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

June 5, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 5 June 2003 Jeudi 5 juin 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT AWARDS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

MAGGIE MALONEY

FOREST INDUSTRY

INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL OF MISSISSAUGA

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

APHASIA AWARENESS MONTH

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

HUNTSVILLE FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VETERANS

APPRECIATION DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LE JOUR DE LA RECONNAISSANCE DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

PUBLIC SECTOR

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'EFFICACITÉ ÉNERGÉTIQUE DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

SENIORS' MONTH

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

SARS

HEALTHY FUTURES PROGRAM

PHARMACISTS' DISPENSING FEES

HOME CARE

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

ALUMINUM SMELTER

LONG-TERM CARE

HOME CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HOME PROPERTY

TAX RELIEF FOR SENIORS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ALLÉGEMENT

DE L'IMPÔT FONCIER RÉSIDENTIEL

POUR LES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

DE L'ONTARIO

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY

Thursday 5 June 2003 Jeudi 5 juin 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should support the principle of

greater accountability for politicians at the municipal level and consult with the Association of Municipalities, and municipalities, on how municipal politicians can be subject to the similar

legislated requirements of public disclosure, accountability, and independent investigation with which all members of the Legislative Assembly and executive council currently comply.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Christopherson has moved ballot item number 11, private member's notice of motion number 9. The

member for Hamilton West has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.

Let me just say at the outset that I'm going to be pretty shocked, quite frankly, if this doesn't end up being motherhood. So my 10 minutes are going to be based

on the fact that I expect this will be seen as such and that it would have the support of the House. I'll be very interested in any member who is going to stand in their place and suggest that,

somehow, we ought not have any kind of accountability at all at the municipal level, which, quite frankly, is the way it is right now.

Again, to be very frank and upfront, the reason this is here, as many will know, is that I'm contemplating a return to the municipal world of politics. What I've

found interesting, and shocking in many ways, was that having been here for 13 years, a number of those years as a member of the executive council in cabinet, I have, like every other member of

this place, gone every year to meet with the Integrity Commissioner, formerly known as the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, to lay out -- modest as it is -- my entire financial situation: all

your credit cards, all the money that you owe, any money you might have, any stocks, RRSPs, and also if you have guaranteed any loans. The whole purpose of that is so that it's easy for the public

or another member of the Legislature to quickly determine whether or not there has been a conflict of interest.

I can't count the number of times that I have seen matters referred to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, now the Integrity Commissioner, and once that

response comes back, that's the end of it. Whatever the answer is, whether further action needs to be taken or whether it's determined that there wasn't a conflict of interest, it is dealt with

efficiently, quickly, and in a way that everyone considers all of the ethical matters to be dealt with and the whole thing to be transparent and honourable.

Yet when I think about a possible return to city council, I go from being a backbencher in the third party with about as little power as you can have in this

place and having full disclosure of any kind of financial arrangement, entanglement, connection that I might have with anybody or anything in the world, to being possibly a member of a city council

-- in the case of Hamilton, an operating budget of over $1 billion a year -- where I don't have to disclose anything. Not one shred of my personal finances or my personal financial arrangements

with anybody is registered anywhere. Here we go from being a backbencher in the third party with full disclosure every year for 13 years, to being on a council responsible for $1 billion a year,

and you don't have to tell anyone what any of your business is.

How does this affect the public? Right now, any member of the public or any member of this Legislature can contact the Integrity Commissioner and say, "I believe

there's been a possible conflict of interest here. I'd like it looked into," and it is. That's really all you need to do. But under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act -- and there is one, but

it's relatively toothless because it's all on the individual -- if you, the public, have a concern about a member of council anywhere in Ontario, you have to go to a judge, and there are time

limits to be met.

For the average person, going to a judge is a huge deal, not to mention the fact that there are costs involved, if nothing else, possibly time off work in order

to follow up. You've got to make the entire case. That's an awful lot to ask of a member of the public who has reason to think there may be something untoward here that needs to be looked at.

They're expected to go from concern about something all the way to the courts. It makes no sense whatsoever.

How did we get to this situation? I suspect the reason we haven't followed in lockstep -- because the feds do the same thing; MPs have a similar process to what

we have here -- is that, going back 100 years, municipalities were not a large government in their own right. Their budgets were usually fairly small. The matters involved were small. Everybody

knew everybody, and it was pretty hard to pull something off unless the whole town or village was in on the deal.

But now the top five municipalities in Ontario have incredible populations and budgets that go with them: Toronto, 2.5 million people; Ottawa, 740,000 people;

Mississauga, 600,000; my hometown of Hamilton, over 500,000 people; London, 330,000 people. Some of those cities are bigger than provinces, and the budgets that go with them.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Some countries.

Mr Christopherson: I just heard my friend say, "Some countries." That's true.

Municipal budgets -- and these are round figures: the operating budget for the city of Toronto in 2002 was roughly $6.2 billion. Backbencher, third party,

Ontario Legislature: full financial disclosure, total and complete, and the ability to follow up with questions; a budget of $6.2 billion, and not one member of that council, including the mayor,

has to do anything at all, let alone anything close to what we do here.

Ottawa: an operating budget of $1.8 billion. That's a lot of money. Mississauga: well over $1 billion. Hamilton: we just crossed over the line; we now have an

operating budget of over $1 billion. Toronto's budget is almost as big as the entire provincial budget of Alberta. Hamilton's budget is almost as big as that of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet every

single province in this country, including PEI, which has a population of, what, something under 150,000, has some process of an Integrity Commissioner type of office where you make those

Alberta or Newfoundland and Labrador, or any other province for that matter, would not have some type of Integrity Commissioner where we have to disclose our financial connections so that the

public can be satisfied that everything is being done above-board. Yet we allow a situation to exist where those provinces that have a smaller population and a smaller budget, less money they're

responsible for, less money they can give out than many of our major municipalities, have the Integrity Commissioner and the municipalities don't.

That's the core of this, Speaker, and that's why I'm not suggesting for a minute that it's anything radical or wild-eyed. I had looked at coming out with

something a little more detailed, an actual bill that tied the municipalities to our Integrity Commissioner, but Linda Mitchell in my office placed a call to the commissioner's office and we found

out, like most things, it's not that straightforward and their ability to handle that kind of workload was questionable.

So rather than get into the details of it, which quite frankly is also easy to knock down -- you can find one part of the bill you don't like and you can vote

against it -- in this case all I've done is make a very straightforward statement that I'm asking this House to adopt whereby we say that the government of Ontario, regardless of the political

stripe, has an obligation to begin the process of contacting AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and other municipalities and municipal leaders, to begin the process of taking

municipal expenses and finances and budgeting and bringing them into the same arena of light and transparency and accountability that we have here, that we in this House call on the government of

the day to begin that process. Democracy calls for it; fairness calls for it. The public right to know the financial connections of their politicians is also at stake here, and I would urge my

colleagues to send that strong message.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to indicate my support for the motion and say I think it's a good step forward.

The public hold politicians in relatively low esteem. We all look at the public opinion polls, and we're right down near the bottom in terms of the respect

people have for various professions. You also see that the percentage of people who vote in each election is trending downward. It's true federally, it's true provincially, it's true municipally.

There's the odd blip in it, but by and large it's trending downward, and it's because, I think, people increasingly are losing confidence in their democratic institutions. Every one of us has heard

the comment, "All you politicians are dishonest." We tend to get brushed with the same stroke, so anything we can do that helps to restore the sense of confidence that the public have in

politicians is a good step forward.

Mr Christopherson is right: each year, all the members of the Legislature are required to file with the Integrity Commissioner quite an extensive background on

the various assets we have, and then we meet every year with the Integrity Commissioner, who has gone over our file, and answer questions. As Mr Christopherson said, we then, if there is an issue

raised here in the Legislature about a conflict of interest about any of us, have a vehicle for doing that. So I think it's a good step to look at a similar mechanism for our municipalities and to

seek the advice of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I would say, however, that I think in many respects the Legislature is far more secretive and far less open than municipalities are, and there are many members

of all parties whose background is municipal politics. You would never get away, municipally, with many of the things that we find happen here in the Legislature in terms of secrecy and lack of

access and openness. I go back to the "budget presentation" that was made this year by the Premier; it wasn't even done here in the Legislature. The Legislature was supposed to have been sitting --

the public should be aware. On December 12, we left the Legislature. We did not come back until May. The Legislature was supposed to sit in the month of March, but the Premier decided no, and he

passed a resolution. He simply said, "We're not going to sit," because if we'd been sitting, we would have had the budget here. Then he presented the "budget" not here in the Legislature but at the

Magna facilities, a private company.

As I say, I'm supportive of Mr Christopherson's motion. I think it will add in some ways to an increased sense of confidence by the public in municipal

politicians, and so I will support it. But I would say to all of us that in many respects we're far worse than municipalities here in terms of openness and access and public scrutiny of what we do.

Nothing could be more clear than the nerve to present the key document, the budget, not here in the Legislature but at Magna.

The even more shocking thing to me was, when the Speaker found the government in contempt of the Legislature by doing that, I was convinced that the government

would say, "Mr Speaker, we appreciate your view on this, we accept your view on it, and we will commit from now forward to present the budget to the Legislature." But the government said, "No, we

don't even agree with the Speaker. We'll do whatever we want. If we want to present the budget anywhere we want, at any time, we'll do it." They essentially just thumbed their nose at the Speaker

and, more importantly, at the public.

As I say, Mr Christopherson's motion is a sensible one. It will make, I think, some difference in terms of public confidence in municipal politicians. But I

would say that as he moves on to another career, we have in many respects far more to do here to correct our own House than the municipalities have to do.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to, if I could, recognize the young boys and girls from

Heritage Christian School from Jordan Station. Thanks for coming and watching today.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems petty, but there were about 30 seconds off the clock between when

he sat down and the point of order, and the clock kept running. I am just asking if you can put that back on.

The Acting Speaker: We're going to fix that. That will be restored.

The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats, of course, enthusiastically support this resolution. Indeed, one would expect nothing less from

Mr Christopherson. Think about it: Mr Christopherson, as a potential mayoralty candidate in the city of Hamilton, will be the only one of those mayoralty candidates about whom the public can

determine, by virtue of simply coming to the Clerk's office here at Queen's Park, his assets, his liabilities, his holdings, his financial interests etc, because he has made that full declaration

as a result of being a member of this Legislative Assembly.

As well, I'm confident in suggesting that Mr Christopherson's authorship and presentation of this resolution today is indicative of his style not only here but

when it comes to municipal politics. Mr Christopherson is calling for public disclosure by municipal politicians, for greater accountability and the availability of independent investigation.

I want to indicate clearly, certainly to folks in Hamilton, that that is obviously what they can expect from Mr Christopherson as mayor of the city of Hamilton.

That speaks well for the residents of Hamilton. The leadership inherent in this resolution should, I put to you, be emulated by municipal politicians in every other region and municipality in the

province of Ontario.

It's been many years ago now, but I too served as a city councillor, in the city of Welland. While some members of council and mayors make voluntary disclosures,

others are oh so reluctant to provide even the most modest of disclosures. That, I put to you, speaks volumes and should be cause for great concern.

What Mr Christopherson is proposing today is that there be a common standard across the province and that every municipal politician -- mayor, councillor or

reeve, whether it's big-city Ontario or small-town Ontario -- should be subjected to the same standard. This isn't to be malicious. It isn't to discourage people from entering municipal politics.

Indeed, it's to give members of the public -- voters, taxpayers, residents of every municipality in this province -- an opportunity to really know whom they're electing and, quite frankly, to

assess the positions those councillors or mayors take in the context of what financial interests they may have and what financial interests they may be advancing by virtue of positions they

take.

We have a new Municipal Act, which, once again, has conflict-of-interest provisions in it. Regrettably, I believe that many municipal politicians are overly

cautious and have been intimidated into too-frequent declarations of conflict of interest. I also believe there are more than a few municipal politicians who hide behind a declaration of conflict

of interest to avoid taking a position on contentious or sensitive issues.

The provision being promoted by Mr Christopherson will, quite frankly, help to clarify what indeed is a conflict of interest and help to assure those councillors

who, as I say, feel somewhat intimidated by overly cautious advice or overly cautious positions they adopt. It will relieve them of that, because the public will know. There will be a full

disclosure as to what financial interests that person has, and frankly financial interests that are related to intimate family members.

I suggest it would be delinquent of any member of this assembly not to support this resolution; indeed this resolution should be passed unanimously.

I also feel incredibly comforted that Mr Christopherson identifies this as part of his agenda in terms of his pursuit of the position of mayor of the city of

Hamilton. I call upon other mayors and other municipal politicians to follow his example.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I am pleased to rise this morning to support the resolution put forth by the member for Hamilton West. I think a

measure of this kind is long overdue.

There are many who say that in many ways our municipal politicians are closer to the electorate than any level of government, and I have to agree with that. More

importantly, some of the matters that municipal politicians deal with affect the everyday lives of many of our constituents, and they play an important function. I think this government has

recognized that more responsibility should be given to our municipal representatives in that they play such a great role in the lives of Ontario citizens.

Commensurate with that, I think there is an obligation, however, to bring the standards of integrity up to the same level as MPPs. That's not to say that the

vast majority do not act in the manner of MPPs. They do. I recognize them and I congratulate the members of my municipal councils in Cambridge, Kitchener and North Dumfries -- all part of my riding

-- who work very hard on behalf of the people and do their very best. They are to be congratulated.

However, although they are presently covered by the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which requires them to disclose pecuniary interests in any matter before

council and to abstain from voting or trying to influence the matter, that may not go far enough because it does not deal with their personal business, which we as MPPs must reveal to the Integrity

Commissioner.

Municipalities are also subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I have to agree with some of the comments made that

perhaps some municipal councillors seem to be or are perceived to be somewhat cautious in declaring a conflict of interest where perhaps none exists in actual legal fact. On the other hand, that is

a healthy situation. They are concerned, not just with doing what is right but being perceived as doing what is right. I know all municipal councillors share that belief, and that is an important

function.

However, Mr Christopherson's resolution, as mentioned, goes further than that and brings the level of disclosure of assets to the level of MPPs. I think that is

an important step in our province. It's a step that I believe the vast majority if not all municipal councillors would welcome, because they are as concerned as us with the public perception of

elected representatives in this province, and I think that is a most healthy situation.

Mr Agostino: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution of my good friend and colleague Mr Christopherson from Hamilton West. I think

it's timely, with the municipal elections coming. I am pleased to tell you that I am certainly very supportive -- and will support Mr Christopherson's bid for mayor -- along with my colleague Marie

Bountrogianni from Hamilton Mountain, because we believe this resolution reflects the type of integrity we need to bring back at the city council level across this province.

I spent seven years on city council in Hamilton, a number of those with David. The role of municipalities and the role of city councils has changed dramatically

over the years, and unfortunately the legislation has not kept up with that. Frankly, the accountability that should be there is not there. It's important because it's not only the perception but

also the reality of the situation where councils are dealing with some very, very major issues today, compared to, say, 20 or 30 years ago. A city council, with a zoning application, can literally

take a useless piece of land and turn it into something worth tens of millions of dollars. The nature of the decisions that are made and the size of the budgets have changed dramatically.

The conflict-of-interest legislation as it now exists has very little investigative power. Often, the first line in some municipal acts is a city clerk, who of

course reports to those city councillors who are there. There is very little in legislation that prohibits councillors from doing business with the city, a significant amount of business. There is

no mechanism for knowing which councillors own what companies that may do business with the city of Hamilton. It's simply left to the discretion of the individuals. In this age where the public

expects transparency, where the public expects openness in government, our Municipal Act has unfortunately failed badly and has not kept up with that.

Let's understand: unlike us on the opposition side of the House -- we don't have a lot of power to change or make laws here -- city councillors, in a sense, are

almost in a cabinet, like an executive council, because decisions are made collectively. They vote, they make a decision, and the balance of power is there, unlike in our system here, where we're

held to a much higher standard, even on the opposition side of the House, than city councillors, who in a sense have many of the same powers that a cabinet minister would or the executive council

of the province of Ontario would.

It's important to ensure we restore the faith. Politicians have taken a beating over the years, much of it deserved, some of it not deserved. Every step we can

take to restore that trust, that public confidence, that sense in people that people don't get into politics for themselves or for their own personal gain but to help make a better community, a

better place to live, a better province, any steps we can take to restore that faith in our political system I think will go a long way toward enhancing that. The act and the changes that have

occurred over the years have not kept up.

Another area where I'd like to see some changes is in the powers, for example, of the mayor. We have a situation in the act today where the mayor has one vote,

as every other councillor does. A mayor in the city of Hamilton, who may get 200,000 or 250,000 votes, has the same voting power as a councillor who will get elected with 3,000 or 4,000 votes in

one particular ward. The situation in the city of Toronto is much greater than that.

As we look at this legislation, I think we need to also go beyond that and look at whether there is an opportunity to change the act to give the mayor some extra

powers. In a sense, the mayor of a municipality has the mandate of all of the people, the basic representation of all of the people in that municipality. I think that's important and I would like

to see that changed, because I think it's often frustrating. You look to a mayor for leadership, and of course it's the power, the ability to bring people together, that clout of the office of

mayor and your ability to work with council that allows you as mayor of a city to make changes and bring things forward. But frankly, when push comes to shove in the voting and the ability to get

things done, unless you can convince a majority of your colleagues on any issue, anything from a stop sign to hiring a department head, you absolutely have no power, or very little clout. So I

think it's important when we look at that to look at that evolution as well.

I think this piece of legislation is well worth it. It would be a great change if we bring it forward. I think it will help restore the sense of confidence in

municipal councils. I congratulate Mr Christopherson for bringing this forward, and hopefully this will pass unanimously today.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today as well in support of this resolution. I had, as the members of this House will know, the

opportunity to serve on the new megacity of the city of Toronto for nearly four and a half years before resigning to come to this august place. I will tell you that in those initial years of a new

and extremely large city there was a lot of discussion on how to preserve integrity. There was a lot of discussion on how to make sure financial transactions were above-board.

I was very proud to have served on the committee that recommended an auditor general for the city of Toronto to make sure that monies that were being expended on

behalf of the people of that city were expended wisely. The city of Toronto made a good decision in going from a system that most municipalities in Ontario use, which is independent outside

auditors, to one that was internal, and appointed one of their own to head it up.

I was less successful in my attempts to get an integrity commissioner for the city of Toronto. In fact, shortly after the time that I left, that entire idea was

nixed.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You should have stayed.

Mr Prue: No, I'm not sure it would have made any difference.

I do know that during that entire period, at the start of every council meeting there was a call for conflicts of interest, when the councillors and the mayor

would stand up individually and recognize those things for which they believed they may have a conflict of interest. Sometimes they ranged from the silly and the bizarre -- where people were

claiming conflicts that were obviously not covered by the Municipal Act, in an attempt to get out of controversial issues, or simply to be able to get an afternoon off, if there was a long debate

anticipated -- to those that there were heartfelt and absolutely true.

But what always troubled me and troubled most of the members who were elected to the city of Toronto council was there were often times when we felt that there

were conflicts there but the members did not stand up. We did not have the authority to challenge them; we could not do so. Even the council itself could not challenge that someone had a conflict.

That was left up to the courts and to another entire process that was devoid of and outside the council's responsibility.

As a result of some of what went on, we now witness the spectacle in the city of Toronto of the MFP inquiry. We can see the whole train of people who have been

called before that inquiry and the sleazy underbelly of what happens when conflicts are not declared, when cozy little deals are being made. We have heard from Jeff Lyons about the $150,000 --

although it's not clear whether it was for him or for someone else. We have heard from Tom Jacobek, who has admitted under oath that he lied, and then lied about the lies. We have heard about Dash

Domi, who made a lot of money and clearly had no expertise in that type of salesman's job. We have heard, tragically, from the mayor of Toronto, Mr Mel Lastman, that he didn't know anything that

was going on. He didn't know it from staff, politicians or lobbyists. He didn't even know it from Jeff Lyons, who had helped him manage and fundraise through all of his campaigns. We are about to

hear in the next few weeks from Wanda Liczyk, the former treasurer of Toronto, who now works for OPG. I am sure that testimony is going to be very enlightening.

But sadly, last October, when debating the very issue that we have before us today -- whether or not to have an integrity commissioner -- the administration

committee nixed the entire idea. They did not want an independent integrity commissioner. If any city in this province needs an integrity commissioner, I would suggest Toronto does, not because its

politicians are bad but because of the overwhelming size of the city with a $6.2-billion budget and the overwhelming size of city council, being 55 members, and the overwhelming impossibility for

ordinary people to know personally their city of Toronto councillor. I represented 57,000 people at the city of Toronto during the last year and a half, and before that, I represented 115,000

people, who could not all personally know me or where a potential conflict might exist. One might find that in a small town with a reeve and a couple of councillors who all live in your village and

you know them, their house and the car they drive. That is impossible in extremely large cities.

This leaves the citizenry with only one option, and that is the courts. It is not surprising that that option is hardly ever taken up. It is expensive,

time-consuming, and the burden of proof is upon the accuser -- the burden of proof when one has absolutely no facts by which to go. I would suggest that is why we are not seeing conflicts

prosecuted.

This is a very simple resolution. I suggest that if all members agree, this is something that the province should do on behalf of the municipalities. We've seen

a lot of downloading exercises; let's have an uploading exercise that actually works. Upload this responsibility to the Integrity Commissioner or to a part of his office for municipalities. Upload

it so that the citizens of this province, through their municipalities, can be assured that the politicians at the local level have the same guarantees or the same responsibilities that we in this

House so gladly share with our Integrity Commissioner, so that everyone will know that we are honest and doing what needs to be done.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's a pleasure to join in the debate today to support Mr Christopherson's resolution. I'll just refresh

the memories of the people out there as to what the resolution is. It is, "In the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should support the principle of greater accountability for

politicians at the municipal level and consult with the Association of Municipalities, and municipalities, on how municipal politicians can be subject to the similar legislated requirements of

public disclosure, accountability, and independent investigation with which all members of the Legislative Assembly and executive council currently comply."

I support that resolution. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, I believe I have more municipalities than probably any other riding in the province. I have 33

municipalities in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We have six moderate-sized municipalities in Muskoka, with Bracebridge, Huntsville, Lake of Bays, Muskoka Lakes, Georgian Bay township and

Gravenhurst, as well as the district upper-tier government in Muskoka, and I have 26 municipalities in the Parry Sound district, as well as unorganized territories, which have local service boards

that make local decisions -- and from time to time there are conflicts. I know currently there are some conflicts between one of my local service boards and the fire department in the northern part

of the riding.

I work on a regular basis with the mayors, the reeves, the councillors -- in fact, hardly a day goes by that I'm not in contact with the various municipal

politicians. In fact, this morning I just got off the phone with Ted Knight, the mayor of Parry Sound, making him aware of the various marketing programs that are available to municipalities for

efforts to revitalize the community post-SARS, because Parry Sound recently was hit with some significant quarantines. About a sixth of the population, 1,000 people of the 6,000 in the town of

Parry Sound, were recently in quarantine. I have certainly heard from the mayor and from businesses that they need to revitalize the community. So I was on the phone with the mayor, making him

aware of the Ontario tourism marketing partnership programs available to help regenerate that community. Yesterday I was talking to Bill Core, from Perry township, to do with some local issues

there. So hardly a day goes by that I'm not involved with the local politicians.

I would like to point out that those local politicians generally do a great job. They're there for the right reasons. They're motivated, because they're

interested in doing the best they can for their communities. They certainly don't take on the responsibilities because of the pay they receive, because it's, generally speaking, not a huge amount

of money. But I think it is a good thing that there be more disclosure. In our case, as MPPs, we have to do an annual disclosure statement to the Integrity Commissioner of things like our assets

and those of our family members -- assets, bank accounts, investments -- and it's available to the public as well. I think that's a good thing. It's more accountability; it keeps the whole process

transparent and open. I think this sort of process, applied to municipal politicians, would not be onerous and it would be a positive step toward increasing accountability.

Mr Bradley: I am rising to speak in support of the resolution of Mr Christopherson, and I want to commend him for bringing it forward. It's

very timely. Perhaps it has been timely for a number of years now, but we have just not seen the kind of legislation and framework that is necessary to ensure that the accountability and integrity

at the local level is under the same scrutiny as it is here at the provincial level.

First of all, we start off by knowing that overwhelmingly our locally elected officials are honest people, people of integrity, people who have the best

interests of their constituents in mind. Therefore, those individuals are not going to object to some kind of legislative framework that might emerge from this resolution.

Keep in mind that the member has not simply said that we in this House will impose upon municipalities some rules and regulations without any consultation. He

has specifically said in his resolution that we are debating this morning that there shall be consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which represents municipalities in this

province, and also with municipalities themselves on perhaps an individual basis.

We have to recognize that anybody who has a chance to make decisions may make decisions which are to the benefit of themselves, or decisions which are to the

benefit of friends or financial contributors. If information is provided to the public on where those contributions have been made, how much they were; if there is an opportunity to investigate

when there is a problem and we have somebody comparable to an integrity commissioner for the municipalities in this province, that will be a great advantage.

We have seen in the news in the past year, for instance, a number of examples of people who have been under suspicion, to say the least. These may be related

to contracts that are provided to municipalities; these may be related to developments which take place within the bounds of a municipality, or a decision that simply benefits one individual or one

particular business group. So, to avoid that, the member has suggested, I think wisely, that we find a mechanism to avoid that happening at the municipal level, and if it does happen to have a

mechanism to deal with it appropriately in terms of investigation and penalties that can be applied.

I think this is very important for the public. The public wants to know that its elected individuals are above-board, that their interests are on the table so

people can see them, and I know there is an opportunity now for municipal politicians at a council meeting to declare conflicts of interest. Some have mentioned that that has been done from time to

time to avoid making a decision on a particular subject. I don't know how often that happens, but I think it's always better to err on the side of caution in these matters.

The member has clearly said: people at the provincial level must declare assets and so on on a confidential basis to a commissioner. If a member of this

Legislature wishes to draw to the attention of the Integrity Commissioner something that he or she believes is worthy of investigation, that can be done at this level. Keep in mind that, as someone

said to me the other day, it is much harder to buy an entire government or buy an entire caucus within a Legislature than it is an individual who might be representing them at the local level.

We hope that doesn't happen. This resolution will go a long way to reducing the risk of that happening. It's in line with the quest we all have for open

government, for accountable government, for integrity at all levels of government, and I think it commends itself to support by all members of this Legislature. I hope from it will flow legislation

which will meet the goals of the resolution.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate with respect to the resolution. Having been a former

councillor of the city of Barrie, I can tell you that there were municipal conflict-of-interest guidelines. When you're dealing with a matter that you could have a pecuniary interest in, indirectly

or directly, there is an obligation obviously to declare a conflict of interest and not vote or debate or be a part of those discussions.

What the member from Hamilton is proposing here is to bring it up to a higher standard, to the standard that we have here in the Legislature, which is a very

high standard of disclosure with respect to your own personal dealings, which I know is being hotly debated right now at the federal level. They're looking to bring in greater disclosure with

respect to your financial portfolio. That's one of the things we have to file every year, in terms of our financial area and also the rules we face as different members.

I think the key word here is "integrity." That's what is important out there, in terms of: how do you bring integrity to the system? Well, obviously, the

members have to have integrity. The system has to be designed to make accountability the main factor, so that you can avoid the scandals which are plaguing the city of Toronto right now with

respect to the MFP inquiry and the fingerpointing that is there.

Integrity, in terms of the members being transparent in terms of their financial wherewithal, certainly would be a step forward with respect to keeping the

members aware of what their role is. I think it's very important, because municipal government has an incredible impact, not only with respect to the development of the community but certainly for

developers and business people who can benefit by the decisions that are made at the municipal level. The power to rezone lands with respect to official plans is an enormous power with tremendous

economic benefits for those who are the beneficiaries.

So I think the level of integrity that's being demanded of this Legislature certainly shouldn't be any less for municipalities, and I think that's where the

member is headed. I think that would bring that transparency.

I think the public needs to know, with respect to a member, and to have that public disclosure in terms of where they stand. If you don't have a system that's

in place -- and I think the way it's set up right now with the municipal conflict of interest, it's really dealing with things that are coming on the floor and that are being debated and discussed,

whereas I think you may have to go a little bit further with respect to bringing the members in line with respect to other matters and to bring home what it means to be in public office.

Integrity of the member is something that has to be drilled home to the members because, quite frankly, if you don't have a system in place where they have to

disclose and be a part of the process, in terms of filling out forms or dealing with what they're accountable for, who knows whether the members even know if they're subject to the Municipal

Conflict of Interest Act? That would probably be part of their briefing when they're brought in as new councillors, but I think it has to go another step further, and I think that's what the member

is trying to get at here: going that extra step to make sure they understand, not only from a briefing but from a written form, what their responsibility is. They have an enormous amount of power,

and they also have the respect of the community and their constituents who have elected them.

So I think the member is on the right track, and I would support that fully.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm pleased to support this resolution.

I heard my colleague say something, and I have to ask him the question. He said he was contemplating moving to municipal politics. I thought the decision was

made. Does he mean to say that he's coming back? I just need him to answer that question; it's not a very serious one. I'm just joking.

A couple of things, really quickly: in my view, if there is anybody who has to have conflict-of-interest guidelines, it's probably more so at the municipal

level. In this Legislature we all understand, and I think most people will understand, that the lower the level of government, the closer you are to the people. On a daily basis, the municipalities

deal with developers and with people looking to get zoning changes and all kinds of things that are a daily occurrence. If you need transparency, you certainly need to have it at the municipal

level.

That's not to say there's a whole bunch of crooked politicians at the municipal level. By and large, I think that most people who serve at the municipal level

are honest, hard-working people who are trying to do the right job in serving their community, and those people aren't paid very well for what they do. Most of them do it as a part-time, temporary

job, for which they get paid a stipend of maybe 1,000 bucks a month, if they're lucky, and they put far more than $1,000 worth of wages back in that job as municipal alderman, or councillor,

depending on where you live.

I think the issue is that you need to give the public a sense of transparency. You have to give them some assurances, for example, that if a particular

councillor or mayor is associated with a particular development group, that will be disclosed so that it's very clear that if that issue comes before committee of the whole or comes before

municipal council or in a closed session, the councillor or mayor in that case would have to remove themselves from any of the influence they may bring toward giving that particular company any

kind of additional favour because they happen to be associated with them as a director or may have received some kind of gift from them or whatever.

I think that's not onerous. It's already something we do here at the provincial level. I've got to disclose, as all members of the Legislature do, if I've

received any kind of gift -- what's the limit? I think it's $50 or $100. If you get a pen that's worth $50 -- I forget what the limit is; it's either $50 or $100, something like that. It's not a

lot. But the point is, if anybody gives you, as a member of the assembly, any kind of gift -- I think it's in excess of $100 -- you've got to report that to the commissioner, and rightfully so.

Suppose someone decided to give me a trip for $500 or $1,000.

Feedback from sound system.

Mr Agostino: It's a foghorn.

Mr Bisson: It's a foghorn, exactly. I've got one on my airplane in case there's fog. That really threw me off for the last couple of

seconds.

Interjection: It's like The Gong Show.

Mr Bisson: I'm about to get the hook. Anyway, I just want to say that all of us here in the assembly clearly have to work under those

guidelines. Why? Because we need to give the public the assurance that we're not giving any kind of favour to a particular company because we may be associated with them or had a gift. When those

things happen, you have to have the commissioner of conflict of interest come in and give judgment as to whether the member has or hasn't broken the rules.

I think applying those rules at the municipal level wouldn't be seen by municipalities as a hostile act. I agree with Mr Christopherson that we shouldn't be

trying to impose something without first consulting with municipalities and AMO, and that's what his resolution calls far.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I want to commend the member for Hamilton West for bringing this resolution forward. My knowledge of

the member over the past eight years and my experience with him has always indicated that he is a man who is highly principled, a man of integrity, and I don't question any motive whatever that he

may have in bringing this forward, as some in this place may.

I want to say that all municipal politicians are already subject to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which requires those members of municipal council

to disclose any pecuniary interest in any matter before council.

However, in the 2003 budget our government indicated that the government will work with municipalities to enrich accountability for public investment and

public services. The member opposite will of course be aware that in our party platform for the upcoming election campaign there is a pledge that increases to municipal taxes would have to be

approved by the taxpayers in a referendum. That falls in line, essentially, with what the member for Hamilton West is trying to do as well. There are going to be municipal stakeholders who will

complain, but I think you're going to have a fair amount of support among municipal stakeholders as well. I think you will have both complaints and opposition from municipal councillors and

municipal mayors, but I think that what this does is set a higher standard for all municipal politicians, and of course we all know that all politics are local. Why should municipal politicians be

held to any lower standard than what we in this place are?

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Christopherson: Let me thank all colleagues from all three parties for your comments. Particularly on the last point, I appreciate that

it's not seen as something other than exactly what it is. I appreciate that you give me the benefit of the doubt on that. Thank you.

There are a few things on which I'll just take a moment; I don't have a lot of time. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked about how he was supporting

this and the lack of secrecy in this place. It gives me the opportunity to again point out that we have a structured opposition, with an official opposition, a loyal opposition whose role is to go

after the government and hold them accountable, still loyal to our system and our Constitution. But their job is to hold people accountable. You don't have that kind of dynamic on city council, at

least it's not structured. It often exists on a personal basis, but it's not a structural part of it.

My friends from Niagara Centre and Cambridge both spoke to the fact that there are occasions when people are being overly cautious. I think that speaks well to

councillors who are making declarations, but it removes far too many councillors from debates they otherwise should or could be involved in, and as my friend from Beaches-East York mentioned, there

are some people -- I think his words were "silly" and "bizarre" -- who have silly and bizarre reasons for doing things. Perhaps they just want to stay out of a controversial issue and that's a

nice, neat way to do it. This makes the whole thing very straightforward.

My friend from Hamilton East and a couple of others talked about this zoning issue, and that is so crucial. A piece of land worth virtually nothing can be made

to be worth millions with one vote.

Lastly, my friend from St Catharines was good enough to mention that we consider almost all municipal politicians to be members of high integrity. This is

merely added protection for democracy. I thank all members and hope they will support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allocated for discussing ballot item number 11. I will take the vote on this item at 12

o'clock noon.

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

Mr Phillips moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 46,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about events at Ipperwash Provincial Park leading to the death of Dudley George /

Projet de loi 46, Loi prévoyant une enquête publique pour découvrir la vérité sur les événements qui se sont produits au parc provincial Ipperwash et qui ont

conduit au décès de Dudley George.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm seeking support for my bill, which calls for a public inquiry. Just to remind the public of

this event, it took place in September 1995, shortly after the new government came in. The First Nations took over Ipperwash Provincial Park after the park closed on Labour Day. The OPP had known

about the plans for this for at least a month. Two days later, Dudley George was killed in a confrontation with the OPP. It's the first time a First Nations person has died in a land claim dispute

in at least 100 years.

The reasons for the need for a public inquiry are twofold. There is, I think, very strong evidence of inappropriate political involvement in the police

operations at Ipperwash Provincial Park at the very highest level, and I'm referring to the then Premier of the day.

The evidence of that has been gathered over eight years. Firstly, notes from meetings held on the actual day of the shooting show this: "The Premier's office

wants removal now." Then you see an arrow pointing the other way: "OPP removal later." So it's this conflict between the Premier's office and the OPP. The OPP did not want removal now; the

Premier's office did. The OPP are reluctant, since it appears to be a land dispute. The issue is political direction of the OPP.

That's the first piece of evidence of inappropriate involvement.

After seven years of pushing for this, the Premier finally acknowledged that the day of the shooting he held a meeting with three cabinet ministers and two

senior OPP officers. As I say, for a long while he said he had no involvement in it. At that meeting, there is a note that says, "Attorney General instructed by Premier that he desires removal

within 24 hours," more evidence of what I regard as totally inappropriate involvement in this operation.

We have transcripts of the two commanding police officers after they heard this, saying, "That's not what we want. We want more time." The local member of the

Legislature, a Conservative member I might add, was at the police command post at least four times before the shooting death. Four hours before the shooting, he was at the command post and said,

"If police services can't do it, get someone who can. I don't mind taking the controversy."

We have here the typed notes from the police, and we had those notes probably three or four years ago. We then found the handwritten notes that provided the

basis for the typed notes. We found six references to the Premier in the handwritten notes that were omitted from the typed notes.

Among things the Premier is saying in the handwritten notes: "We're on the right track." The typed note omits the Premier from those notes. In another

handwritten note: "The Premier is in constant touch, good communications." The typed note says, "John Carson advised that he was keeping in contact with the Kettle Point to get their feeling." No

mention of the Premier.

It's extremely unusual that somehow or other the difference between the handwritten police notes and the typed notes excluded about six political

references.

On occasion, the government has said that the police in a sworn affidavit said they took no direction from the government. That is not the case. In the sworn

testimony of then-Commissioner O'Grady, a well-regarded individual, I might add, in his sworn affidavit, he's very careful of this when he says that he took no "command direction" from the

government and that he was never ordered to remove them by force. But he's never, in a sworn affidavit, said he did not take direction from the government.

So that's the first issue that must be determined. I say to all of us, when the Premier of the province of Ontario, and I think the evidence is strong, is

inappropriately involved in a police action, it demands a public inquiry.

The second reason it demands a public inquiry is, why did the province abandon a long-standing approach to dealing with this that had existed for decades? We

have evidence here that there was no policy in place at the time of the shooting death. In fact, in this note, called "Actions To Be Taken," it says, "We must establish an aboriginal policy

framework by October 2, 1995." They did not have a policy. They scrapped the existing policy, put nothing in place and then they said, "We must develop one by October 2, 1995," after the shooting

death. It says, "NB: the fact the government is working on an ABF" -- aboriginal policy framework -- "will not be part of any messaging." In other words, "Don't tell anyone we don't have a

policy."

Why did the government decide to abandon that long-standing tradition? Well, the available evidence said the Premier's executive assistant said, "The Premier

is hawkish on this issue. It will set tone on how we deal with these issues over the next four years. It feels we're being tested on this issue. The Premier's office doesn't want to be seen working

with Indians at all." The police, on the other hand, said, "It's imprudent to rush in."

The First Nations took over that park to protect a burial ground. At the time, we were told there was no burial ground, and then we found out that right here

at Queen's Park the government had in its possession evidence of a burial ground. In fact, during construction of the park it was the government's own employee building the park who said, "Listen,

we found a burial ground. This should be protected." It was the government's own document, and once it was made clear that the government had that document, it had to go to court and drop all the

charges against the First Nations, because they had this defence called colour of right evidence of a burial ground.

So all of us now are going to be part of the decision: do we or do we not call for a public inquiry? The government said, "We'll wait until the civil case is

over before we make that decision." I'll make several points about the civil case.

The George family never wanted to launch a civil case. The only reason they did was because year after year the government refused to even commit to holding a

public inquiry. They never wanted the public inquiry.

Any lawyer, outside of the government's lawyer, will tell you that the civil approach is not the right approach. Can you imagine the reaction of the people of

Walkerton if we had ever said, "If you want to find out what happened at Walkerton, launch a civil case. Sue us. We're not going to hold a public inquiry." It's the same thing here.

Dudley George's brother, Sam George, is here. He has been subjected to the worst kinds of government abuse: $3 million of taxpayer money attacking him, calling

him a terrorist. It's shameful. It is truly shameful. The former Premier has spent well over $1 million himself fighting Sam George in a battle that he should never, ever have to fight. The only

reason he's doing it is because the government will not commit to holding a public inquiry.

The George family is a family of very modest means, and up against it is the entire state apparatus: $3 million, and there will be a three-month civil case

where another $2 million will be used to attack him. It's wrong.

The evidence is overwhelming. There is a need for a public inquiry. The only reason the civil case was ever started was because the George family always

suspected that Premier Harris, and now Premier Eves, would never call a public inquiry.

It is a shameful piece of Ontario's history that we have a chance to begin to erase today. I would hope the members would study the material I sent them, would

agree that we need to end this sorry

chapter and begin a public inquiry now.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): It's certainly a pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleagues and the government. The member for

Scarborough-Agincourt speaks about this matter in a very passionate way. But certainly this matter is before the courts. I would say, on behalf of the government, that we would not be participating

in this debate.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I just can't believe that the government of Ontario would not participate in this debate. First the government

said the public inquiry couldn't happen. They said, "It can't happen because there are criminal and civil matters underway." Then the criminal matter was finished and the government said, "We can't

debate this in this House because the civil matter is underway," and the government knew that was wrong. They would have gotten advice from the Attorney General, they would have gotten advice from

Cabinet Office that there is absolutely no obstacle to a public inquiry in circumstances where a civil proceeding is underway. They know that.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Walkerton.

Mr Bryant: Walkerton happened at the same time that civil proceedings were underway. We know that. We consulted, and the Legislature

consulted, with Professor Patrick Macklem at the University of Toronto faculty of law. He's an expert on this. I've read this in the House, but I'll read it again. Here's what he said, and why he

said we need to have a public inquiry and why a civil proceeding is inappropriate:

"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, 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."

He says, and this is important, "Public inquiries often perform an important social function, contributing to `a dramatic transformation in popular perceptions

of some previously poorly illuminated aspects of Canadian society and institutions.'"

That is exactly what is happening here, thanks to some extremely courageous Ontarians, one of whom is the member who just spoke, Mr Gerry Phillips. Thanks to a

number of extremely courageous Ontarians, this sorry

chapter in Ontario's history continues to be a black eye on the province of Ontario, and the only way to get to the truth here is to have a

public inquiry.

All the defences the government has thrown up and all the money the government has spent to avoid a public inquiry just leave Ontarians more and more

suspicious that something dreadful, something that violates everything we believe about the way governments ought to operate, something that violates the very principle of the separation between

the crown, the government, the executive council, on one hand, and those who must perform police duties and those who must prosecute, on the other hand -- something happened and somebody died, and

we must get to the bottom of it.

Yet, the government comes up with excuse after excuse and spends taxpayer dollars down the drain, and now, in the last flagrant violation of their duties, they

won't even debate it in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I can't believe it. I can't believe that they do not have the guts to stand in their place and defend their position. I can't believe

that they would exercise such extraordinary arrogance and fail to stand up for the government of the day and defend its decision.

It is atrocious that the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General will not even take the time to rise in his place and explain why on earth the

government of Ontario is obstructing justice in getting to the bottom of Ipperwash -- it is unbelievable -- and that it would not only neglect its duties as a government, and not only neglect its

duties, I say to the Attorney General, as the chief legal officer and the person there to provide some measure of independence in the midst of this debacle, but they would also violate their

democratic and legislative duties to stand up and defend their position in the Legislature.

These are serious charges made by a member of the Legislature who has served in this Legislature, served in the government certainly long enough for everybody

in this House to take them pretty darned seriously. He's not going to let go of this one, I can assure you. Dalton McGuinty and Ontario Liberals are not going to let go of this one, I can assure

you. We must get to the bottom of it, and I cannot believe the government of Ontario will not defend itself.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm a little bit stunned this morning as to what this government has now decided to do. I hope they

reconsider their position and actually take the time to participate in this debate. I imagine, Mr George, that this government is going to participate in this debate when it comes to the vote.

They're going to stand in this Legislature en masse and vote against and kill the motion that calls for a public inquiry.

I say to the government, if you want to stand up and vote against having a public inquiry, you should at least have the decency to get up in this Legislature

and tell us, the members, and the George family and the rest of the population that's watching, why you choose to do that. This is really the most despicable thing I've seen in a long time.

Mr Levac: A free vote, Gilles?

Mr Bisson: There are no free votes on that side.

Let me just go through a couple of things -- I just wanted to start on that, because to me that is really beyond the pale. What is clear in this debate is that

there is a mounting pile of evidence -- what the government said in its first defence around "Did they have any role in the George shooting?" -- starting to demonstrate that in fact there is a

smoking gun, that there is something that indicates that what the government initially said when it came to its defence is really quite contrary to what the facts point to. There are all kinds of

documents now that demonstrate that the government, quite frankly, was very much involved in the final decision to send the police into the park that resulted in the murder of Dudley George. For

this government to say they won't participate in debate but are prepared to vote against this motion -- or are they going to abstain, which I really doubt, because if they abstain, it means to say

we, the opposition, will carry the day. I have to believe that they're going to be voting in opposition to this motion. I think that's really, really despicable.

There are a few things that have to be said. Mr Phillips laid out the facts as they present themselves as to the government's involvement. I want to come back

and just concentrate on another issue. That issue is: one of the comments that was made by Premier Harris at the very beginning of all of this, according to the notes that we see from the

conversations that happened in cabinet prior to the actual murder of Dudley George -- there were a couple of comments made that, to me, are quite astounding. The one comment that really blows me

away is the comment that says, "The Premier does not want to be seen as working with Indians." I'm telling you, that is the most shocking thing that I've seen around this place. There's nothing

that comes even close to it.

We're the immigrants here. We're the people that came into this country. It's not as if we came to this country and asked the native people to come here. They

were here before us, and for the Premier of Ontario to take the position that he doesn't want to be seen as working with our First Nations people, to me is beyond the pale. If I look at the record

of the government over the last eight years, there has been hardly an example shown anywhere that this government was prepared to do something positive toward the First Nations people of this

province.

Quite aside from what happened with the Dudley George case, there are all kinds of pressing, pressing issues that have to be dealt with in First Nations

communities. I represent James Bay. I represent Constance Lake. There are First Nations communities across this province, as in my riding, who are crying for help, who are saying, "We have some

serious economic problems." There is no economic activity in their communities. How do you attract a car plant, or how do you attract any kind of economic opportunity to a community like Ogoki,

that is at least 200 miles north of any highway? The government of Ontario's not doing anything to address the issues in that community.

You have acute housing shortages in communities like Fort Albany, Kashechewan and others, where you've got as many as 20 or 30 people living in one house. Ask

yourself a question: how does a child learn at school when you have overcrowding inside the house? We're not talking about South Africa; we're talking about Ontario, a prosperous province such as

Ontario that has the means to help but refuses to, and then a Premier that says, "I don't want to be seen as working with Indians because, politically, that's not the picture I want to give to the

province of Ontario." I think it's a pretty sad reflection.

I had an opportunity here last fall when the assembled chiefs of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council came here to Queen's Park to assist me in trying to get a

motion passed here in the Legislature that would have said a very simple thing: that whenever there is development in the mining or forestry sectors in and around First Nations communities north of

50, there be a mechanism to do taxation, as we have with any other community in the province of Ontario. The thing would have been very simple. If, for example, you build a car plant in Windsor,

well, you know what? The car plant pays taxes to the municipality. Everybody accepts that as good business. If there is a mine found in Timmins, the mine pays taxes to the city of Timmins.

Everybody accepts that. The companies accept it; the population accepts it; everybody thinks that's a good thing. Why? Because that's how we pay for the infrastructure of our communities. But if

you develop any kind of economic activity such as mining or forestry in and about a First Nations community, there is absolutely no mechanism to give the First Nations community any kind of share

of the profit from that activity that's happening on their land.

We asked a very simple thing in this Legislature. We said, "We call on the provincial government to start a process of discussion with First Nations

communities, the federal government and the province about developing a mechanism to share in the profits of those particular corporations that are doing business in and about First Nations

communities so they can share in the wealth, as all other communities in the province can."

This government en masse, in front of the assembled chiefs of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and their Grand Chief Toby Beck, stood in opposition to that

motion. Quite frankly, I was shocked, because early on I was getting indications from the government, from discussions I had with them for a couple of weeks before the motion, that they were

actually in favour of starting that discussion. I thought, "Finally, we're going to get some progress under the Tory administration." Instead, they stood up -- the Minister of Northern Development

and Mines, the AG responsible for native issues in the province of Ontario, the Minister of Energy, the MNR minister -- all ministers that deal with First Nations communities and the entire

government got up and voted in opposition.

Why I raise that is I think it's pretty indicative of the comments that were made by Premier Harris in the summer of 1995 which was, according to the

documents, that he doesn't want to be seen as working with those Indians. I say to him, first of all, that's a pretty racist thing to say. Number two, it looks like that was the policy of the

government for the last eight years.

There are First Nations communities around this province who are in desperate need of assistance from this government, because clearly the federal government

is not responding to the degree it needs to in those communities. The province could play a role, as we do with municipalities. We have no problem in this province supporting municipalities in

Ontario, but we hide behind the fact that native communities are basically governed by the Indian Act, and because they are, we say, "Oh, we can't give money for housing. We can't give money for

water and sewers. We can't give money for any basic infrastructure because, oh, they're a ward of the federal government. They're responsible under the Indian Act." All native leaders, people in

native communities and non-natives alike are saying to this government that we have to stop hiding behind the Indian Act. We have to stop hiding behind the whole federal government issue because,

at the end of the day, if we don't take our responsibility here as a province, our communities and places like the James Bay and others are going to have a heck of a hard time trying to deal with

issues that are very pressing.

I know other members of my caucus are going to want to speak to this, so I say in closing that we will be voting proudly in support of the motion that was put

forward by Mr Phillips. We do that knowing that the government is not going to be voting in support of it. But we think it's important that at least some of the members of this assembly stand up in

support of First Nations communities and in support of what's happened to the George family and their wanting to be able to bring an end to this and to have a public inquiry.

The fact that the government refuses to get up and even debate this issue, to me, is beyond the pale. For the member to get up at the beginning of the debate

and say, "Because this is before the courts, we're not going to comment to the Legislature," there's a real hollow ring to that because (

a) we're protected in this Legislature from anything we say

being used in court -- the reality is, you can't sue me for what I say in here, so what are you afraid of? -- and (

b) I think it shows an affront to the First Nations people of this province that

this government is going to remain silent on what is one of the most crucial issues to the First Nations communities over the last eight years: the murder of Dudley George. I just can't believe

that this government is refusing to speak to this particular motion.

This is your opportunity to be heard on it. We're calling on this government to participate in this debate, to vote in favour of this motion and once and for

all to give some closure, but, more importantly, to make sure that we develop policies in this province that don't allow this incident to be repeated ever again. The only way we can do that is by a

public inquiry.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Bill 46, the Truth About Ipperwash Act, is before us. This bill was presented by my colleague from

Scarborough-Agincourt. Let me say from the start that I have the greatest respect for this member. His integrity is unquestionable. His vigilance is known internationally. He's determined to get to

the truth of this matter -- not only he alone, but Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party are very much focused on getting to the truth of this matter.

Essentially what this bill is doing is addressing a very sad and critical period in our history -- whether the Conservative Party wants to recognize it or not.

The Ipperwash affair touches many aspects, but there remain many serious, difficult and fundamental questions to be answered in this issue. The killing of Dudley George, an unarmed Canadian

engaging in an inherent right to protest, was not only devastating to his family -- his brother is here today -- but also demands answers and justice, and is injurious to the aboriginal community

at large.

This matter, this issue, has been before the House many times. This incident, as you know, happened in 1995. In fact, this affair has been presented before our

native community, the people of Ontario, Canada and the international community at large. This bill calls for an open public inquiry. It does so because there is something rather suspect going on

here. We have learned over the past couple of years of political interference prior to the killing of Dudley George. The information, as presented by my colleague, is very, very telling. He has

made this available to all members of the House and I hope they have read it; I'm sure they have read it. It establishes a direct link between what happened on that day, the actions of the Ontario

Provincial Police and the role of the Mike Harris government.

Basically, what I see is the politicization of the situation. We have a Premier, according to the leaked information, meeting with officers and ordering them

what to do. Yet we have officers wanting to do something different. As a matter of fact, the OPP would very much ask for separation of the OPP from the government to let the OPP get on with their

work -- but somehow we see a lot of interference here -- and that's the only way we can have some independence in all of this. At least, that's what the evidence is saying. The consequence of this

is the innocent killing of Dudley George.

Another important element in all this is it calls into question the many issues of native rights, something we have ignored and need to address. Therefore, the

killing of Dudley George, the situation at Ipperwash and the disrespect of native rights surely imposes on all of us to finally bring truth to justice and justice to aboriginal people. It is time

to find the truth about the killing of Dudley George. I personally fully -- and Dalton McGuinty and all of us here -- support the calling of a public inquiry.

I was appalled to notice that the member from London-Fanshawe, who represents the government here, a former police officer, refused to even speak on this most

important issue. I have been here 18 years, and I can't recall at any time a private member's bill where the government refused to address an issue. This tells me there is something funny going on

here.

Our human rights issues in this province are really appalling, and this one tells us exactly where this government is at. Even this policy today, as they go

into another election, tells us how they target immigrants and other people. It's a "them and us" kind of a government. It is an extremely sad day in this province, and I fully support my member

from Scarborough-Agincourt in putting this bill forward.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise in this House chagrined, embarrassed, ashamed of this Legislature. We stand here with

responsibilities and we stand here on this particular issue with special responsibilities. I address my remarks not to the members opposite, who have abdicated their responsibilities, but rather to

the parliament of public opinion, because I ask every member of the public watching here to do something about this issue. This is a failure -- a failure, as the members nailed to their seats

opposite symbolically, without intending, tell us exactly what's at work here.

This is a question of no less than, what kind of province do we live in, in Ontario today, in 2003, eight years after a man has died in the prosecution of

democratic rights, for the first time in the history of Ontario, a native Canadian killed in an interaction with our police forces? Yet the Premier's office is involved in this. The Premier's

office is implicated. The stunning thing is, as we stand here in this House eight years later, with government backbenchers stuck to their seats, it's clearly possible that the Premier's office in

Ontario in 2003 can arrange to elude accountability, even when a man dies. That is stunning. It is a failure of our institutions. You would think the fact that there is evidence -- and there is

clear evidence, notations in the police logbooks that talk about the involvement of the Premier's office, the highest office this level of government has to offer, save the symbolism of the

Lieutenant Governor.

Yet there is no sense of obligation on the part of the officeholders or the people who prop up that office, the members opposite, to see the rudiments of

accountability brought to bear -- there is no conclusion you can draw after eight years of delay, denial and running away from the light -- that the government and the Premiers have something to

hide. It reflects so poorly on this House that our other mechanisms -- the Attorney General, who is meant to be independent to a degree to advise the cabinet, has failed in his responsibilities, as

have successive attorneys general in this particular job.

This House is meant to be the place to air the grievances, especially such serious grievances as this one: political interference with police action. There

can't be too many more important things that the people who will go home from this place tonight want to be able to depend on, that we live in a society where that can't happen. Well, there is

evidence -- and each of the members of this House has seen it -- evidence that there has been political interference. Yet it's still possible to have a lack of responsibility taken that would make

this continue. There's a document to prove that this was a just occupation, that this is in fact an Indian burial ground. There are judge's comments that say the idea that shots were fired on the

part of native protesters was a fiction created after the fact. There is a man, Dudley George, who died innocently -- not an innocent man in the sense of a perfect man, but a man who deserves from

this place nothing less than the respect and dignity that's not been accorded to him here right now.

We will all remain guilty of compounded injustice. There is no greater indictment, for a place that sends people here on behalf of others, to not be able to

muster up justice. We stand here blocking and interfering until we vote for this resolution on behalf of the dignity and the respect that after eight years Dudley George, Sam George and everyone

here deserves.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I had not really thought I was going to speak to this issue today, but I feel compelled that I must.

The George family is here today, seeking what any Canadian citizen or resident of Ontario would consider their right. They are seeking justice, seeking the

truth, and hoping that their elected representatives take what they are saying seriously, and do something with it.

The truth cannot ever be suppressed. It can be held back and delayed, but it can never in the end be suppressed. About 100 years ago, in France, there was a

gentleman who was wrongly convicted and sent off to the penal colonies of Devil's Island in South America. His name was Mr Dreyfus and his crime, I suppose, was being Jewish. Because they needed a

scapegoat, they sent him off. People in France started to rally against that, to see how inherently wrong it was.

It took a great author, a great man, to stand up: Émile Zola. Probably the most famous thing he ever wrote was two words: "J'accuse," "I accuse." He wrote

it and he wrote it again and again and again. It was only after Émile Zola personally had to take flight that the people of France started to look and say, "What was wrong? What has gone on

here? Did Mr Zola have something to say? Did something need to be looked at?" As you know, Mr Speaker, it took several years after that, but an inquiry was held in that country and Mr Dreyfus was

returned from Devil's Island and was subsequently cleared of all wrongdoing. But it took someone to say, "J'accuse."

I don't know whether it's appropriate to say that here in this Legislature, because I personally do not know all the facts as Mr Zola understood them in the

case of Mr Dreyfus. But I will tell you that in the last 20 months that I have been in this Legislatur, I have witnessed an awful lot of obfuscation and an awful lot of a government that is trying

to hide something. I have seen a Premier try to take Canada's national newspaper to court. I have seen that every time Mr Phillips gets up or other members get up to ask questions, there are no

answers forthcoming. I have seen a family on many occasions coming here to ask for something simple and decent, and I have seen nothing happen.

Today I see more of the same. I see the government members opposite sitting in their seats and refusing to say something. Well, I'm going to ask the members

opposite who are refusing to say something to go the next step further. If you're not going to say anything and if you're not going to participate in this, I'm going to ask you to at least do the

honourable thing: when the vote is called, don't vote. I'm going to ask you not to bring in legions of Tories to vote against something for which you will not speak. I am going to ask that you

simply sit in your seat and not stand when it is time to have your name registered. I am asking that you do the right and honourable thing: if you are not going to participate in something the

electors have sent you here to do, that you not participate fully, that you let this motion pass even if you are not party to it and that you let the process unwind.

It is extremely unfortunate for the George family what they are going to have to do and the events which are going to unfold in the courts in September. They

do not want that. They want this chamber to come to the resolution. They want to know that Dudley George did not die in vain. They want something to happen for all of the people of this province,

and particularly for all of the native people who have an unqualified right, in my view, to their lands, an unqualified right to protect their culture, an unqualified right to respect those who

have died in Indian burial places. That is what we need to secure in this Legislature. That's what needs to be said. If the members opposite do not wish to participate in such a debate, then I ask

them to simply sit in their seats when the vote is called.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

The mover of the motion has two minutes to respond.

Mr Phillips: In the strongest terms possible, I'm pleading with the House to agree to this bill.

Let me remind all of us about what happened here. The First Nations had evidence of a burial ground that was not being protected. They moved to protect it. An

unarmed man was shot and killed; there was a judge who concluded that. He said that this was an unarmed man who was killed.

I am making the charge that there is overwhelming evidence that there was inappropriate political involvement at the highest level, the Premier's office,

around the events at Ipperwash Provincial Park. I'm making that charge on the basis of eight years of gathering evidence.

The people of Ontario have a right to find out the truth about what happened at Ipperwash. The George family has a right to know. In my opinion, the government

members are being part of a plan to cover this up. I do not understand how the government members would not take the time to look at the evidence and conclude that we need a public inquiry. This is

extremely serious when the Premier's office can be involved in something like this and then the Premier's office can control whether or not the truth ultimately comes out. It's an extremely serious

charge I'm making based on the evidence that I have.

I would urge the government members to think for themselves and to support this bill that will make sure we get at the truth about what happened at

Ipperwash.

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

Pursuant to standing order 96(e), the proceedings of this House now stand suspended until 12 o'clock high noon.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1201.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 11. Mr Christopherson has moved private member's notice of

motion number 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 12. Mr Phillips has moved second reading of Bill 46. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Young, David

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' --

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr Ramsay: Yes, there is something out of order. The member from Don Valley West insulted my colleague.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. I did not hear anything; the table did not hear anything. But if any member has something they would like to

withdraw, I would give them an opportunity to do it right now.

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Mr Speaker, I find it regrettable that I used the most

logical term, "hypocrite," and I withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will

resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT AWARDS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was pleased to be able to attend the annual Canadian Environment Awards presentation on Monday, June 2,

where activist, author, analyst, educator, researcher and consultant Gary Gallon received the citation of lifetime achievement for his dedication to the environment during his career. This honour

recognizes exceptional dedication and outstanding long-term contributions to the Canadian environment. Mr Gallon is well known in that field. Along with the winner in the category of climate

change, Bob Hunter, Gary founded Greenpeace Canada many years ago in British Columbia.

The group Cows and Fish won in the environmental learning category; Moira Brown of Bolton, Ontario, for restoration and rehabilitation; Herb Hammond of BC, for

sustainable living; Tom Maccagno of Alberta, for conservation; and Lynda Lukasik of Hamilton, for environmental health.

Interestingly, one of the finalists was Save the Rouge Valley System, which has been very active in restoring fish and wildlife habitat along the Rouge River.

They had received a grant from the Trillium Foundation in recognition of this work. Unfortunately, this grant has been pulled by the Trillium Foundation -- I don't know whether the government has

influenced that or not -- supposedly because this organization, Save the Rouge Valley System, is being political. I think this is a wrong decision on the part of the government. That funding should

be restored.

I think all these individuals and groups should be congratulated for their work on the environment.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Each passing day gives us yet more examples of how this government pours public money into private pockets.

Using information obtained under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, New Democrats have discovered that the anti-union, anti-worker firm Cintas has quietly doubled the amount

they charge the government to clean Brad Clark's hand towels in the Ministry of Labour. Since the contract with Cintas began just over three years ago, the price of these clean towels has increased

by over 100%.

The contract with Cintas allows them to jack up the prices any time they want. They seem to be willing to take advantage of the taxpayers of this province by

exercising this right whenever they please. Another interesting feature of the Cintas contract is a charge they tack on to the bill known as an "environmental charge" or a

"delivery/environmental/energy charge" or sometimes just a "service charge."

This company, mind you, was the defendant in a class action lawsuit in the United States over the existence of these phony, scam charges. Last year, they

agreed to settle a lawsuit for US$14 million. Clearly, there is something wrong here.

Why is the government doing business with this company? How many other ministries and government agencies are being taken to the cleaners by Cintas?

I hope the government will truly come clean with the public and taxpayers' dollars, cancel this contract and come clean about any other dealings they have with

these gougers.

MAGGIE MALONEY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): For most 10-year-olds, success may be measured by the number of assignments finding their way to the fridge door

in a show of support from Mom and Dad.

Maggie Maloney is a 10-year-old who attends St Thomas Aquinas Elementary school in Keswick. She was thrilled when her essay on heroes was the winning entry in

the York Regional Police Chief for a Day contest. She was chief for a day on April 17. Maggie was picked up at her front door by a police cruiser and whisked off to police headquarters in

Newmarket. Clad in her tailor-made uniform, she made her way to Chief Armand LaBarge's top-floor office. With one hand on the Bible, Maggie was officially sworn in and saluted by Chief LaBarge.

Then it was off to the forensic identification unit for her police identification card.

It was an exciting day and a great experience for Maggie. But Maggie was back on the job on Sunday, May 25, with Chief LaBarge recognizing the first annual

Show Me the Way Home campaign in Newmarket. This event was to heighten awareness for children and their families about keeping children safe in our communities.

Now, Maggie hasn't made up her mind yet about her future career. But law enforcement is definitely near the top of the list. Congratulations to Maggie Maloney,

who recognized police officers as heroes every day of the week.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): To say that the forest products industry in northern Ontario is going through a crisis seems

more and more like a massive understatement. Layoffs at area sawmills are now well over the 1,000-person mark, and almost every day more are being announced. While the US softwood lumber duties and

the rising Canadian dollar are two of the key factors in this growing economic disaster, and while some form of substantial mitigation is needed by the federal government, I firmly believe that the

provincial government needs to play a far more active role in dealing with this huge blow to our northern economy. Both Natural Resources Minister Ouellette and Northern Development Minister Wilson

need to understand that right now, forestry product companies and municipal leaders all across the north are dealing with real concerns about a reduction in wood supply and an increase in fibre

costs that can only add to the pressures facing the industry. What is needed now is stability, and the province must at least commit to suspending any government action that could further

destabilize supply. Great concern has been expressed about the Room to Grow process and what impact it may have, not only on our present situation, but on hoped-for expansions.

Ministers, we need public assurances that the province will step up to the plate and support our northern industry and its thousands of workers. We cannot

stand by and watch this happen, and place the blame elsewhere, when the province clearly has a significant role to play in averting this crisis. You must give our municipal leaders a place at the

table, as they will tell you that you must take specific action to help us through this dire situation. Sitting back and watching this unfold is unacceptable, particularly when so much is at

stake.

INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL OF MISSISSAUGA

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): It's my pleasure to stand here today with some of my colleagues from Mississauga to inform the House that

the eighth annual International Children's Festival of Mississauga is taking place this week until late in the evening -- well, not too late, anyhow -- of Saturday, June 7.

The Children's Festival brings exceptional artists from around the world to share their gifts with children of all ages, with an emphasis on preschool to grade

8 boys and girls. Last year, more than 15,000 young boys and girls attended this event. The theme for this year is "From Outer Space to Inner Peace," which captures the festival's emphasis on

stimulating the imagination and fostering the creativity that we all know lies in the hearts and minds of our young children.

I encourage everyone with children to experience this unique festival in Mississauga's beautiful Living Arts Centre and the surrounding streets of that area.

The Mississauga downtown square offers amazing arts and science adventures, with activities both inside and outside. The many free attractions include hiphop and aerial dancing, interactive

singing, storytelling and acrobatics. There's going be a steel band there, an art-making tent, a technology workshop and a marketplace.

On behalf of all Mississaugans, I'd like to thank the hard-working festival board, the volunteers and the many others who make this outstanding event possible.

I encourage all members here, and those watching, to come and work and play with our children.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): The Harris-Eves government is starting to bear a startling resemblance to an earlier government. The

Harris-Eves government lurched into the fifth year of its mandate this week. Who can forget the last government that went into its fifth year: the Bob Rae NDP government, which clung to power in

that fifth year? A lot of comparisons.

The Harris-Eves government has increased the province's debt by $21 billion; that's second only to the Rae NDP government increasing the debt by almost $60

billion. Ernie Eves broke his own Taxpayer Protection Act; the NDP raised taxes more than any other government in provincial history. Ernie Eves had the Magna budget, betraying centuries of

parliamentary tradition; the NDP had the social contract, betraying decades of their solidarity with the union movement. Ernie Eves promised a 20% tax cut; he broke that promise. The NDP promised

no Sunday shopping; they broke that promise. Ernie Eves promised that selling the 407 wouldn't lead to skyrocketing tolls; he broke that promise. The NDP promised public auto insurance to bring

down rates; they broke that promise -- even though, I guess, they're promising that again now. Ernie Eves had a scandal-plagued government with ministerial resignations; the NDP had a

scandal-plagued government with ministerial resignations. Experts say Ernie Eves is running a $2-billion deficit this year, and that it may run higher than that; the NDP ran massive deficits

too.

As the Harris-Eves government lurches into its fifth year, they're looking more and more like Bob Rae and the NDP every day.

APHASIA AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I would like to stand in the House today and acknowledge that June is International Aphasia Awareness Month.

Like most people, you've never heard of the word "aphasia," but aphasia is a part of the diagnosis for approximately one third of all stroke survivors. Aphasia is a communications disorder where

people have difficulty talking and understanding what is said. It is estimated that in Canada there are over 100,000 aphasics.

The goal of this international observation and event is to raise awareness of aphasia and the resources that are available to aphasics. Public awareness is a

critical first step in easing re-entry back into the community for people who are afflicted.

In Ontario, we are fortunate that we have five aphasia centres. I'm very fortunate to have been involved over the last 19 years with the Burlington Aphasia

Centre, now known as the Halton Aphasia Centre. Adult aphasics can visit the centre, along with their families, and receive various activities for rehabilitation and support and fellowship.

People are surprised to learn that just under 50% of all those people affected are under the age of 65. I encourage people to get involved and call the

president, Bruce Howard, at 905-681-8805, and volunteer for a very great program in our community of Burlington.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Like a creaking, tottering truck carrying too much baggage and running out of gas, the Tory

government dragged itself into its fifth year this week.

It's been five long, dark, terrible years of cronyism, mismanagement and helping themselves and their friends instead of helping the people of Ontario; five

years of pulling money out of public schools to fund private schools; five years of bad air; five years of polluted water; five years of lost opportunities in our colleges and universities; five

years of failing to achieve our economic potential; five years of second-class treatment of our foreign-trained professionals; five years of talking tough on crime while yanking $181 million out of

actually fighting crime; five years of slinking, slithering, slipping toward the two-tier health care this government longs to embrace; five years of robbing our seniors of their dignity with

substandard home care and nursing homes; five years of skyrocketing auto insurance rates; five years of shortages of doctors and nurses; five years of stifling the voice of the people with no

public hearings; five years of self-serving, partisan advertising wasting taxpayer money; five years of failing to collect corporate taxes; five years of waste on government consultants; five years

of a government out of ideas, out of energy and out for itself and its friends.

It's been five long, dark, terrible years. Now it's time for a change in Ontario.

HUNTSVILLE FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Today I rise to recognize this year's recipients of the fire safety awards in the town of Huntsville,

part of the great riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. These awards are given by the fire marshal to recognize outstanding contributions to fire protection and prevention in Ontario.

Robert Bulloch is the owner of McDonald's restaurants in Huntsville and Parry Sound. He has been a long-time supporter of fundraising initiatives for local

fire departments. Mr Bulloch's latest venture has resulted in raising $67,000 for Risk Watch, an injury prevention program for children. As a result of his donated time and energy, every primary

school in the Huntsville-Lake of Bays area has been supplied with Risk Watch curriculum and resource kits. I congratulate Mr Bulloch and his staff on receiving the fire safety advocate award.

I'd also like to congratulate Ian Byers and his staff at MORE FM 105.5 in Huntsville on receiving this year's fire safety partner award. MORE FM provided

on-air support for the fundraising efforts of the Muskoka Injury Prevention Coalition. Through the generous support of MORE FM and other community partners, the coalition raised thousands of

dollars for the Risk Watch injury prevention program for children. Over the years, MORE FM has been a strong supporter of the fire department and is always willing to bring lifesaving messages to

the community.

The support these people have provided in their community is a major step to guaranteeing a safer environment for local residents. Their hard work and

generosity is truly appreciated.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure you'll all join me in greeting the parents of Caitlyn Hanley, one of our

pages from Brantford: mom, Charmaine, and Dad, Jeff; and brother, Josh, and sister, Meghan. Both her brother and sister claim they can do a better job than Caitlyn. I look forward to that. We

welcome them to the House today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our friends who have joined us. It's not a point of order, just like it would be out of order if I

were to say that beside them is the Deputy Clerk's family, visiting from Alberta, but I'm sure we wish them well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VETERANS

APPRECIATION DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LE JOUR DE LA RECONNAISSANCE DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 86,

An Act to proclaim Veterans Appreciation Day / Projet de loi 86, Loi proclamant le Jour de la reconnaissance des anciens combattants.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Every June 6, Canadians commemorate the anniversary of the allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, commonly known

as D-Day. On this day, 340 Canadians gave their lives and another 574 were wounded. It is appropriate to recognize and pay tribute to Ontario's courageous veterans who fought in World War II and in

other conflicts, and who now make a very positive contribution in every community of this province.

This bill would proclaim the first Saturday in June of each year as Veterans Appreciation Day.

PUBLIC SECTOR

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'EFFICACITÉ ÉNERGÉTIQUE DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

An Act to require that public sector organizations conduct an energy audit, submit an energy efficiency plan and implement the plan / Projet de loi

87, Loi exigeant que les organismes du secteur public fassent une analyse énergétique et soumettent et mettent en oeuvre un plan d'efficacité énergétique.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried

The member for a short statement?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): This bill requires that all public sector organizations prepare and submit energy efficiency plans to

the Minister of Energy after the completion of an energy audit. After the minister approves the energy efficiency plan, the public sector organization is required to implement it.

I believe the time has come for conservation to start to take hold, not only in the public sector, directly influenced or run by the government, but in the

broader public sector. We can ill afford in this province to continue to waste energy in the way we do, and I think this bill will see to it that the broader public sector in fact begins a

conservation plan that is badly needed in this province, given the energy crisis we're facing.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Minister of the Environment.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Welcome back.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you. I could say that to you every day because I think you visit planets we've never been to.

I want to remind everyone that today, June 5, is World Environment Day. It's a time to encourage people everywhere to do their part to protect their air, water

and land.

The Ontario government is a leader in environmental protection. We recognize that a well-protected environment is absolutely fundamental to the high quality of

life we enjoy in this great province. Our government has taken unprecedented action to protect Ontario's environment. I want to take a few moments to outline some of those actions.

Consider our clean water strategy, which includes the most comprehensive protection in the province's history. This government has spared no effort to ensure

that Ontario has and enforces the toughest drinking water standards in the world. In August 2000 we introduced Operation Clean Water. It included the drinking water protection regulation, which

gave Ontario its first ever legally enforceable standards for drinking water quality. This regulation also includes strict requirements for testing, treatment and reporting.

To ensure compliance with this regulation, we implemented annual inspections of all municipal water facilities in the province. We have also hired and trained

51 new water treatment plant inspectors and 10 supervisors to do this work.

The release of Commissioner Dennis O'Connor's report of the Walkerton inquiry was an important milestone in this government's efforts to offer clean, safe

drinking water to everyone in Ontario. Commissioner O'Connor's report amounts to a new vision of water protection for Ontario. The Ontario government is committed to implementing all 121 of his

recommendations.

One of the key O'Connor recommendations is the creation of a Safe Drinking Water Act, which was passed in this House in December 2002. Among other things, this

act makes Ontario the first province with the authority to require mandatory licensing and accreditation of laboratories that perform drinking water testing; requires the certification of all

drinking water system operators, including those operators that have been grandparented under the old certification regime; and requires an owner's licence for municipal drinking water systems.

We've also created the new position of chief drinking water inspector, fulfilling another O'Connor recommendation.

Another important piece of legislation passed by this House is the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act. It will ensure that effective water and sewage

services are protecting the health of Ontarians, not just today but for generations to come.

As I said earlier, our comprehensive approach to water is one that protects this important resource from source to tap. And in that regard, source protection

is integral to our clean water strategy.

We recently released for consultation the final report of the Advisory Committee on Watershed-Based Source-Protection Planning. The committee has provided us

with excellent recommendations on ways to protect the sources of our drinking water. Like the members of this committee, our government recognizes the importance of source protection. We are

committed to introducing legislation on source protection planning later this year.

On the same day our government released the committee report, we announced important actions regarding permits to take water, including a six-month moratorium

on new permits to take water for the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. This moratorium protects two of southern Ontario's most environmentally sensitive areas. It also builds on the

excellent work of my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001.

Our focus on water is understandable, but we're also working hard to reduce air pollution and provide the public with information about the air they breathe.

Our government continues to be a leader in comprehensive air quality initiatives.

Most recently, we opened a new air monitoring station in Belleville. This brings the number of monitoring stations in Ontario to 37, an increase of seven since

1995. We've increased from six to seven the number of times the provincial air quality index is reported daily. The AQI serves to ensure that vital information is easily available to all citizens.

And we are the first province in Canada to include fine particulate matter in our air quality index.

OnAir, the on-line emissions reporting registry, is another way of ensuring public access to information. OnAir provides emissions reports by facilities in the

electricity, industrial, commercial, institutional and municipal sectors. The information we gain will help us develop our actions to improve air quality, including our proposed clean air plan to

reduce industrial air emissions.

We already have in place stringent caps for the electricity sector. When the caps, which are being progressively phased in, are fully implemented in 2007, they

will reduce the limits for smog- and acid-rain-causing emissions by 53% for nitrogen oxides and 25% for sulphur dioxide. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million cars from Ontario

roadways.

As well, we've passed a regulation requiring Lakeview generating station to stop burning coal by April 30, 2005, something neither the official opposition nor

the third party did when they were in office. Our throne speech also highlighted our commitment to phase out all coal-fired generating stations no later than 2015, a reasonable and reachable goal

that will not put the taxpayers at risk.

This government created the Drive Clean program. Significant emissions reductions are being made through Drive Clean, which now covers all municipalities in

the "smog zone" from Windsor to the Quebec border. Beginning next year, heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses on Ontario roadways must meet the strictest emissions standards in North America.

We've also strengthened Ontario's Smog Patrol, which targets the most grossly polluting vehicles on Ontario roadways. The Smog Patrol is just one of many ways

we're maintaining and enforcing Ontario's environmental laws.

Another is the environmental SWAT team, which is getting tough on polluters in sectors that traditionally have compliance problems or have the potential to

significantly affect public health.

Backing our various enforcement measures is a penalty regime that includes the highest fines and longest jail terms in Canada for major environmental

offences.

This government is taking decisive action to protect Ontario's environment. In the spirit of the occasion, I encourage all my colleagues to take this

opportunity to redouble their efforts to communicate to their constituents what they can do to protect and enhance the environment.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm going to do some communicating. I'm going to communicate with the Minister of the Environment and his

government on what it could do and what it is not doing to save the environment in this province.

First of all, we have to recognize that everything this government has done in the field of the environment it has done never in its wildest dreams planning to

do so, and to this very day doesn't want to do it. So let's recognize that, that anything that has been done has been because of public pressure because of the kind of media attention that prompts

this government to take some action.

Smog is estimated by the Ontario Medical Association to kill over 2,000 people per year prematurely in this province, and yet we see inadequate action being

taken on smog issues. Day after day, almost, there are press conferences held in this building by environment and public interest groups describing where this government is falling down on its job

and making wise recommendations that the government never seems to follow.

As finance minister, remember, Ernie Eves cut one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment and one half of the operating budget of the Ministry of

the Environment, placing it in a very vulnerable position and not allowing it to do the job it is supposed to do.

We all remember the Walkerton tragedy, which killed seven people and made over 2,000 people very, very ill. The Walkerton inquiry found that the Harris-Eves

government's reckless cuts contributed to this tragedy.

We find out from NAFTA, the NAFTA environmental division, that Ontario is now the third-worst polluting jurisdiction in all of North America.

We know that gridlock costs the GTA some $2 billion a year in productivity, and yet we see a government that has dragged its feet until it's been forced into

taking action on transportation issues, particularly as they relate to public transportation. Even today, municipalities receive far less than they used to from the provincial government in terms

of support for public transportation.

Things have gotten much worse under the Harris-Eves government. In 2002, there were 27 smog days in Ontario, breaking 2001's record, which was the worst in

history. When the Harris-Eves government first took office in 1995, there were 11 smog days.

The Ontario Medical Association, in addition to telling us how many people die prematurely, said 13,000 additional emergency room visits and $1.1 billion in

health care costs are incurred as a result of smog.

We have to remember as well that since 1995, Ontario has seen the largest increase in pollution in all of North America. Ontario now imports four times as much

hazardous waste from the US as it did when the Harris-Eves government took office in 1995. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund documented more than 10,000 violations of Ontario's water pollution laws

between 1995 and 1999. The Harris-Eves government laid only 11 charges.

At present, the Ontario government spends only $5 million per year to assist municipalities in improving waste diversion, funds allocated from the LCBO.

As finance minister, Ernie Eves cancelled all provincial support -- $35 million per year -- for waste diversion and blue box recycling in 1995. In other words,

we have a record which is not to be bragged about, but a record of which this government should be ashamed.

We recognize that they've done nothing about source protection of water. In fact, I recall that there were over 700 monitoring stations on streams and rivers

in this province. That was reduced drastically to somewhere around 200. So about 500 monitoring stations were removed at the very time we recognized that there were problems in the environment.

The select committee on alternative fuels had dozens upon dozens of excellent recommendations, but virtually none of them have been implemented. This is

collecting dust that I have to wipe off this particular report.

The Walkerton report: only half of the recommendations have been implemented so far. I know that the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation must be

very concerned, because he announced the Walkerton inquiry.

I want to say as well that unfortunately this government joined Ralph Klein in fighting against improvement of the situation that would have been dealt with by

the Kyoto accord: global warming. This government decided it would align itself with Ralph Klein and the anti-environment group.

Tay River in eastern Ontario: this government overturned a decision and allowed a company to take millions upon millions of gallons of water from the Tay

River.

There's nothing being done about energy conservation. They've pulled the grant from the Save the Rouge group, and nutrient management legislation has not been

fully implemented.

It's a dismal record, of which the minister should be ashamed.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): It seems as though the minister's head is still in the clouds, up in the Eiffel Tower, from when he was

in France, when people back here in Ontario were breathing in smog and prematurely dying from the pollution belching out of his coal plants. Where was he, on taxpayers' money, while hydro rates had

gone soaring because of this government's deregulation? He was over strolling around in France and up in the Eiffel Tower, as hard-working people here in Ontario --

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Don't forget Rome.

Ms Churley: I mustn't forget Rome.

Mr Agostino: And London.

Ms Churley: That's right -- and London. He was strolling around in these countries, partly at taxpayers' expense, while people over here were

suffering fro