, chief of police Terrence McLaren of the Peterborough Lakefield Community Police Service has stated, “I fully support the decision of local municipalities to have the right to choose their policing providers, and further, I believe that hybrid policing options should be made available as a choice.” Bill 59, if passed by this Legislature, will provide municipalities with that choice.

There are some key components of this bill. It’s a very short bill, because basically what it’s providing is choice for municipalities with respect to the type of policing they want within their municipality. It’s going to look at municipalities with remote or dispersed communities—for example, Sudbury or Timmins—and municipalities with historical policing relationships—for example, Caledon, Kenora, or Kawartha Lakes, where Lindsay is—and require governance by a single police services board in hybrid policing arrangements.

There are exceptions which would allow a municipality to contract with a neighbouring municipality’s police service or the OPP with no contract, and therefore there is no police services board in an OPP situation.

So I believe the rationale for the bill is there and there are a number of advantages.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : C’est un plaisir pour moi de participer à ce débat ce matin sur le projet de loi 59, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services policiers, pour permettre aux municipalités d’offrir leurs services policiers d’une autre façon.

Lorsque nous écoutons le débat depuis le début à 11 heures ce matin, je me pose plusieurs questions.

On réfère souvent à une commission de police. Est-ce que la commission de police va être appointée par le gouvernement ? Nous n’avons pas cette réponse. Actuellement, nous savons que le gouvernement actuel a le pouvoir d’appointer des commissaires siégeant sur les commissions de police. En Ontario, depuis les fusions, nous savons que la majorité des municipalités rurales sont maintenant desservies par la police provinciale de l’Ontario, même si actuellement la police provinciale dessert un certain nombre des municipalités. Mais je me rappelle que le gouvernement s’est impliqué dans le nombre d’officiers demandés par une municipalité.

Selon les critères qui étaient établis et selon les ressources que nous avions dans Glengarry, Stormont et Dundas, nous avions 51 policiers de la sûreté provinciale ou de la police provinciale de l’Ontario. Mais lorsque les comtés de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry ont pris la responsabilité des services de police, le solliciteur général a dit, « Dorénavant, vous devez avoir 59 policiers. » Cela voulait dire 450,000 $ à 500,000 $ de plus pour les payeurs de taxes de la région, lorsque nous regardons que la politique de ce gouvernement est de délester et délester toujours aux municipalités, mais sans aide financière.

Si je regarde dans ce domaine, est-ce que cette nouvelle loi va vouloir dire que dorénavant—dans les municipalités, nous savons tous que nous avons des officiers de règlements. Est-ce que les officiers de règlements vont tomber sous cette commission ou est-ce que nous allons continuer à avoir deux services différents de protection ? Quand je parle de protection, nous avons les officiers de règlements pour les règlements municipaux, le stationnement local, et aussi des services de police concernant le code de vitesse, le Code de la route.

Mais est-ce que la sûreté provinciale va continuer à donner les services pour les causes criminelles ? Lorsque nous avons transféré ces services aux municipalités, nous avons décidé que la police provinciale de l’Ontario s’occuperait des causes criminelles. Cela reste encore en suspens.

J’aimerais avoir la réponse aujourd’hui : premièrement, est-ce que les officiers de règlements vont se rapporter à la commission sous cette loi, et est-ce que la province va donner—

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you very much, Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill 59. My compliments to the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey for bringing forward Bill 59, really a choice in the policing field.

It was a wise man who once said, “One should not undertake a task until one is willing to finish it.” Since we took office in 1995, we’ve been committed to the regrouping of municipalities. Actually, it was nothing new at that point; that goes back to the last 30 years or so. But we recognize with the regrouping the savings in tax dollars, the improved efficiencies of municipalities and the reduction of the number of municipal politicians.

Certainly we recognize there’s more work to be done, and that’s particularly related to police services. I’ve certainly seen it in my riding. Right now Port Hope is joined with Hope township and they have two police forces. One is the OPP to Hope township, and the municipal police force to Port Hope. Indeed, that would be the preferable way to continue, I believe.

But also in Quinte West there was literally no resistance to the amalgamation: I received one phone call prior to the amalgamation. But when it came to putting the police force together and creating a common police force for those four municipalities that came in to form Quinte West, my phone lit up and the number of letters I received was quite significant. It had to do with which force; not with the kind of service that would be used, but it was, “My force is better than your force,” and it created a lot of strife in the community.

This bill would overcome that, because here would be the opportunity for a combination of two or more methods of policing, and that would be particularly true in communities where there had been a historical difference prior to the amalgamation.

There’s no question that the number one focus of the member putting forth this bill is public safety. Since adequacy standards were brought in at the beginning of this year, January 1, 2001, there’s a reduced need for having only one police service within a community.

The member has laid out some three criteria that would be required, and I think they’re quite well put: (1) in municipalities with remote or dispersed communities; (2) in municipalities with historical policing relationships—for example, in my riding; and (3) require governance by a single police services board. That makes an awful lot of sense. He’s using the term in the bill of “hybrid” policing, and this seems like a very logical and descriptive term to be using.

I mentioned a few minutes ago about the amalgamation of Hope township and the town of Port Hope: they’re still struggling with the name for the amalgamated community. But here is a good example where I believe hybrid policing could work, if that’s the desire of this new municipality.

I’d like at this time to congratulate the communities in my riding that have amalgamated. They’ve come a long way from having a county council of some 30 members a few years ago to a county council now of some seven. There are now seven municipalities in Northumberland. In Quinte West, which is also part of my riding, four municipalities there came together. So they’ve come a long, long way in restructuring.

There was a minister’s order back on March 28 that would establish a transition board and also a police task force that deals with this issue. Of course, there’s not the authority to put it in place until the new council decides just how that should be.

Amalgamations have for the last 30 years been a very delicate issue in rural Ontario, but there’s no question of the advantages of them coming together with the reduced taxation, with the savings that have occurred. You can look across Ontario and see the tremendous savings that have occurred.

I support this. It’s certainly a big step of efficient government that the Harris government has been promoting for some time, so I certainly support this single police board. The one police force is not necessarily the right or necessary route to go. The importance is that there be common standards for all the police to work by, so I can very enthusiastically support the bill put forward by the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Simcoe North.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and my congratulations on seeing you in the chair this morning. You seem to be doing a fine job and it’s great to see you there.

I’d like to thank you for allowing me to speak to Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Police Services Act, and I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey for bringing forth this legislation. I know the member has worked hard on researching the bill. I commend him for his efforts on that and on presenting the bill today. I would also like to thank the members for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Northumberland for their comments from our side of the caucus today, as well as the people from the opposition who have spoken in favour.

This bill, if passed, would amend the Police Services Act to allow municipalities an additional choice in the way they provide police services to their constituents.

It’s my understanding that

section 5 of the current act requires that municipalities provide police services by means of only one of a number of listed methods. This bill would allow municipalities to combine two or more methods where the municipality contains remote or widely dispersed communities, or where police services have historically been provided by a different method in a discrete area of the particular municipality.

I feel that the result of this type of amendment would allow municipalities to maintain cost-effective hybrid policing situations, which would save millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money when implemented right across our province. Our government and the people of this province expect us to do everything we possibly can to help save taxpayers money, and that is one reason why I will be supporting this bill today.

The bill would also allow relevant communities to retain police services with which they are comfortable and allow them to avoid potential divisiveness of amalgamation or disbandment.

Our government understands the dangerous work that men and women in the police services across this province do every day.

Simcoe North, my riding, is the home of the Ontario Provincial Police general headquarters. I have the chance to meet many of these men and women on a daily basis. I would like to take this chance today to talk a little bit about some of the important projects that the OPP have done locally, but that have also helped to improve public safety across our province.

For example, during the winter months the OPP performs an important role in patrolling the many snowmobile trails that criss-cross our province, thousands and thousands of kilometres of snowmobile trails. The OPP is involved in a partnership with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs to improve safety on our snowmobile trails. The snowmobile trail officer patrol consists of volunteer and sworn special constables who patrol snowmobile trails and assist police officers conducting spot checks. The OFSC provides funding for the program, while the OPP assists by providing training and police officers.

RIDE checks apply to snowmobile trails. During the 1998-99 season, where there were 32 fatalities in the province, with 26 of those in OPP jurisdiction, alcohol was involved in 59% of those recorded fatalities. We as a government look forward to working on public safety to avoid the amount of alcohol that’s being used on our roads and waterways as well as the snowmobile trails across our province. During the 1999-2000 season, there were 16 fatalities in the province, with nine being in the OPP’s jurisdiction.

In the summer months the OPP patrols all of our roadways, of course, but they play a very important

part in the waterways across our province.

I just wanted to say, when we’re talking about the amalgamation of municipalities, that in Simcoe county, in my riding, we amalgamated in 1993-94. We were very fortunate with the way the police services unwound, and today we have the OPP as well as the Midland police services and the Barrie police services and the south Simcoe services looking after most of the policing in Simcoe County.

As an example of some of the good work they do, and it follows on our Safe Schools Act, just recently a partnership was put forward between the public board and the Catholic board, as well as all the police services in Simcoe county, to put a proposal together so that the boards could meet the initiatives of the Safe Schools Act.

Mr Speaker, I’d again like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to say a few words today. I will be supporting this bill from Mr Tilson. I forget his riding, where he’s from, already.

The Acting Speaker: The mover of the motion has two minutes to reply.

Mr Tilson: I appreciate all members of the House who are participating in the debate.

A couple of weeks ago, as parliamentary assistant, I made a presentation to the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, which was holding a small convention here in Toronto. I spoke about a number of things, mainly Attorney General-related, but at that time I also referred to this bill, which I had been working on for some time. As a matter of fact, I had been working with some of the people at the convention. So in response, I’d like to read a letter that was sent to me by the president, Tom Laughren, dated June 12, with respect to this bill.

“Thank you for taking the time from your busy

schedule to speak at our annual conference in Toronto on May 25th. It may interest you to know that there were over 500 delegates at our conference representing police leaders and members of police services boards from across this great province. Your words were well received by our members and we were particularly pleased to hear of your private member’s bill, Bill 59. The Ontario Association of Police Services Boards considers this an important piece of legislation that will give municipalities an additional choice in the provision of policing.

Police services boards have long been the trustees of the public interest for policing at the local level. Your legislation will further enable boards and councils to exercise this trusteeship with local circumstances in mind.

“The board of directors of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards passed a resolution supporting Bill 59 at their meeting Thursday May 24th, 2001. We urge your colleagues in the House to join you in support of your bill.”

It appears that that support is here in the House. I will say that members of the opposition did comment about restructuring. They’re fair to do that; that’s their job. However, since that time the new adequacy standards have come in with respect to policing, on January 1, 2001.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members’ business has expired.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The Acting Speaker (Mr Steve Peters): We will deal first with ballot item number 13, standing in the name of Mr Phillips. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a recorded vote.

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Steve Peters): We will deal next with ballot item number 14. Mr Tilson has moved second reading of Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Police Services Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The motion is carried.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I would ask for consent of the House to order this bill for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? There is not consent.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Tilson: I’d request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The Acting Speaker (Mr Steve Peters): We will now call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Phillips has moved private member’s notice of motion number 7.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O’Toole, John

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 28; the nays are 45.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members’ public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Water extraction

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): At the present time there is a court case underway where the Ministry of the Environment is arguing that it does not have to consider its own statement of environmental values when making decisions on water-taking permits because these values are not enshrined in legislation. In this case, a permit to take water was granted which allows a company, OMYA Canada, to remove up to 4.5 million litres of water a day.

No environmental impact study was conducted, and local residents who are appealing the permit say the ministry has ignored its own statement of environmental values by not taking an ecosystem approach to the decision to grant this permit. My private member’s bill, Bill 79, will incorporate the statement of environmental values into the Ontario Water Resources Act, ensuring that future ministry decisions consider the impact on the ecosystem.

Water is one of our most vital resources. It gives sustenance to our families and nourishes our crops. Ontario needs policies and legislation that will protect our water and give consideration to the interests of those who might be impacted by any changes to the groundwater supply. I urge all members of the Legislature to make a clear commitment for our environment. On June 28, support the second reading of Bill 79, the Water Source Protection Act.

Kids’ fishing day

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I’d like to congratulate the volunteers from the Durham region who assisted in putting on Kids’ Fishing Day. The event took place Saturday last at the Kendal Hill crown land site, where we were able to bring out over 400 children who typically have not had the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors.

I’d like to thank the organizers from the Clarington Big Brothers and Big Sisters, the Scouting troops from Clarington and also the organizers and volunteers from the Eastview Boys and Girls Club, the Northview Community Centre, Simcoe Hall Settlement House, the YWCA, the Oshawa Community Health Centre, and the South Oshawa community policing officer, Chris Partridge.

As well, I’d like to thank the large number of site volunteers from the South Central Ontario Big Game Association and the Clarington game commission, who worked with the organizers, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club for handling the lunch, the Orono Fish and Hunt Club for taking care of first aid and the Ajax Rod and Gun Club for taking care of parking arrangements.

On Saturday we were able to provide over 2,400 recreational hours of outdoor activity, including of course fishing, and a special treat of seeing a turtle coming up and laying its eggs. We had a nature trail hike, where the Metro East Anglers explained the various bird calls and insect and plant life. My wife, Dianne, and my sons, Josh and Garrett, did a great job running the kids’ frog pond, where kids learned about marsh life and activities. All in all, hundreds of kids had the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, just be kids and learn of the great circle of life. And, I might add, there are still hundreds of rainbow trout available to be caught at the Kendal Hill crown land site.

Nursing homes

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): In events of the last few days we have seen two very tragic situations. In my own riding of York West a nursing home, Casa Verde, lost two seniors. Two residents of that particular home were killed by one of the other residents. A third member of the house is in serious condition, and I also feel for that particular person. My condolences to the members of the families, to all who live in that particular home and to the staff of Casa Verde as well. I think this goes to all the residents of the other nursing homes in Toronto and in the rest of Ontario. I think this is a wake-up call for our own government here in Ontario.

The other tragic situation, the other shock, is the accusation and the continuous attack of the Premier of Ontario on the most vulnerable, the most feeble people, the seniors in Ontario. It is as if it is their fault our health care system is in such a dreadful situation. It is not our seniors’ responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Premier and this government to provide the necessary care so that our seniors can live in good, clean conditions in those nursing homes.

Georgina business excellence awards

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Georgina in its efforts to recognize the importance of businesses, both large and small, in my riding of York North. On May 30 of this year, I had the pleasure of attending the second annual Georgina Business Excellence Awards gala. This year the gala was appropriately titled Aiming for the Stars, which is what these entrepreneurs do every day by making their businesses successful and beneficial to our community.

I would like to take a moment and acknowledge the six winners. Congratulations to La Rue’s Haulage for their excellence in community service; the Briars Resort Inn, Spa and Conference Centre for excellence in large business; Apples of Gold Gift Shop for excellence in small business; Lockmar Farms for excellence in agribusiness; the Queensway Marketplace for excellence in customer service; and Gallacher’s Catering, which received the young entrepreneur award.

As pointed out by the mayor of Georgina, Jeffrey Holec, we do not often get the opportunity to acknowledge our entrepreneurs and their staff, who offer so much to the community in the form of friendly service, good products and community giving. The Business Excellence Awards do just that.

Northern cancer treatment

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): “Fundamentally unfair” and “improperly discriminatory”—these and similar phrases are peppered throughout Ombudsman Clare Lewis’s report on cancer travel funding. This report today offers vindication to northern residents who have lobbied for over a year to end the discriminatory treatment being foisted upon northerners.

For one year northerners have been petitioning this government to end the health care apartheid. For one year, Gerry Lougheed Jr and Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care have lobbied this government. For one year Janice Skinner and René Boucher have asked this government to end the health care apartheid that has been practised in this province when it comes to northerners travelling for health care. This government turned a deaf ear to them. In fact, the Premier mocked them in Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and North Bay, and in Thunder Bay where he is today, saying it was southerners who were being discriminated against.

However, Clare Lewis clearly states today, “The current situation is fundamentally unfair.” His conclusion is that it is “improperly discriminatory.” His conclusion for this government is to end the health care apartheid now. My question is, when will this government do it?

Personal needs allowance

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise today to give voice to a group of individuals in Hamilton who held a news conference this morning and who presented petitions to me with 3,000 signatures. There’s a delegation here today in the members’ gallery. What they’re seeking from this government is justice.

I’m talking about vulnerable individuals, most of whom have one disability of another, who are in lodging homes, retirement homes or special care facilities. They receive what’s called a personal needs allowance. That means that after their basic expenses for lodging and food are covered, they get $112 a month to live on. That’s everything for all their personal toiletries, clothing and whatever sort of social life one can eke out of $112 a month. The fact of the matter is it has been $112 a month since it was last increased by our government in 1991.

Since then this province has seen the biggest economic boom North America has ever enjoyed. These individuals didn’t get one penny of it. But you had billions of dollars, yes, billions of dollars to give to your corporate friends and your rich friends. The most vulnerable people in our society didn’t see a single penny. They’re entitled to justice; they’re entitled to dignity; they’re entitled to a decent living, and you have an obligation to provide it.

I’m going to ask Christopher to take this report and put it on the Premier’s desk. Maybe he’ll read it and maybe these people will get some justice around here.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I want to be very clear. There’s absolutely no demonstration in any of the galleries. In spite of what you may see on the floor of this House, these members will be basically going by the rules that are laid out. One of the rules they’ve laid out is that there’s absolutely no demonstration. I wanted to make that clear because it’s very important.

Mr Christopherson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Since this delegation is from my home community, obviously they feel strongly about this issue, but I would like to give you my personal assurance that that will be the last outbreak. They were here to make a point and not to do any other disruption.

The Acting Speaker: The point should have been made before.

Grand Valley Lions Club

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): It’s my pleasure to stand in the Ontario Legislature this afternoon to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the Grand Valley Lions Club, located in my riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey.

The Grand Valley Lions Club will be holding a special anniversary banquet this weekend to mark this important anniversary. My wife and I will have the pleasure of joining Lion members on Saturday to celebrate their work within Grand Valley and to thank them for their efforts.

This service club has been an active booster of the Grand Valley community and has supported many worthwhile projects that have benefited all residents. A small sampling of their work includes their ongoing commitment to support the local Headwaters Health Care Corp and the Grand Valley Medical Centre, both of which have been an important part of the Grand Valley Lions fundraising efforts. The building of the arena, and more recently the addition of an elevator, as well as support and maintenance of the ball park and tennis court, is beneficial to all sports-oriented Grand Valley residents.

The Lions motto, “We serve,” is very appropriate for this local group of committed individuals who volunteer their time and energy to improve their community. On behalf of the province of Ontario and the Grand Valley community, I congratulate President Paul Clements and all the Grand Valley Lions members, both past and present, for your commitment and wish you another 50 years of great work in your community.

Visitor

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I’d like to recognize the presence in the chamber in the east gallery of Mr Andrew Turnbull of Toronto. Welcome, Andrew.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order.

Northern cancer treatment

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I don’t think any of my northern colleagues would disagree with me when I say that the one issue that has united us all has been the battle to remove the discrimination faced by northerners who must travel outside their own communities for medical treatment, yet only receive a subsidy through the northern health travel grant.

This issue certainly came to a head last year when the Ontario government announced they would pay 100% of the costs for southern Ontario cancer patients who had to travel to northern cancer centres for their treatment. This discriminatory treatment outraged every northerner, and despite a massive petition campaign and endless questioning in the House from all of us, we’re beginning to think that nothing can stop this government from treating northerners as second-class citizens.

That is, until today. The provincial Ombudsman’s report that describes the Ministry of Health’s policy related to funding travel for northern breast and prostate cancer patients as “improperly discriminatory” is nothing less than a true vindication for everyone who has fought this battle. While it is only a first step, it is a momentous one, because it finally acknowledges the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant in a very specific way.

While I hope the Minister of Health will accept the Ombudsman’s final recommendation that he should provide equal funding to all breast and prostate cancer patients who must travel for treatment, I also want to send a message to Premier Harris, who is up in Thunder Bay today: Premier, do the right thing. Announce tonight that you will accept the Ombudsman’s conclusion and that you will put an end to this long-standing discrimination against northerners.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Waterloo-Wellington stood up and recognized Mr Andrew Turnbull. What he failed to add to that was that he’s a recent graduate of Queen’s and is the son of the Solicitor General, David Turnbull.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order, but we welcome him in any case.

Bowmanville Museum

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): I rise again today in the House to talk about the marvellous work being done in my riding of Durham; for instance, to preserve our rich heritage.

For four generations now, the Bowmanville Museum has followed its mandate of preserving our rich heritage for future generations to enjoy. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Bowmanville Museum. The museum has actively been archiving information with the help of volunteers like Doris Falls and Lois Whitfield, and preserving memorabilia showcasing Bowmanville’s rich heritage.

The museum, located in one of the more beautiful and older sections of the town, was established through the generosity of Sarah Jane Williams and her late husband in the late 1950s, when she donated $50,000 to the town to set up the museum. The museum continues to garner strong community support and last year received a community museum operating grant of over $10,000 from the province of Ontario.

Over the years, the Bowmanville Museum has become a favourite visiting place for residents and tourists alike because of its dedication to detail of the early 1900s, its unique antique doll collection, and fun family events such as the annual Canada Day celebration and various craft shows.

Congratulations on the 40th anniversary go to the curator, Charles Tawes, and Ellen Logan, a tireless supporter who has worked to make this museum a vital and central part of the community.

In this year of the volunteer, I would like to mention just a few of the serving volunteers from the Friends of the Museum committee: Susan Laing, Jane Wright, Florence Griffin, June Clark, Winifred Considine and Richard Grey, who is a student volunteer, as well as Diana Hutchinson and Larry Paradis, who served for many years on the board. By the way, I served with him on that board; it was a pleasure.

With the summer soon with us, I urge Ontarians to take some time out not only to visit Bowmanville Museum but their local museum to explore our rich provincial heritage.

Special report, Ombudsman

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I beg to inform the House that today laid upon the table is the report of the Ombudsman on his investigation into the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s funding for breast and prostate care patients who must travel for radiation treatment.

INTROdUction of bills

United Counties of Prescott and Russell Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 sur les Comtés-Unis de Prescott et Russell

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 83,

An Act to permit municipal regulation of peat disturbance and extraction in the United Counties of Prescott and Russell / Projet de loi 83, Loi autorisant la réglementation municipale de la perturbation et de l’extraction de la tourbe dans les Comtés-Unis de Prescott et Russell.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Does the member wish to make a short statement?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): The bill gives authority to the municipal council of the corporation of the united counties of Prescott and Russell to pass bylaws to control peat extraction within the counties.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We were informed today that the Minister of Health would be here for oral questions. Is he coming in, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order. You may set it down, but I will proceed.

Education funding

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, before the committee considering your private school voucher program, appeared a very important individual representing a group of significant experts. In fact you might go so far as to call them the architects of the modern public education system here in Ontario. Among that group were four deputy ministers, at least a dozen board of education directors and some superintendents. A tremendous amount of expertise went into the preparation of this presentation and they offered some very important insights which I wanted to give you an opportunity to consider and to comment on here today.

They particularly said the following: that your policy “will encourage more parents to seek education for their children outside of the public system.” They said, “A vicious circle will be instituted: reduced enrolment will lead to less funding and will thus lead to a reduction in programs which will encourage parents to consider alternatives and will thus”—

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Question?

Mr McGuinty: —“lead to reduced enrolment.”

This tremendous collection of public education expertise is telling us that your policy is going to lead to less funding and less enrolment, which in turn will lead to less—

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): First of all, I appreciate that many of the people there were very distinguished representatives from governments of days gone by who built a public education system that along the way, however, was a system that, when we went out to the people in 1995 and said that system needed significant change, the voters of this province agreed.

The voters of this province said that despite the good work those people had done to build a good public education system, they agreed that a better curriculum had to be in place, that a tougher and more rigorous curriculum had to be in place. The voters agreed with that. They agreed that despite the work of these architects the honourable member mentions, we needed testing to make sure that our students were learning the new curriculum. So while they did build a lot of very good things in the system, we also found that the voters recognized the need—

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary; the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I cannot believe you are giving the appropriate weight to the authority found in this presentation. Listen to what else they said about your policy, these four deputy ministers, people who themselves have shepherded legislation through this Legislature and laid the development of the modern education act. They said the following:

“It has been the public school system, and the public school system alone, that has tried, with considerable success, to accommodate all these diversities by developing a number of strategies to encourage people to live peacefully with one another’s differences.

“Our blunt fear is that ... the proposed measures will produce in the fairly near future an increase in racism and religious intolerance. This will not come about through deliberate fomentation but through ignorance and fear of the unknown.”

These experts are telling us, Madam Minister, that your policies will breed intolerance and racism. Who should we trust in these matters: you, who tell us that you have no studies, no reports, or these experts?

Hon Mrs Ecker: It’s not a question of asking about trusting the government. It’s a question about trusting parents. If the honourable member is asking us to believe that parents are going to put their children in situations that are not good for them, that those parents, who are going to make judgments and decisions about choice for their children—I know the honourable member of the opposition here does not trust those parents.

He also clearly doesn’t trust those independent schools, some of which are in his own riding, that have values that respect the Muslim faith, the Christian faith, the Hindu faith, that have values that respect alternative forms of education. Maybe the honourable member does not trust those schools to do what’s in the best interests of children, but on this side of the House, we do trust parents in terms of making the best choice for their children. That’s what this proposal does. It respects that parental—

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, as to the issue of trust, clearly we don’t trust you and Ontario parents don’t trust you when it comes to protecting public education for our children. By the way, that’s the place where 96% of our kids happen to go. We don’t trust you to protect their schools and their education. That’s what this issue is all about. These very reputable experts, who devoted their lives to public education, said the following:

“Significant public hearings should be undertaken to assess the public reaction to such a dramatic shift in education policy.

“This precipitous action was not included in the mandate that this government was given in either the most recent election or the one before.... How else can we describe this action but undemocratic?”

Very strong language. Why are you proceeding with a policy—

The Acting Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, this government respects other people’s views. Obviously the honourable member has some difficulty with that. We do understand that feelings and views around this particular proposal by the government are very strongly held by people. We don’t disagree with that.

This government brought forward higher standards for the public education system. Why? Because the work that those experts he quotes, while it started off very well, I’m sure, when we went out to the people in 1995, the people said, “The public education system in this province is important to us, the values are important to us, but changes need to be made. There need to be higher standards. There need to be tests. There needs to be a better curriculum.” It’s interesting, those architects of public education, as he describes them, did they come out and support us when we did that? No, but when we put forward a proposal that respects parental choice—

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Northern cancer treatment

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. The Ombudsman of Ontario, Clare Lewis, tabled a report today which is, in a word, damning of your government’s discriminatory policy when it comes to treatment of northern Ontario families whose members happen to suffer from cancer. In his conclusion the Ombudsman says, “The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s omission to provide equal funding for breast and prostate cancer patients who must travel for radiation treatment is improperly discriminatory.”

Will you now admit, Minister, that you and your government have on the law books of Ontario a policy that is clearly discriminatory and will you undertake now to correct this discrimination?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, from our perspective, we take the words of the Ombudsman quite seriously. Obviously he has tabled a report today which we are now privy to as parliamentarians. We will certainly take his views seriously and under advisement. In our view, the view stressed by the Premier for a considerable period of time, we want a fair and just policy when it comes to these kinds of issues. We are indeed seized of the issue and will report back when we have a fairer and more just way to deal with it than the one identified by the Ombudsman.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this could hardly have come as a shock to you. The policy you’ve got on the law books today in Ontario says that if you live in northern Ontario and you’ve got to travel for your cancer treatment, you get 30.5 cents a kilometre one way, and that’s it. But if you live in the south and you have to travel for cancer treatment, you get your full cost of transportation, you get your meals and you get your accommodation. Clearly, for all who have considered this matter, whether you live in the north or you live in the south, this is patently unfair and discriminatory.

The question I’ve got for you on behalf of northern Ontario families is: how much longer are they going to have to wait? Why can’t you announce here today in your place that you will no longer tolerate this, you’re going to fix it today?

Hon Mr Clement: We are seized of the issue. We have the report in our possession now, just as the honourable member does. From our perspective, we want something that works for all Ontarians, northerners and southerners and individuals who find themselves afflicted with this terrible disea