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

June 17, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 17 June 2004 Jeudi 17 juin 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE STREETS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

FIRST NATIONS RESOURCE

REVENUE SHARING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE PARTAGE AVEC LES PREMIÈRES NATIONS DES RECETTES TIRÉES DE L'EXPLOITATION DES RESSOURCES

SAFE STREETS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

FIRST NATIONS RESOURCE REVENUE

SHARING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE PARTAGE

AVEC LES PREMIÈRES NATIONS

DES RECETTES TIRÉES

DE L'EXPLOITATION DES RESSOURCES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GEORGE VICE

CALABRESE CANADIANS

ORDER OF ST GEORGE

NINA BURNHAM

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

LIQUOR LICENSING

SENIOR CITIZENS

IMMIGRANTS

RURAL ONTARIO

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES DROITS DES AVEUGLES

KEY AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC. ACT, 2004

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ONTARIO BUDGET

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CLASS SIZE

ONTARIO BUDGET

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

AUTISM SERVICES

CLEANUP OF BROWNFIELDS

TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE

TILLSONBURG DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SEAT BELTS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

CORMORANT POPULATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (HOURS OF WORK

AND OTHER MATTERS), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(HEURES DE TRAVAIL ET AUTRES

QUESTIONS)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE STREETS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

Mr Lalonde moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities and non-profit

organizations / Projet de loi 58, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1999 sur la sécurité dans les rues et le Code de la route pour reconnaître les activités de financement des

organismes de bienfaisance légitimes et organismes sans but lucratif.

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

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I'm pleased to start off the debate today on my private member's Bill 58, the Safe Streets

Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004. I decided to introduce this bill after receiving letters from municipalities and volunteer firefighters' associations and many calls from non-profit organizations

such as the Optimist Club, the Knights of Columbus, the Lions Club and many other charities affected by the current legislation.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Essex, Bruce Crozier, today's Speaker of the House, who also inspired me to introduce this important piece of

legislation. Twice before, the member for Essex has introduced similar legislation. The member for Essex first introduced Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act in April 2000, and then a year

later he introduced Bill 26, the Charity Fund-Raising Activities Act.

To give you a brief history, the Safe Streets Act, Bill 8 when it was first introduced in 1999, was mainly intended to make the streets of Ontario safer. Bill 8

was a piece of legislation that addressed a wide range of issues by amending the Highway Traffic Act to regulate certain activities on roadways. For instance, Bill 8 amended the Highway Traffic Act

to prohibit solicitation in an aggressive manner. "Aggressive manner" was defined as follows: threatening the person solicited with physical harm by words, gestures or other means; obstructing the

path of the person solicited; using abusive language during the solicitation; soliciting a person who is waiting at a taxi stand or a public transit stop; and soliciting a person who is in or on a

public transit vehicle. Furthermore, this bill also prohibited people from disposing of broken glass and new or used needles in public places. This bill dealt with a broad range of issues, from

prohibiting people to dispose of needles in public places to outlawing hitchhiking in Ontario.

I am not here today to defend or question the merits of the Safe Streets Act. That's a debate in itself. However, I am here because one

section of the Safe

Streets Act is causing problems in my riding and all across the province.

Allow me to quote Bill 8, the Safe Streets Act: "No person, while on the roadway, shall stop or approach a motor vehicle for the purpose of offering, selling or

providing any commodity or service to the driver or any other person in the motor vehicle." It probably sounds harmless, but it's not. This amendment, in lame terms, finds any charitable

organizations that conduct roadside events guilty of an offence; in other words, against the law. Charitable organizations, such as volunteer firefighters who raise money for muscular dystrophy,

with a track record of fundraising for the past 50 years that's both accident- and injury-free, can be and have been shut down under the current law.

Lorsque je parle de la campagne de prélèvement de fonds pour la dystrophie musculaire, les pompiers volontiers se faisaient un plaisir de participer

à cette campagne. Les pompiers, d'une façon totalement volontaire, sollicitaient sur les coins d'une rue principale de leur municipalité afin de ramasser des fonds pour en faire la

présentation lors du téléthon Jerry Lewis.

C'est devenu un grand défi. Je parlais ce matin au chef des pompiers de la ville de Rockland. Il m'a dit que chaque année, on ramassait

10 000 $ à 12 000 $ avec ce prélèvement de fonds. L'an passé, par exemple, après 30 minutes seulement, on avait ramassé au-delà de

1200 $, mais soudainement, la sûreté provinciale est arrivée sur les lieux et leur a dit, « Vous n'avez plus le droit de solliciter sur les coins de rue. La loi, the

Safe Streets Act, vous le défend. » Donc, immédiatement, on a cessé l'opération, et toute la province a été affectée après cette arrestation.

I know it seems unbelievable, and some of my colleagues might be saying, "You know, this has never happened in my riding." Well, I can tell these colleagues that

it has been happening all over the province and that it can happen in your riding. It's just a matter of time. We all know that police officials sometimes turn a blind eye to this type of

solicitation, but all it takes is one complaint from somebody who's having a bad day and doesn't feel like being charitable. If fundraising events are closed down here and there across the

province, it all adds up. I can tell you, it all adds up for the non-profit organizations such as muscular dystrophy, which estimates losing three quarters of a million dollars a year, and many

other organizations that have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the Safe Streets Act that we have at the present time.

The intent of Bill 8, the Safe Streets Act, 1999, surely wasn't to shut down volunteer fundraising events. This is why this bill, Bill 58, the Safe Streets

Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, is very straightforward legislation that would lift the current ban on roadway fundraising. Bill 58 does not interfere with any part of the Safe Streets Act.

Allow me to elaborate on the bill we are debating today. Officially, Bill 58 is entitled

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act

to recognize the fundraising activities of legitimate charities and non-profit organizations. What Bill 58 does is to allow fundraising activities on the roadways if they are conducted by a

charitable organization recognized by Revenue Canada, are conducted by a non-profit organization on a roadway where the maximum speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour, and are permitted by a bylaw

of the municipality. Simply adding these three subsections to the Safe Streets Act would make a world of difference for so many charities and, more importantly, for so many Ontarians who benefit

from these charities.

Although my opinion might be somewhat biased, I can see only benefit from this bill because, technicalities aside, this bill would put an end to the confusion

surrounding legitimate fundraising on roadways for members of Parliament, police officers, municipal councils, residents of Ontario, and yes, the charities themselves, that have been so badly hurt

by the unexpected and, dare I say, unwilling consequence of the Safe Streets Act.

I respectfully call upon members from all three parties to rally together and support Bill 8 for the benefit of all charities in Ontario and for the benefit of

the people whom these charities help and serve so well.

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I rise today in support of my good friend the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in full support of Bill 58, an

amendment to the Safe Streets Act.

As we have learned, it has had a detrimental effect on charities' fundraising efforts throughout the province of Ontario. When it was passed in 1999, it was

known as the squeegee bill and its intent was to prevent panhandling in Ontario. However, it forced police services into an awkward position. Police could have shut down charitable organizations

running roadside fund drives under the current law through the complaint of just one person. Some police forces have looked the other way and allowed these fundraising drives to go ahead. However,

this puts police officers in a very compromising position. It is not their job to pick and choose which laws they should enforce. Bill 58 would eliminate this confusion and would ensure that

charities are not breaking any laws in this province.

This bill, if passed, will allow charities to resume holding fundraisers on roadways where the speed limit is not more than 50 kilometres an hour. It is simple

and straightforward. It should be passed promptly.

The Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada is one organization that overwhelmingly supports this bill. Firefighters from across the province raised $750,000

for muscular dystrophy every Labour Day weekend. The Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada expects to lose this amount each year because of the way the current bill reads. But it's not only the

Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada that will continue to suffer under this legislation in its current form. Shinerama, a student-run street campaign for cystic fibrosis, collected hundreds of

thousands of dollars across Ontario.

Just last weekend, I attended the Special Olympics spring games in my riding of Peterborough. It was a marvellous event that brought together hundreds of

athletes from across the province. The Special Olympics program culminates in the winter, spring and summer games. Athletes are given a chance to compete in such sports as skating, swimming,

bowling, and track and field. During these spring games, I was able to witness first-hand the excitement of the athletes experiencing and participating in these games. The athletes' hard work and

dedication that brought them to the games was truly inspiring. I am sure many friendships were formed during the games.

None of this would have been possible without the Special Olympics program. Often set up through our schools, the program gives children and adults with

intellectual disabilities a chance to try different sports. This may not seem so out of the ordinary -- a child trying out sports is a very common thing -- but for the Special Olympics, it is not

just about sports. It is about becoming empowered. It's about becoming more involved and better integrated within our communities. Without the Special Olympics fundraising efforts, the dream would

be an unattainable goal.

Fundraising drives such as the Law Enforcement Torch Run contribute valuable funds to the Special Olympics. This bill will ensure Special Olympians will continue

to participate in sports in their hometowns, as well as take

part in such events as the spring games. This bill will ensure funding will continue to flow to research for muscular dystrophy and

cystic fibrosis. This bill will ensure our minor hockey organizations, our soccer leagues and our schools won't be penalized for their fundraising efforts.

I would urge quick passage of Bill 58. I'm sure we all know someone personally who has benefited from the work of these charitable organizations. Let's not take

away the ability of our charities to fundraise.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Premièrement, je veux dire de la part du parti néo-démocrate qu'on va appuyer ce projet de

loi mis par mon ami M. Jean-Marc Lalonde. Nous savons tous que M. Lalonde, quand ça vient parfois à parler de ces dossiers qui sont importants pour les plus démunis dans cette

communauté de l'Ontario, a toujours été une personne qui comprend l'importance pour l'État de jouer un rôle positif envers ces individus.

Il faut mettre un peu en contexte ce qui est arrivé. Il faut prendre l'opportunité; après tout, c'est un débat politique qu'on a ici

aujourd'hui. Vous savez, monsieur le Président, que ça ne fait pas tellement longtemps -- ça fait, je pense, quatre ou cinq ans, quand le gouvernement conservateur était au

pouvoir sous la direction de M. Mike Harris -- qu'ils ont introduit un projet de loi qui a interdit aux individus, les sans-abri de nos communautés et autres, comme on voit au bout de la

rue Yonge ou sur le Gardiner, d'arrêter les autos quand elles étaient à un stop et de demander de l'argent à ces individus-là quand ils passaient avec leurs autos.

Le gouvernement a dit, « Mon Dieu, regarde ça. On a tous ces sans-abri. Que faire? Ils sont en train d'achaler le public. » Comme vous

le savez, le gouvernement, à la place de mettre en place des programmes pour aider les sans-abri qui pourraient, supposons, avoir des problèmes d'alcool, des déficiences mentales ou

d'autres problèmes, à la place de mettre des programmes en place pour assister ce monde-là à ne pas être sur les rues, des programmes qui pouvaient les supporter, on

disait, « On va arranger le problème en faisant contre la loi l'habilité de ce monde-là de quêter auprès des individus qui passent avec leurs autos sur les rues

de l'Ontario. »

Moi, j'ai pensé dans le temps, et je pense que les libéraux ont pensé dans le temps, que ça, c'est un mal. Le gouvernement aurait dû

plutôt trouver une réponse au problème et regarder comment on peut rectifier le problème en s'assurant qu'on est capable d'aider les personnes sans abri à trouver un

emploi, que les prévenir de quêter. Après tout, moi, j'ai pensé, « Imaginez-vous qu'un gouvernement conservateur qui croit à l'idéologie de ce qu'on appelle

le marché ouvert et l'entreprise privée n'alloue pas à un individu lui-même l'habilité de faire sa vie à quêter. » C'est une forme, je pense, des plus

naturelles et des plus directes qu'on voit sous le système d'entreprise privée. Je trouvais très intéressant qu'un gouvernement conservateur avait passé une loi contre.

Mais l'effet de cette loi a dit que, si les pompiers à Hearst ou à Kapuskasing ou à Timmins décident qu'ils veulent faire un

prélèvement de fonds pour assister une organisation ou une autre dans notre comté, les pompiers n'ont pas le droit, comme ils font parfois, de mettre en place ce qu'on appelle des

« roadblocks » pour être capable d'arrêter le trafic et leur rappeler, « Eh, on est en train de soulever l'argent important pour les groupes à but non

lucratif dans nos communautés. » La loi a eu l'effet de rendre contre la loi l'habilité de ces organisations d'arrêter les autos sur les routes municipales afin d'assister

avec le prélèvement de fonds. M. Lalonde, à travers son projet de loi, essaie d'une manière concrète de réparer le problème qui était créé par le

gouvernement conservateur quand ils ont introduit ce projet de loi.

Je veux dire droit au début du débat que nous, les néo-démocrates, allons supporter ce projet de loi. On pense que c'est bon. Je sais que M.

Lalonde aurait pu se pencher sur la question, « Est-ce qu'on a besoin d'une telle loi en premier lieu? » « Est-ce qu'on doit arrêter les sans-abri? »

Moi, je dis non. À la fin de la journée, la pauvreté, ce n'est pas quelque chose qu'on peut balayer sous le tapis en disant, « Écoute. Ce n'est pas bon qu'ils viennent

quêter, puis on va rendre ça contre la loi. » Je pense que c'est une manière pour nous autres de mesurer jusqu'à quel point notre État est en train de

répondre aux fléaux de notre société et que, si on voit des sans-abri sur nos rues en train de quêter, ça veut dire possiblement que nous avons un problème avec

nos programmes sociaux et que ce qu'on a besoin de faire, c'est de répondre au problème en nous assurant qu'on prend des pas concrets pour assister ce monde.

On sait que, quand on se promène sur Bay, sur Yonge et autres rues à travers les cités de l'Ontario et nos villes, on va voir des sans-abri. Mais

la plupart de ces sans-abris, comme on le sait, sont du monde qui ont été renvoyés d'institutions mentales, qui n'ont pas de traitement, qui sont schizophrènes, qui sont

déprimés mentalement ou qui ont un problème des fois même physique, et qui n'ont pas l'assistance du gouvernement fédéral ou provincial. Ils n'ont aucun choix, autre

qu'aller faire du quêtage sur les rues. Autrement, c'est qu'une personne a un problème avec l'alcool ou avec les drogues.

Ce n'est pas que nous, le gouvernement provincial, devons prendre l'approche, « Écoute. On va aider ceux qui ont des problèmes avec les

drogues et avec l'alcool », mais il faut réaliser que c'est une maladie, et pour traiter les effets de ces maladies, il est mieux de nous assurer qu'on a des programmes pour les

assister.

Je crois que le pas qu'on manque dans ce projet de loi, et on pourrait possiblement en parler une fois qu'il arrive au comité, c'est qu'on doit

éliminer entièrement la loi que le gouvernement conservateur avait mis en place et regarder comment on peut assister les sans-abri qui se trouvent sur nos rues.

Je veux aussi prendre l'opportunité, monsieur Lalonde, de vous introduire à des amis qui sont ici aujourd'hui. On a des étudiants de Hearst

directement en arrière de moi, la belle communauté de Hearst, communauté francophone à 99 %. Ils sont ici aujourd'hui avec nous autres de l'École Saint-Louis, et si

vous avez une chance tout à l'heure, 10 h 30, monsieur Lalonde, moi, je vais être en bas avec ce groupe, puis si vous voulez venir dire « Allô », cela serait

très apprécié.

I want to take an opportunity to take a stab at my Conservative friends.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Oh, be quiet.

point, so you know where I'm coming from.

Mr Dunlop: You're wearing your blue shirt.

Mr Bisson: I've got my blue shirt and my blue tie, but it's not to appease you, I guarantee it, Garfield.

Mr Speaker, through you to the Conservative caucus, I want to remind them that way back --

Mr Dunlop: We have some Conservative kids up here too.

Mr Bisson: Some Conservative kids there? I can't believe that children are Conservatives. They say they are born as New Democrats and when they

become cynical and old they become Conservatives. That's what I understand.

Mr Speaker, you'll remember it wasn't that long ago -- because you were here, as I was -- that we had a debate in this House by the former Conservative

government. I believe Mike Harris was the Premier. The government said, "We are having problems with too many people on the street begging and stopping cars at the bottom of Yonge Street and on

other streets across the province of Ontario. To fix that, we're going to make it illegal for people to go stick out their hand and stop a car as it comes around the corner on to Yonge Street off

Lakeshore or wherever it might be."

I remember thinking at the time, "My God, what a dumb response to a social problem." The problem is that we have people on the street. Why? Because we've

depopulated our mental institutions. We have people on the streets that are schizophrenics, people that are depressed, people with all kinds of different problems, which is why they end up on the

streets in the first place. Or they are sick from alcohol or drugs. It seemed to me that people on the streets begging was a symptom of a problem in our society, and that government should take the

position of saying, "If there's a problem, do we think we have a responsibility?" I understand the Conservatives. One thing that I understand about Conservatives is where they're coming from. They

tend to believe that, no, that is an individual problem --

Mr Dunlop: Right, we keep a promise.

Mr Bisson: Well, you do keep your promises. I won't argue about that. I would argue that some of those promises were kind of stupid, but that's

another story.

I want to say to my Conservative friends that I understood where your government came from. In many of those issues, Conservatives don't believe that there's a

societal responsibility to respond to those social problems. I understand that. But on the other hand, I'm not saying --

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Get real. Don't stereotype us.

Mr Bisson: Mr Tascona, I want to be very nice to you and just point something out to you.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Well, listen, I didn't think it was very political when you guys were doing what you were doing.

But my point here is this: You guys have a particular ideological belief. The belief was that, at the end of the day, the government doesn't have a social

responsibility when it comes to certain issues. I understand that, but I think you were wrong. I think that if you see people on the streets, it's a signal that there's a problem within our

institutions and there's a problem about how we respond.

There are two approaches, in my view. One is the approach that your government took, which is that you deal with this by trying to take it off the streets, by

making it illegal for people to beg on the corners.

There is an opposite view, a view that all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party share, and that is that we do have a societal responsibility, and it's not

by sweeping it off the streets by making it illegal to beg that we're going to be in a position to deal with what the problem is. I just want to say, let's recognize where we are.

Now Mr Lalonde comes with his bill, and in this bill he's saying, "I'm going to deal with the aspect around those charities or organizations out there that were

trying to fundraise" by what we call roadblocks. For example, you'll know that in your communities, firefighters and others for a long time have gone out and set up roadblocks to stop cars to

fundraise for local communities.

Now, there's a bit of an argument. In some communities, they've continued to do that and municipal police forces actually have not charged the fire department or

other organizations. For example, about two weeks ago I was driving down Algonquin Boulevard and a bunch of kids from the school were waving and stopping cars to pull into a particular parking lot

to wash cars for $5 for a fundraiser they were doing for their school, actually for one of these school trips we see coming down today.

Municipal police forces, as I understand it, didn't really look at the law from that perspective in some communities. But Mr Lalonde is attempting to resolve the

issue by making it clear, by saying there shall be no sanction against a charitable organization that is out there trying to fundraise by way of stopping people as they come in off the streets and

doing what they've got to do. I understand that.

I want to make this point: I will vote for this bill, because I think it's the right thing, but I think we do need to send it to committee. There are two things

that we've got to look at. The first thing is --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: That's where I'm going. The first thing is that we need to take a look at whether this bill goes as far as it should. I remember the

Liberals voting with me, as a New Democrat, in opposition to the Safe Streets Act when the Tories brought it in. I have to ask myself the question, why does the bill not repeal the entire act? I

would like Mr Lalonde to respond to that issue when he gets an opportunity to respond in debate. That's the first thing I want to hear from Mr Lalonde, and it's an issue I think we've got to deal

with in committee.

The other issue we've got to take a look at -- I don't know if we can actually deal with it through this bill -- is, what is the responsibility of the state when

it comes to this issue? If we're going to take a position that, no, it should not be illegal for somebody to beg -- I believe we shouldn't make it illegal to beg -- what kind of recommendations do

we want to make? I realize that's not the purview of your bill, but I think it would be interesting for the committee to spend a bit of time on this. What do we do with those people who find

themselves in the situation of being on the street? I believe that the majority of people on the street are not there because they're lazy and just want nothing to do other than beg. Many of them

are sick. That's why they end up on the streets. What is our response to that particular issue?

I want to say, as I said upfront, that I will support the bill. It certainly makes a good step forward in trying to deal with this issue. I would like to hear

from Mr Lalonde why he did not do an entire repeal of the Safe Streets Act. I imagine there's a reason, and I look forward to that response.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to welcome St Peter's School from my beautiful riding

of Parry Sound-Muskoka, the grade 8 class of Christine Duncan, who are in the west public gallery.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order, but we welcome them nevertheless.

Further debate?

Mr Dunlop: I'm very pleased to rise today. I'd like to welcome this class as well. They're in my neighbouring riding. Of course, Parry

Sound-Muskoka is the second-nicest riding in Ontario, because I think Simcoe North is the nicest riding, with Lake Simcoe, Lake Couchiching and all those sorts of things. We're very proud of our

part of the province, and it is great to see so many school classes coming down to Queen's Park to visit.

I want to say from the beginning that I will be supporting Mr Lalonde's bill. First of all, I would be very much opposed to what the member from Timmins-James

Bay mentioned when he talked about repealing the whole act. I think it's a valuable act, and as a member of the government that brought that legislation in, I think it works and works well. But

there is this particular area of concern around some of the volunteer organizations.

I think what's fair about the bill -- and I will just read the explanatory note. I wasn't here for Mr Lalonde's introductory remarks. "The bill amends the Safe

Streets Act, 1999 to provide that the prohibition in subsection 3(2) of the act does not apply to fundraising activities that are conducted by registered charities or that are conducted by

non-profit organizations on roadways where the speed limit is not more than 50 kilometres per hour." I think that's a very fair area to work with.

No question, the groups we're probably most concerned about are our volunteer firefighter organizations throughout the province. Volunteer firefighters, as we

know, have become a very controversial subject, with the two-hatters, as well as this piece of legislation. In my riding, there are the six townships, the city, two towns -- Midland and

Penetanguishene -- and we have two First Nations volunteer fire departments as well, so we're talking 11 or 12 volunteer fire departments. There are some professional firefighters in there as well.

The bottom line is that they raise a lot of money for their communities. I live in the township of Severn, and I can tell you that when the muscular dystrophy fundraising campaign is on, our guys

are all out there. I feel a little guilty that they're actually breaking the law if they're on the street. Surely there's a way we can work around that with a piece of legislation. I know we talked

about that in the previous government. It was always a discussion at our caucus meetings about why this wasn't really legal or whatever as we looked at amending the legislation.

Now it's been brought up again, and I'm one person in this House who would support some kind of movement in that direction. In our government it was the

Attorney General at the time, Jim Flaherty, who brought in the legislation. I don't know if you've had a chance to review this with the new Attorney General, Mr Bryant, or if he's had an

opportunity to make amendments to this legislation. But I think it's important that we do, primarily because I think the volunteer organizations are under enough stress as it is. Any roadblock they

find in their fundraising activities will hurt other organizations as well. Based on that, we have to take a serious look at it.

The member for Timmins-James Bay brought up the point that the only people out on the streets begging are people with mental --

Mr Bisson: Not all, but a big part of them.

Mr Dunlop: My understanding as you were talking and commenting in your discussion -- I picked up that you thought it was mainly a mental

health issue as to why people were out there. But we do still see the odd, what I would call, squeegee kid. We still see them out there in the odd community, certainly around the GTA and downtown,

but we don't see the numbers we saw previously. I can tell you of cases and examples that came to me where these were full-time jobs for people. People actually came from the suburbs to act as

squeegee kids downtown and raised a lot of money; they were paid in cash, of course, and who knows if they declared that cash? I'm not so sure they were all people who had mental health

disorders.

Overall, the bill works well. Mr Lalonde has introduced in the past -- although we're on different sides of the House and don't agree on policy in a lot of

areas, the one thing we would have to agree on more than anything is that Mr Lalonde has brought some pretty important pieces of legislation through this House. One is his francophone flag bill,

with the Ontario emblem and the Quebec -- the francophone emblem on it as well.

Mr Lalonde: Francophone, not Quebec.

Mr Dunlop: OK. The green-and-white flag bill is how I'll just refer to it. That was an important bill. A number of communities in my riding

actually have that flag. Communities like Lafontaine, Perkinsfield and the town of Penetanguishene fly that flag on different occasions, and I know they're very proud of that. It's thanks to

Jean-Marc that that actually happened.

Overall, I think this bill will work well for the province. I hope we can make the amendments fairly simply without actually repealing the whole bill. I don't

think that would be the right move. Again, it's a bill that our government was very proud of. We think it works and look forward to seeing how far we can actually make this bill work.

One of the things we see in private members' business is a lot of very interesting legislation coming forward. It is unfortunate that more of it doesn't get

put through and passed into law, but it's all part of the House leaders' agenda, all part of the strategy that the government has to work with to pass legislation. Maybe as we look toward

democratic renewal, Mr Bryant, in his legislation, will allow a lot more private members' business to proceed in a timely manner.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, who will finish up for our caucus. Mr Tascona loves to debate on Thursday mornings in private members'

hour, and I want to make sure he has lots of time on this particular bill.

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the students from Mapleridge

Senior Public School. The grade 8 class, with Mr Jeff Cox, is visiting from Powassan today. We're very excited to have them with us today.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order, but we welcome the students, obviously.

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm pleased that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has brought forward this private member's

bill, Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities and non-profit organizations.

When this bill came in, the Flaherty homeless and mental health policy bill, it impacted a lot of firemen in Cumberland, in the area where I live. The firemen

in Cumberland had been raising money for muscular dystrophy probably going back 20 or 30 years. I know in the province this has in fact gone on for 50 years. It impacted them a lot because they

wanted to help out in this very, very significant cause.

Everyone knew that the homeless and the squeegee kids were taking over this province, and the bill was necessary -- necessary to clean up our streets so that

well-heeled citizens would not have to see the results of Tory social policies. This was probably the most progressive piece of social policy that members on the other side brought forward or that

they could have ever dreamed of.

In Cumberland, Terry Morrow, Ivan Tanner, Phil Muggleton, Phil McWha, Kevin Rockliffe, Jeff Marier, Scott McLachlan and Don McNeely, my nephew, all had been

chairmen of fundraising for Muscular Dystrophy Canada and had been very successful at it. They raised from $12,000 to $20,000 per year. These are the same firefighters who are very much part of our

communities. We are very proud of them.

We're dealing with this bill today that would permit charities like the MDC drive to let firemen take up this fundraising again, and it's not too late. There's

been a critical loss in funds raised across the province by the firemen. Some of them have gone to back alleys and parking lots, but it's not the same. What we're asking today in this bill is that

we support the fireman's boot asking for a donation.

This legislation was brought in to hide the impact of the Tory social legislation, but at the same time it gave the boot to the fundraising of the MDC.

Attempts by MDC to have this law changed have not been successful, although I understand, Mr Speaker, that you have done a lot of work in this way.

Roadways, according to the Solicitor General in the year 2000, were not places to be used for solicitation. This gave the boot to the firefighters'

fundraising. They retrenched, but they have not been as successful.

The firefighters of Ontario have offered their support to find a route to amend the Safe Streets Act. The Conservative government had the opportunity to change

this bill, but refused. We have the opportunity now, in this private member's bill, to do so.

I read from something I received from Muscular Dystrophy Canada just yesterday:

"The reality is that over $200,000 has been lost over the past three years, and it is estimated that tens of thousands of dollars will continue to be at stake

in future development opportunities. This greatly restricts available funding to 11,374 Canadians living with neuromuscular disorders serviced by MDC that are in vital need of equipment and

education programs (to assist them in their daily lives). Additionally, it limits the opportunities to researchers who continue their quest for the cause, treatments and cures for over 100

neuromuscular disorders."

Today, if this private member's bill passes, we will be able to assist the good-natured, benevolent, energetic and competent firefighters who want to raise

money for muscular dystrophy. This is important. This is a charitable effort that they do very well. They do it on streets that are not busy. I know that near my home I always got caught -- I used

to say get "caught" -- by the stop at Dunning Road and Old Montreal Road. It was a stop street. It was busy enough to collect funds, but certainly it was done very safely.

The MDC, in terms of their fundraising, suggest, "If you have difficulties getting approval, discuss other ways of fundraising for MDC with your district

coordinator." That's where they are at with this present legislation. "We have had some success in reversing decisions due to continued efforts of firefighters presenting their cases to

municipalities, proving Bill 8 is difficult to interpret for councils and law enforcement bodies.

"Ask all firefighters to send letters to their local MPP stating Bill 8 is a concern. It is important to send it to your own MPP as constituents, for it has

more impact!" That's what they're doing. They're trying to help the firefighters get back into the business.

"As constituents," they suggest, "present a petition to your local MPP." But I think it would be much more proactive for all of us on all sides of this House

to support this bill and make sure we help the firemen to help those in such need.

I say, let's get on with this change in the legislation by approving wholeheartedly this private member's bill.

The last line on the publication MDC gave me was, "Please help MDC to effect change to allow firefighters to continue the fight against neuromuscular

disorders!"

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member from Dundas --

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Stormont.

The Deputy Speaker: Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

Mr Brownell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a mouthful, but certainly we're proud of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh and the fire departments

who work so hard in those communities in the riding.

It gives me great pleasure this morning to stand in support of my good colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in his efforts with Bill 58, an amendment to

the safe streets statute law.

Every year, it almost seems like a rite of spring to see the fire departments in my riding, especially in my home community of Long Sault, out on Moulinette

Road, the street I live on, with smiles on their faces working for Jerry's kids.

We know that in that Labour Day campaign millions of dollars are raised to support muscular dystrophy, and the firemen of this province are indeed proud of the

work they do. Their boot drive is a most fundamental and necessary project that they've taken on for many, many years. If memory serves me right, for 50 years we've had communities working to aid

programs such as muscular dystrophy and whatnot in similar drives. I know that, in my community of south Stormont and at Long Sault, I can't count the number of years the firefighters have been out

raising these necessary funds.

The bill that's before us today is not a new bill. We saw in this province, and certainly Parliaments before us saw, that charities were bothered. I think it

was in Niagara that my good colleague from Niagara Centre saw it in his riding. He saw that in their work on muscular dystrophy firefighters were bothered. The words of an Attorney General that

charities would not be bothered and that they would still be able to carry on their activities were false.

We saw something happen here in the province. We saw that it was necessary for somebody to lobby and to work here in the House to get something done. We had

bills put forward: Bill 64 in April 2000; Bill 26 in April 2001; and then the third party introduced Bill 51, also in April 2000, to do the very thing my good friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell

is doing, bringing this forward to amend it and to allow those who wish to aid those charities in Ontario to use roadways.

It's spelled out here that roadways that have limits of under 50 kilometres per hour established may be used for those charities to raise the necessary funds.

I certainly give it full support. We have seen in our communities that firefighters are not pushing their cause. They stand there with smiles on their faces. It is well advertised. They advertise

in the newspapers before and even out on the roadways. They advertise what they are doing, and they do not do pushy solicitation on the street. They allow you to drive up and make the donation at

your will.

I continue to support the work. I do not think our law enforcement should be put in the predicament of having to choose which law they want to enforce.

Therefore, I think we should amend this bill so that we can support the charities that support the people of our province.

Mr Tascona: I'm pleased to join in the debate with respect to the amendment to the Safe Streets Act, 1999, and the Highway Traffic Act.

Certainly what is being proposed by the member is worthy of review by the Legislature. When it was introduced in 1999, there were concerns. A review now, in 2004, is warranted with respect to what

is going on.

I have just one comment to make with respect to the language that is in here. I find it a little confusing and I don't think the intent is to make it

confusing. It says:

"(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to fund-raising activities that meet the following conditions.

"1. They are conducted by a charitable organization recognized by Revenue Canada."

That's simple enough, but then it goes on to say:

"2. They are conducted by a non-profit organization on a roadway" -- and that's where it's qualified -- "where the maximum speed limit is 50 kilometres per

hour."

I would think, and my friend may know better, that a charitable organization recognized by Revenue Canada would also be a non-profit organization. Maybe it's

not, but maybe what he is trying to accomplish is to have two different types of organizations, one where it's a charitable organization recognized by Revenue Canada, and also a non-profit

organization. If that's the case, then I would recommend that he put that in number 1 so it's clear that he is covering both types of organizations. Then number 2 can still be where these

activities are conducted "on a roadway where the maximum speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour."

There are three conditions here. I think the first condition should be clear enough so that it recognizes charitable organizations recognized by Revenue Canada

and/or non-profit organizations. Leave number 2 to be the speed limit where these organizations can do their activities, so that it's very clear. One could argue that charitable organizations

recognized by Revenue Canada can do it wherever they wish and at whatever speed limit. I don't think that's really the intent, so there's the caveat with respect to what's permitted by the

municipal bylaws.

I offer those as constructive comments, in terms of making it very clear who is going to be able to do these fundraising activities and which charity

organizations they are. I think it's very important to be able to do that.

Also, looking at the activities that can be conducted and the different organizations mentioned, there are lots of organizations that get out there. Every fall

you see Georgian College students in my riding looking to do activities that raise money for the cause they're supporting. The firefighters in my community are always out there doing charitable

work, along with the work that the police association is doing, as well as a number of other organizations that decide to do their fundraising, whether it's in an enclosed building or on a

roadway.

What we have here is a lot of information. I think the member is correct to bring this back for review. The organizations want to be considered in that regard,

in terms of being able to do their activities without being put in a position -- I don't know whether the member has looked at this, but it says, "They are permitted by a bylaw of the

municipality." I don't know what research he's done, what particular municipalities do with respect to this type of activity, whether it's permitted or not.

If it's permitted, then what conditions are it permitted under? That's what is essentially important, what conditions they are permitted under. It may be that

we put this in place, but the bylaw of the municipality will not allow it. I don't know whether that applies to any municipality. I really wouldn't know. That's something he may want to do some

research on. He may not want that to stand as a condition if it causes some problems. At the end of the day, these organizations may end up having to go to the municipality to allow their

activities to go ahead.

We can perhaps assume that there isn't going to be an issue, but obviously by putting that as a condition there may be an issue with respect to a municipal

bylaw. I guess that will be the condition that may not allow this particular activity to happen. What's going on here is that the municipality may have the final say. Maybe that's correct. Maybe

they should have the final say in terms of what activities they're going to allow on their roadways.

I guess it depends on the community in terms of what the speed limit is, but he's put a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. I guess it depends how different

municipalities deal with that. Some municipalities might have 60 kilometres per hour, so obviously that would be permissible in terms of what they could drive at. Others may be at 30 kilometres per

hour. Those roads would have to be identified.

So there are some issues here in terms of making sure that the member is working with different municipalities. Maybe they could be put on notice that this is

what's going to be happening. They may want to comment if this goes to public hearings in terms of what the municipal sector would view as fair, and one that wouldn't do the same thing for these

kinds of activities.

When you talk about a non-profit organization, there may also be the qualifier that it's a non-profit organization that is incorporated under the Business

Corporations Act of Ontario or the federal legislation. You may want to specify that. I don't think you really intend this to apply to a private club. Maybe you do. But non-profit organizations,

even social clubs, generally are incorporated in that regard. That may be something you want to look at in terms of which non-profit organizations you want to be there, whether it is a private club

or ones that are incorporated. That is another thing that I would offer constructive observations on in terms of making sure that everybody understands who qualifies for this and what activities

can be done and where those activities can be done.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? I'm not sure if there's --

Mr Bisson: There is.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Two minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Further debate, the member for Beaches-East York.

Mr Prue: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was advised there were a couple minutes left.

I will be supporting this bill, but I have to tell you at the outset that this bill was made necessary because of the Safe Streets Act, 1999. When it was

passed, it was

an act that in effect became a sledgehammer. It was decided that we had to stop the squeegee kids and the panhandlers from getting money on the streets and darting in and out between

cars and asking for that kind of stuff. But the reality is, it didn't stop the squeegee kids. Who it stopped, in the end, were the firefighters and the charities. The original act was a useless

act, and now we are here today trying to amend a useless act to help the very people we never intended to harm in the first place. That's the reality.

There I was, a city of Toronto councillor in those days. We watched from afar as this Legislature debated it. Very much was said in this Legislature about how

this was going to protect the drivers, the motorists and the general public, that it was a safety issue because the squeegee kids and the panhandlers, whoever, were out in the roadway and the

traffic were somehow going to come to harm. I'm sure that was meant all well and good, but the reality is that I don't believe any of them were ever harmed in any meaningful way. Nor do I believe

that any people working for the fire departments or anyone else are going to be harmed by the enactment of this law. That was a bogus statement made back in 1999. I think it was launched because

there was public anger at begging on the streets.

The reality, though, is that we have to help the charities. Short of getting rid of the original bad law, which would solve it all, I guess this is the next

best thing we can do, and therefore I will be supporting Mr Lalonde's bill to do exactly that. I commend him for putting it forward. I know he had another bill in mind today but went with this one.

It is a thoughtful idea. It is an idea whose time has come. And perhaps the Legislature can start thinking about not having to have bills like this but getting rid of the original problem rather

than putting a Band-Aid on it.

The Speaker: Mr Lalonde has two minutes to reply.

Mr Lalonde: I would like to thank all those members who spoke in favour of the bill: the members from Peterborough, Timmins-James Bay, Simcoe

North -- and I would just like to clarify for the member for Simcoe North, who referred to my previous bill, which has passed third reading, that the fleur-de-lys that appears on the francophone

community flag is not a Quebec emblem but a worldwide francophone emblem -- and also the members for Ottawa-Orléans, Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Beaches-East

York.

I'd just like to bring to the attention of the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford that, yes,

section 2 of this bill amends subsection 177(3), which was amended

by Bill 8. There are three reasons. First of all, you could be officially recognized by Revenue Canada as a non-profit organization, but you could also have a non-profit organization that is not

officially recognized by Revenue Canada because the organization does not have the money to have its charter approved by Revenue Canada. Just this past weekend, an Optimist Club from St Isidore,

Ontario, applied for a liquor licence for the 125th anniversary. The official Optimist International has a charter, but the local organization, which is known as a non-profit organization, did not

have a charter. We have the Catholic Women's League, the Kiwanis Club and the Kinsmen Club that really are not locally recognized by Revenue Canada, but they are definitely non-profit

organizations.

So there are only two sections. I do believe in Bill 8. I do believe in the Safe Streets Act.

FIRST NATIONS RESOURCE

REVENUE SHARING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE PARTAGE AVEC LES PREMIÈRES NATIONS DES RECETTES TIRÉES DE L'EXPLOITATION DES RESSOURCES

Mr Bisson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 97,

An Act respecting the sharing of resource revenues for First Nations / Projet de loi 97, Loi concernant le partage avec les Premières nations des

recettes tirées de l'exploitation des ressources.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Bisson has moved second reading of Bill 97,

An Act respecting the sharing of resource revenues for

First Nations. Pursuant to standing order 96, you now have 10 minutes to lead off.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): First of all, I want, through this debate, in the 10 minutes I have, to point out to members exactly

what this bill does.

First of all, the problem: What currently exists and has existed in Ontario and across Canada for years is an inequity that is beyond belief, quite frankly, in

a civilized society like ours. If, for example, in the communities of Sudbury, Kenora, Timmins or wherever it might be, you were to find and try to develop a mine within the boundaries of the

municipalities, and even outside the boundaries, there is a mechanism for those municipalities to exact municipal assessment, a tax, to collect revenue from that project, be it a mine, a lumber

mill, a car plant or whatever, so they are able to get money to pay for such things as roads, water-sewer, arena projects, the projects that are important to sustain the community's basic

infrastructure.

All members of this assembly will know that even though we're always looking for more for our communities, non-aboriginal communities, cities like Timmins and

others, do fairly well. We have very well established infrastructure that allows our communities to function: so our kids have a place to go, we have arenas and swimming pools; and to make sure our

cars have a place to drive and we don't bust an axle every time we go down the road, we have paved roads. In First Nations communities, that's not the case. If you go into communities like Ogoki,

where my good friend Mr Prue was with me about two or three weeks ago, that community has no paved roads. I don't have a community, one single First Nations community, one reserve in the riding I

represent, that has any paved roads.

And in most communities you can't drink the water. Water plants were put in place; unfortunately, the federal government doesn't provide money for training and

the maintenance of the water plants so we have the funding we need to make them operate. Some are better than others, but we still have a problem.

In many cases, the sewer systems are not adequate to build the expanded housing needed in those communities. For example, in Attawapiskat, if you want to do an

expansion of new housing, desperately needed in that community, one of the things that's holding up the building of houses beyond federal funding is the issue that the water and sewer systems are

not strong enough. Well, the water is, but the sewer system is inadequate and has not been expanded in such a way that we can deal with the needs of the community to expand.

So what we've now got are First Nations communities that are truly without even some of the basic services that we take for granted in our communities. What's

exacerbating the situation is that the federal government never really transfers the amount of money those communities need to deal with their needs. But what's really frustrating is that you see a

company like De Beers, which is coming up to start up a diamond mine near Attawapiskat, and it's estimated that the construction portion of that project alone -- get a load of this -- is $700

million, but there is absolutely no mechanism for the First Nations community, by law, to make sure they get some kind of assessment from that project when it is up and running. That mine will be

operating for at least 15 years. You have to believe it's going to make more than $700 million because they're spending $700 million to build a mine.

Now, in fairness to De Beers and Attawapiskat, they have gone through a very difficult process of negotiations over the last four or five years to put in place

a revenue-sharing agreement between the Attawapiskat First Nation and the De Beers mine, and it's just about to be finalized. But the point is this: Why should every community, every time there is

a development to go on, have to go cap in hand to the mining company or the forestry company, be it what it is, to negotiate what should be a right? If you open a diamond mine in and about Timmins,

the city of Timmins knows what to do. De Beers would know what to do. They would pay municipal assessment to the municipality.

If the mine was opened outside of our municipality, I know what my municipal council would do: We'd annex it. We'd do an expansion of the city of Timmins, as

we did when Kidd Creek Mines, which is now the largest employer in Timmins, was started up. Because it fell outside of municipal boundaries, the city of Timmins said, "We're going to expand the

municipal boundaries so they're in our city." That was a pretty smart thing to do. As a result of that, we have money from those mines to be able to build things like the Archie Dillon Sportsplex

and many other projects that the city has built since Kidd Creek opened operations in Timmins.

So what Bill 97 tries to do is simply this. I don't presume to pretend to know what a revenue-sharing agreement should contain. Nobody in this House, I think,

can do that at this point. I don't pretend to know that even First Nations communities clearly understand what should be inside a revenue-sharing agreement. I don't pretend to know that government

or industry knows. All I'm asking for in this bill is a very simple process: that 90 days after this bill is passed, there is a direction given to the government of Ontario, over a three-year

period, to sit down with First Nations communities and the mining and forestry companies to work out what a revenue-sharing agreement should look like for all projects that are developed up in

northern Ontario that would be affected by this bill.

At the end of the day, we may decide it doesn't make sense to have municipal assessments for First Nations, for whatever reason. Maybe what we do is deal with

some form of provincial tax that is directly transferred back to the community. Maybe there's another mechanism that we haven't thought of. But the point is, let's start the process.

I'm hoping that if members vote for this particular bill, what it's going to do is create a table that First Nations can come to, along with the mining

companies and the government, to sit down and figure out where we go forward. Why is this good? It's obviously good for First Nations, because it means, for example, De Beers or Attawapiskat would

not have had to go through what they've gone through in the last five or six years when it comes to negotiating a revenue-sharing agreement.

But, I will argue to members of this assembly, it's a good thing for mining companies and a great thing for forestry companies. As I sit and talk to mining

operators and others, they want to know what the rules are. One of the impediments for development north of 50 is that we don't know what the rules are. It's not the government's fault. You didn't

create this problem. It's a problem that's existed there for years. What this does, if at the end of this we get a process of developing what revenue-sharing is, is say to mining companies that

when they want to go develop a mine around Constance Lake or around Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Great Bear Lake, Ogoki -- whatever it might be -- they'll know what the rules are.

You know what? They open mines all the time in places like Timmins, because they know what the rules are. They know they've got to pay municipal assessment to

the city. All the mine does, like Placer Dome, is say, "Is this an economically viable project?" They look at the cost of developing the property. They look at the strength and size of the ore body

and how rich it is. They look at all costs associated with operating, including paying municipal taxes. Then they put that in a bottle and say, "We have or we don't have an economic project."

All I want is the same for First Nations. It is unacceptable that in this day and age we, the province, who control natural resources, don't have a mechanism.

It's our responsibility. It's not the federal government's. The federal government does not run natural resources; we do, as a province. So if it's our responsibility to organize and manage natural

resources in the province of Ontario, it's then incumbent upon us to find a mechanism to allow First Nations to share in the wealth of those projects that will be developed.

It would go a long way. It would not only mean that First Nations would have some money to build badly needed infrastructure, but it would allow First Nations

to start looking at how to deal with other issues. We all talk about wanting to break the cycle of dependency. You know what? There's not a person in Attawapiskat, Ogoki or Great Bear Lake that

wouldn't love to have a situation where we didn't have welfare, where people actually had jobs, went to work and made money.

But in those communities there is no option. Some people would say, "Oh, well, just get on the plane" -- because there are no roads -- "and fly all the way

down to Timmins or Thunder Bay and find a job." Well, if you grow up in Attawapiskat or any other community, you may not want to come. Imagine if I were to say to my good friend Mr McNeely, who

lives, I believe, in Ottawa, "Well, I say to you that if there's no work in Ottawa, then too bad. Pack up your bags, shut down the town and move to Toronto." People wouldn't like that. Why should

we do that to First Nations?

If we're going to break the dependency, we have to build the tools to allow that to happen, and one of the tools they need is a mechanism to revenue-share when

projects happen in their area. The other thing it will do is put First Nations in the position of saying, "We want development," because it's going to mean money for them and jobs for their people.

What we need to do is find some way to make First Nations a front-line player when it comes to developing resources in northern Ontario, when it comes to mining, forestry, mushroom farms or

whatever it might be. And at the end of the day, whatever revenue-sharing looks like, it shouldn't be presumed to be created by me -- I don't have the exact answer; I have some good ideas -- but it

should be given to that table of industry, First Nations and government to deal with.

The other thing is -- I sent an invitation -- that we should refer this bill to a standing committee and we should travel to northern communities this summer,

four or five of them. Go to Attawapiskat, members of the assembly. You'll be fascinated when you get there: wonderful people but desperate conditions. Let's go to Great Bear Lake. Let's go to some

of the reserves in northern Ontario and a couple of communities like Timmins and others that are affected by this, so we can hear from both industry and First Nations what they think of this bill

and how it could be made better -- because I don't pretend to have gotten the draft perfect -- so we can then move forward and help First Nations prosper in Ontario.

Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie): I'm pleased to rise in the House today. I will be speaking in support of ballot item number 28, Bill 97,

An Act respecting the sharing of resource revenues for First Nations. I commend Mr Bisson, the member from Timmins-James Bay, for bringing this bill forward.

I will be sharing my time with the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, Mr Brownell, and the member from Brant, Mr Levac.

This is an incredibly important issue. I can tell you as a northerner that there are about 172 First Nation communities in this province and about 130 First

Nation reservations in northern Ontario. If you travel through First Nation communities and take the time to visit with them, you can see the conditions and the economic despair that exist in many

First Nation communities across this province. They are truly not sharing in the wealth and opportunity this province has to offer. I think this bill is a demonstration of a step that will take

that action and help First Nation individuals share in the potential revenue and wealth of this province.

Our government is making a commitment to aboriginals and First Nation residents in this province to build a new relationship with them and improve their

quality of life. We made good on a commitment to follow through on a public inquiry with respect to the Dudley George case. The handling of that in the past has been a dismal reflection of the

provincial government's relationship with aboriginal communities. We've agreed to a proposed land claim settlement with the Rainy River First Nation, signalling a new era in aboriginal relations.

We have invested $166.5 million over five years in the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy that will be directed to a range of programs and services that provide improved health and family

healing in aboriginal communities. We've also announced the opening of a native child and family services agency here in Toronto to protect vulnerable aboriginal youth in Toronto.

If you take a look at the quality-of-life indicators that First Nations people experience in this province, whether it's mortality rates, suicide rates,

substance abuse rates, teenage pregnancy rates, cancer rates, diabetes rates, they are all exceptionally higher than those of Ontarians who do not live on First Nations reservations. In speaking to

First Nations individuals, it is incredibly frustrating as they watch the wealth in their communities leave without the opportunity to share in that wealth and improve their own socio-economic

status in this province. So I commend Mr Bisson for bringing this forward.

I also acknowledge that this is not something we will do with respect to First Nations communities in a way that does not include or involve their

participation. I certainly support the fact that this needs to go to a committee. It needs to have all of the stakeholders meet together, be present and discuss this particular issue. I also like

his suggestion that we take the time to travel to First Nations communities, to involve first-hand the people who live in these communities, gather their input and ascertain what may be the best

way to develop a revenue-sharing agreement.

First Nations individuals want to share in the wealth of this province. They want to be part of the growth of this province. They're not able to do that at

this time with respect to our treatment of aboriginals and the relationship that our government currently has with First Nations individuals.

I had the pleasure last Saturday morning of speaking to national Chief Phil Fontaine and Anishinabek Chief Earl Commanda, who were in Sault Ste Marie with our

Lieutenant Governor, James Bartleman, at the opening of the Shingwauk University Centre of Excellence. The Shingwauk school was a residential school in Sault Ste Marie and is now Algoma University

College. This was a major step forward, having the aboriginal community in the Sault Ste Marie area play a tremendous role in supporting their own culture, background and academic

opportunities.

If you take a look at the history of this country, it has been shaped in much part by the role and strength of the aboriginal people in this community. It is

something that has been forgotten and not included in many of our history textbooks that we use in schools today. The centre that was opened in Sault Ste Marie will allow greater research to take

place, and a greater understanding of the involvement that First Nations have had in communities like Sault Ste Marie and, quite frankly, across Ontario.

I'm very pleased to support this bill. Hopefully it will help to develop a very productive relationship with the aboriginal community, improve that

relationship and allow them to share in the revenues that will flow from their First Nations.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate today on the member for Timmins-James Bay's private member's Bill

97,

An Act respecting the sharing of resource revenues for First Nations. If passed, the bill will require the government of Ontario to develop, in consultation with First Nations and resource

companies, a mechanism for ensuring that First Nations share in the revenues from resource extraction projects within their traditional territories in northern Ontario. This mechanism would apply

to all resource revenue sharing projects and avoid the costly and complicated individual negotiations process in place now.

First, I would like to say that the overall purpose of this bill is something that is very important. Financial compensation for resources extracted from lands

within First Nation territories is an important step toward improving the living conditions of remote communities that rely on this land for their well-being. I agree with this. This is something

that has been done in the past. It has been done on an individual basis between resource companies and local First Nations. Any discussion about economic development in the north should involve the

role of the First Nations. For too long they've not had a place at the table.

This bill aims at setting up the process that would get us to a mechanism that will be used as a permanent framework for revenue sharing in the north. I

believe this to be important. However, I have concerns with the details of the bill, particularly how the term "traditional lands" is defined. The explanatory note says, "A procedure is established

by which resource companies that intend to extract natural resources from First Nations traditional lands in northern Ontario will negotiate a comprehensive revenue sharing agreement with the First

Nations and the government of Ontario."

Section 1 of the bill defines the term "traditional lands" by stating, "`Traditional lands' means lands that were traditionally travelled across or made use of

by a First Nation, whether or not they fall within a reserve occupied by that First Nation." It seems to me that this term is far too vague for the purposes of becoming law. My concern is that

there is no clear definition of how far back in history are traditional lands, or how much did the land have to be used to be considered part of traditional First Nation lands?

Out of that question naturally comes, who will decide what is traditional? Will it be the courts? In reality, with this bill it will be as ad hoc as it is now.

It will open up the definition each time a new piece of land is used. If this bill concerned designated lands, I would be able to support it. However, given the inevitable questions that will come

out of vague definition of "traditional lands," I cannot support this bill.

However, I think we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should note that the overall purpose of this bill, which is revenue

sharing, is worthwhile. This is something that resource companies and First Nations have realized already. They already engage in resource-sharing agreements. The member for Timmins-James Bay made

the comparison of a municipality and municipal tax. I agree with that comparison. As with any tax, you have to be careful that the tax level is not so high that it's a detriment to doing business

and has the opposite effect of what is intended.

I would point out, based on his comparison with a municipality, it has defined borders and it's very clear. If it's the municipality of Timmins, it's very

clear where those borders are. That is a real difference with this bill. As the representative for Parry-Sound Muskoka, I would like to point out that he considers northern Ontario as starting at

the French River. As you know, the government in its budget last week has made changes to the definition of northern Ontario to take half of my riding out of the north. In fact, I am presenting the

balance of 6,000 petitions today from the constituents of Parry Sound-Muskoka who object to that because it's going to negatively affect them. This bill being put forward by the member for

Timmins-James Bay completely excludes the seven First Nations within my riding.

I'd like go back to Muskoka being out of the north -- part of the budget that was brought down on May 18 -- because that is going to negatively affect the

First Nations in the Muskoka part of my riding. A huge success story in the Moose Deer Point First Nation is the joint venture which has created Niigon industries. Niigon is wholly owned by the

First Nation, which provided land, human resources and $2 million for the project. In its start-up phase, Niigon focused on making small, high-end components for the automotive electronics

industry. It now has a 14,000-square-metre facility and it does plastic injection moulding. All of Niigon's profits will go into a band-controlled trust to reinvest in sustainable community

projects. That was made possible in large part because Muskoka is, or was, considered part of the north. So there was substantial money from the northern Ontario heritage fund and, in total, I

think over $6 million of Ontario provincial government money went into this project. Now they will be excluded.

The Wahta First Nation has successfully developed a dried cranberry processing plant. That was assisted by the northern Ontario heritage fund. They will no

longer be able to access that.

As well, the health concerns of First Nations in the Muskoka part of my riding will be negatively affected because funding for the hospitals in Muskoka, which

they use, will decline. Access to some of the specific programs will be denied to those First Nation residents who live in Muskoka. I've noticed that I've been receiving petitions from First

Nations people in the Muskoka part of the riding.

This bill that we're talking about today, though, completely ignores the seven First Nations in Parry Sound-Muskoka, including Henvey Inlet First Nation,

Shawanaga First Nation, Magnetawan First Nation, Dokis First Nation, Wahta First Nation, Moose Deer Point First Nation and Wasauksing First Nation. Because it ignores my riding, and because of the

vague definition of traditional property, traditional territory, I cannot support this bill. I commend the member for bringing forward the bill and I think it has a very worthwhile purpose. I wish

him well with it.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise in support of the bill. I am, I have to say at the outset, a Toronto boy. I have lived my whole

life in this city, with the exception of one year in Ottawa. To me, going to First Nations reserves in southern Ontario was always sad. It was sad to see the poverty. It was sad to see people

living on traditional lands and in traditional styles and not sharing in the benefits of Canada.

As a young man, I went to the University of Toronto and to Carleton University -- hence my one year in Ottawa -- and studied anthropology, amongst other

things. I was fascinated by native Canadians and their culture, their history and tradition in this country. But in those days, when you studied that, it was to study a people who, sadly, were in

decline. The federal Indian Act, as it was then known and called, was

an act based on paternalism going back to the 19th and 18th centuries, where the federal government provided all of the

resources, spent all of the money, and told native Canadians how they were to live and under what conditions they were to live. Those living conditions resulted in, quite frankly, poverty. They

resulted in drug and alcohol dependency, they resulted in abuse, they resulted in family breakdowns, and the whole dissemblement of native culture.

I'm glad to say that over the past 30 years, since those were my study days, I have seen some profound changes, changes for the better. I have seen governments

at the federal level and provincial level, particularly in British Columbia and in Quebec, start to treat native Canadians and their communities with respect. I have seen the transfer of funds and

programs from the federal level to the provincial level so that native Canadians can be treated the same way under provincial statute as any other person living in those provinces. We have seen the

bands, as well, begin to take charge and to change. We have seen a new generation of people with education -- doctors and lawyers and dentists and teachers -- taking charge of those band councils

and leading them in a correct and appropriate direction, taking and seizing control of the daily lives of those bands. Those have all been very good things.

I have to say, since being elected to this House some nearly three years ago now, I have had an opportunity, first of all as the housing critic for the NDP,

and latterly housing and Comsoc, among six portfolios of which I'm the critic, to travel with the member from Timmins-James Bay, and into the riding as well of the leader of the third party, to go

to some of those reserves and actually see the conditions of the housing and the levels of poverty that continue to exist, the welfare rates and the problems they are having. I have to tell you,

it's still sad to see very proud people -- it's sad to see Cree nations, it's sad to see Ojibwa nations -- in northern Ontario living in circumstances that should no longer exist in our country. It

is sad to see housing in states of disrepair, the lack of sewage facilities. It is sad to see people without any real future.

Recently, I had an opportunity to go with the member from Timmins-James Bay to Ogoki, a little town I had only seen on a map. We went there to talk to Chief

Eli and his band council. It's a small community of about 300 or 400 houses. There is absolutely no industry. When we sat with the band council one evening and asked them what they wanted, what

they would want to happen in Ogoki, they were united. It was crystal clear: What they wanted were some jobs. What they wanted was for some industry or someone to come into their community and would

provide an opportunity for their young people to be educated, to work, to stay in the community and to help those who were living there. And to do that, they required one thing. They thought a road

would be a nice idea, that a road could run 90 miles north from where it drops off now in another community and would allow for transportation. The road would bring in jobs. The road could bring in

tourists. The road could even allow all of the groceries that they have to bring in by transport plane twice a week to be trucked in, saving them enormous amounts of money.

I would ask the members, if you ever go to these northern communities, to go into the northern store and see how much things cost: $10 for a bag of potatoes --

remember, a lot of these people are on welfare -- $1 for a can of Coke, things that we take for granted. You know, kids might want a bag of potato chips that we would buy for 97 cents in the store;

they are $10 there. A road into some of these communities would be a great asset, so that's what they talked about. They want the jobs; they want the resources; they want their people to stay at

home; they want to be able to have communities that stay together.

They want that for a reason. It's not that they are isolationists; it is that they are very proud of who and what they are. They are starting to teach their

children the Cree and Ojibwa languages again. They are starting to teach their children that it is good to stay at home and to develop their communities in traditional and non-traditional ways.

I think that's all we can offer and all we should be offering, and that's all that is in this bill. Give them the opportunity to get the money. Give them the

opportunity to participate, let them make their own decisions, and see a true flowering of our native people in this country. If this bill can do this, then I am going to support the bill. If there

are any flaws about the boundary line, as the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka said, let's take it to committee and change that boundary line, but please do what British Columbia has done, please do

what Quebec has done: Recognize these northern communities and these northern people and give them an opportunity to share in the wealth of this province and of this country. This bill will go a

long way to do it. It is long past due.

I commend the member from Timmins-James Bay for bringing it forward. He tried unsuccessfully in the last Parliament to bring it forward, but I'm sure there is

a better will in this House today on this than there was then.

Native Canadians deserve the right to participate in the richness of this land, particularly in their own traditional communities. Those traditional

communities have to go beyond what is defined in the reserves. There are many communities, and I think the most obvious one is Moose Factory, which do not fall into traditional reserves but are

traditional communities all the same.

The member from Timmins-James Bay should be commended for what he is doing. We have an obligation, a right and a duty to make sure that all Ontarians,

including those who are native Canadians, share in the wealth of our province.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): You've got it, Mr Speaker, and you're doing a great job there.

It certainly is a pleasure for me to stand in support of Bill 97,

An Act respecting the sharing of resource revenues for First Nations. We certainly heard some

eloquent words from the honourable member for Sault Ste Marie and just now from the member for Beaches-East York. He made comments that he is a city boy from Toronto. Well, I'm from the far east;

not a city boy, but certainly from the far east, not having the greatest knowledge of the far north. But being asked to speak on this bill has given me a chance to delve into some of the issues of

the far north, of the northern region of Ontario.

I'd like to pick up on comments made in some dialogue that the member from Timmins-James Bay sent to all members of the House when he asked for support of this

bill. In his last paragraph, he commented about inviting the committee that will study this bill to the north, to those remote First Nations communities in the north, to visit and to understand.

Perhaps it's important for all members of this House, not just the committee members studying it, to travel to the north. I think I will take up the invitation of the member from Timmins-James Bay

and do a little more exploring. I've always been interested in taking the Polar Bear Express, I believe it's called, as far north as I could get. I'd love to do that. It's always been in the back

of my mind, but it's to take the time.

In speaking in support of this bill, I truly believe that those inhabitants, the people who live in those First Nations communities, want to be front-line

players in all aspects of community life; here we're talking about natural resources, but in all aspects. Although I've had many chances to dialogue with the First Nations people of Akwesasne in my

riding, it was two weeks ago that I had an opportunity of touring the Akwesasne First Nation, and they talked about the economic disparity they have felt through life. They alluded to the fact that

in my riding right now there's a study going on to provide for a low suspension bridge across the St Lawrence into Akwesasne. They talked about the revenue that has developed in businesses north of

that bridge in the city of Cornwall, the economic corridor in the city. With that high suspension bridge coming down to a low suspension bridge, what they want to see now is that that economic

corridor down in their nation continues over the bridge and on to their lands.

That's very much like what's being debated here today, that they benefit from what we have benefited from in our communities.

It's wonderful that the member from Timmins-James Bay is taking the initiative once again to bring this forward, that we have a chance. But I think too that we

have to look across Canada and think that what we're doing in Ontario should be done for all First Nations in Canada. I know we have to work with our federal counterparts. We have to work with our

communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. We have to work together to make sure they get what they rightfully deserve -- and that we know they rightfully deserve.

That's why it did not take long for me to agree to stand in this House today and speak in support of this bill. I stand down, but I stand up for the people in

our First Nations.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to speak on the bill from the member from Timmins-James Bay.

The bill in itself seems straightforward enough, but I guess the issue is with respect to the details. As the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka commented, there

are some issues. One of the most fundamental ones is because what's being proposed here is a procedure.

The first point I want to comment on is, there is a procedure for arbitration where there's no agreement reached. As we know, the Attorney General is currently

undergoing a process of review of all of the Arbitration Act per se. I would caution the member from Timmins-James Bay that he may want to take that into consideration in terms of his own drafting

as to what the Attorney General comes out with with respect to his review. Because the Arbitration Act, for those who are familiar with it, is a fairly simple act. It's not a very long act, but it

would appear that the government of the day has some concerns with arbitration itself.

What's being put forward here is essentially an arbitration procedure. Whether this arbitration procedure can contract out of the current Arbitration Act may

be well and fine, but if, on review or because of any changes to the Arbitration Act, you find that it will change, then what is being proposed by the member may not be fine.

What we have here is also an issue with respect to the imposition of this agreement. Now the government of Ontario is at the table, along with the First

Nations -- they're the recognized parties -- and any other parties that are mutually agreed to.

The second point I want to make is in terms of what role the Legislature plays here. It would appear that under subsection 3(4) the arbitrator can impose a

"comprehensive revenue-sharing agreement that shall be deemed to have been arrived at by the parties."

When you look at

section 4, it says, "The comprehensive revenue-sharing agreement shall be presented to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who shall

cause it to be laid before the Legislative Assembly." The arbitrator imposes an agreement on the parties. Then it comes before the Speaker and is laid before the assembly.

The question is, what is the assembly to do? Is the assembly to ratify this agreement in terms of making it official and something that the Legislature

approves of, or is this just something that is for appearances' sake? We have annual reports, for example of the Privacy Commissioner, that are laid before the Speaker and the Speaker reports to

the Legislature that these have been done by the Privacy Commissioner. That basically is a reporting function on behalf of the House by the Speaker.

That question really needs to be decided, because I don't know on my reading of it that if you have an agreement that is imposed on the parties, you would

essentially have an agreement. There's an agreement reached between the government of Ontario and the First Nations, and that would be something that would be legitimate, that could be acted on.

But by putting in this provision, where it's put before the Legislative Assembly, are we saying there's another step? If there is another step, it should be clearly set out in terms of what the

Legislature is required to do, because by imposing the agreement, in effect the Legislature's role would appear to be implicitly taken away, and it has been taken away because of the fact that the

arbitrator can impose an agreement by the parties.

If the Legislature is to have any role in this, I would think that in terms of dealing with this, this is technically a money bill. This is definitely a piece

of legislation that's going to involve money. Whether it's legitimate that it be before here is another question. Maybe the Speaker is going to have to make that decision. But certainly this will

involve dollars and cents because it says that it is a "revenue-sharing agreement," and it's something between the government and the First Nations. I would think you would really expect the

Legislature to have some role in this with respect to where the monies are going to go and how that's going to impact on the government.

It's a question that I think has to be looked at, something that is important, because the legal effect of this agreement on the Legislature is fundamental.

Whether it has a role or not is to be decided, as I caution the member. When you look at the definition

section in this act, you have a number of

definitions. One of them, as was pointed out by, I

believe, the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, is "traditional lands," which "means lands that were traditionally travelled across or made use of by a First Nation...."

I would think that if you're going to have an agreement, you're going to need to have something much more clear and concise in terms of what lands are going to

be the lands for this agreement. I think you would be looking at designated lands, as to what the deal is between the parties, because when you look at the definition for "comprehensive

revenue-sharing agreement," it "means an agreement, including draft legislation, that will provide a comprehensive policy by which First Nations will receive benefits from natural resources

extracted from their traditional lands, no matter what form those benefits take."

Now that's about as open-ended as you possibly can have. Whether the government wants to enter into this will be their decision, because quite frankly, they

have the majority. They're going to have the say on whether this passes today, whether it goes to committee, or whether it even becomes law. So that's something that is important.

The reference in the definition of "comprehensive revenue-sharing agreement" that involves "including draft legislation" -- I don't know where that's coming

from, because I haven't seen any draft legislation on this at all. I don't know what that means. What we have here and what the member is putting forth is a procedure, and nothing more. Obviously,

public hearings on this will be very important.

The other aspect that may not have been raised is the constitutionality of this. I don't know whether this is even constitutional, because the federal

government is responsible with respect to the First Nations under the Indian Act in terms of how the government system they're putting in -- I believe it was revamped and I think it is law, and I

stand to be corrected, in terms of how federal jurisdiction plays over this, and especially whether federal jurisdiction, if there is federal jurisdiction, maintained over Indian lands is something

the province can intercede on. So that's a question that will have to be looked at.

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the students from Silver

Birches public school in North Bay who are visiting with us today. In both galleries, we've got the students from Silver Birches. On behalf of the members here, I'd like to welcome them.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but we welcome them nevertheless.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): You'll have to forgive my voice, but I'll do the best I can. I want to comment on the bill because I think it's

extremely important to get on the record about the issue the member from Timmins-James Bay is bringing up.

I had a different opening, and I want to switch because the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford gives us an example of exactly why we're in some of the malaise

and the mess we're in: more interested in the legalese; more interested in finding out whether or not we can delay this or shoo this or shoo that; go in different directions and talk about the law

and forget about the fact that we've got people living in this province who don't even have a water source, that we've got people living in this province who don't have septic systems.

I, for one, am upset with the tone that people take; I'm disappointed that this is the type of talk we get. That's why our First Nations people are in such

disarray. They get put down by law, they get put down by delay, they get put down by so many things, and yet they still persist in being partners with us. I so admire that people, the fact they

have for so long put up with the kind of talk that's been going on about how they're going to take care of them, yet they're looking for the simple things in life.

All of us have to look in the mirror when we hear this kind of talk. The largest population of First Nations in Canada is the Six Nations along the Grand

River, the territory. You want to know something? Listen to this. We've got 312 homes that have no water supply. We've got 559 homes that have to truck in their water. We've got 1,449 homes with

individual wells that don't get tested. We've got 375 homes with piped water, 301 residents connected to a sewer system and 2,442 residents with individual septic systems. Get this: 312 homes with

no service at all. That's our Ontario today for our First Nations people, just in this area.

I admire the member for bringing this up. I admire the fact that he's looking for our First Nations people to be served justice. That's all it is, to be served

justice. We need to take this issue seriously. We have far too many First Nations people in Ontario who don't have the basic services that people take for granted. No water supply? No septic

systems? That's not my Ontario, and I know it's not ours.

I ask us all to take a step back from political parties and ask ourselves, in Ontario, in 2004, should there be any resident without a source of water? Should

there be any resident without a septic system?

Forgive my outburst. I do not want to turn this into a shouting match. I apologize to this House, but I will not apologize for the challenge the member has

brought forward. The member is asking us to get over the legal stuff, to get over the arguments of why we can't do it, to get this thing to committee so we can hear the stories.

My brother worked in BC on a territory. He brought me to visit. I saw the stuff that was going on in BC. I've been to the north and I've seen some of those

things. We would not let our relatives live like that. The First Nations people are our relatives. We cannot stand by and allow a citizen of Ontario not to have a water source and not to have a

septic system. Any way we can correct this must be taken.

I applaud the member for coming forward with an idea that deserves our attention. I challenge each and every one of us to ask the simple question, are there

people in the province of Ontario today who do not deserve a water source, who do not deserve a septic tank? I say no.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I'm pleased to be able to speak to this private member's issue today. I want to congratulate Mr

Bisson, the member for Timmins-James Bay, for bringing it forward. I want to spend my time putting this in context.

What Mr Bisson is really talking about here is development that is very likely going to happen north of the 51st parallel. I say it's development that's very

likely going to happen, and going to happen soon, because if we look at the forest maps across northern Ontario, northern Ontario is facing a wood supply gap, and by that I mean the mature forest,

which was there before many of the non-native communities in northern Ontario were established. That mature forest is gradually being harvested. There is a new forest that's growing, but in many

locations that new forest will not be ready for harvesting by the forest industry for another 20 or 30 years. So there will be a gap. The mature forest will be harvested before the next forest is

ready for commercial use. The only place where we can go to harvest additional forest is further north, north of the 51st parallel, where, by and large, there are no non-aboriginal communities.

They're virtually all aboriginal communities. You might find the odd non-native nurse, teacher or pilot, perhaps even find Mr Bisson flying around, but otherwise virtually everything north of the

51st parallel is aboriginal communities.

There's also pressure from the mining industry, the discovery of diamonds and, of course, the diamond development at Attawapiskat. Any given day now, flying

across the far north, north of the 51st parallel, you'll find De Beers diamonds and a number of other large, international mining companies out there, flying specially equipped airplanes, looking

for the latest big find, whether it's gold, diamonds, titanium, tantalum or any of the so-called new-age minerals. There's huge pressure to move forward in terms of mining.

There's also huge pressure in terms of hydroelectric development. Much of our remaining falling water potential to develop hydroelectricity is in the far

north. There's going to be huge pressure to develop. The question is, will this development be on a co-operative basis with First Nations, where First Nations benefit socially, economically and

environmentally, or will it be as much of the development has happened in the past, that is, companies simply walk in, take out the resources and, often, have no involvement of First Nations in the

economy and leave behind a polluted environment? That's the issue.

Mr Bisson has been very straightforward: What has happened in the past hasn't worked. In fact, what's happened in the past has very often been a disaster,

environmentally, economically and socially. We cannot allow that to happen again.

In putting forward this resolution, Mr Bisson has actually done some research on what's happened in Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. In

fact, Ontario is behind all of those other jurisdictions.

A couple of years ago, the Cree nation of Quebec and the Quebec government signed a comprehensive agreement on land use planning, environmental protection,

resource utilization, training, education, and revenue-sharing for any mining, forestry or hydroelectric development which happens now and into the future in northern Quebec.

In Manitoba, the government of Manitoba has signed an agreement with some of the Cree nations there, that where there's going to be future hydroelectric

development in Manitoba, the First Nations will be complete partners. First Nations people will be trained to do the construction work, the operating work, and they will share in the revenues that

come from any future hydroelectric development.

In northern Saskatchewan, you've seen huge mining development. In almost every case, there's been a comprehensive agreement signed whereby First Nations have

control over the mining. They have land use protections and control over environmental issues. Their people are trained to do the construction work, the mining operation work and all of the

ancillary services, and they share in the revenue.

It's the same thing in British Columbia, but here in Ontario we lag behind -- far behind.

Some would say, "Oh, well, just let the forestry companies and the mining companies work out one-on-one agreements with First Nations." In fact, if we look at

our own history in this province, that's what went on before. If you look at much of what I call the near north, where I grew up or where Mr Bisson grew up, the First Nations there, yes, were

included in the initial forest industry, so when the red pine and white pine sawmills opened, a lot of the people who worked in those mills were aboriginal people. They were the mainstay of the

river drives, so in a lot of the romantic, historical pictures you see of people pushing wood down the river, a lot of those people were aboriginal people.

But when we ran out or ran short of red or white pine, and we moved on to other kinds of forest products, guess who the first people were to lose their jobs?

Aboriginal people. And guess who the last people were to be trained for the new jobs and, in many cases, not trained at all? Aboriginal people. When, for environmental reasons, we stopped the wood

drives going down the river and said all wood would now be trucked to the mills, guess who lost their jobs and were never trained to be reemployed in the new jobs? Aboriginal people. When we moved

from using swede saws and horses to skid the wood, and moved from power saws to the very sophisticated equipment that you see now, wood processors, guess who lost their jobs in the forest industry

and weren't trained for the new technology jobs? Aboriginal people.

So saying, "Well, just let the companies and individual First Nations work it out," is not satisfactory. Our own history shows us that, in fact, that process

resulted, to a large extent, in aboriginal people being excluded from the economy in much of what is now known as the near north. That is why this kind of process is needed.

I would even argue that what Mr Bisson has put forward here is actually a good beginning, a very good beginning, but what we need are comprehensive agreements

dealing with land use planning, dealing with environmental protection, dealing with issues like training and work experience and then, finally, jobs, as well as the revenue sharing. But this good,

modest beginning is something that I think we need to adopt today.

I say to Liberal members, the last time Mr Bisson put this forward, Liberal members voted for it. I hope you will vote for it today, even though now this will

place some responsibilities on your government.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Bisson has two minutes to reply.

Mr Bisson: I want to make a couple of points very quickly, but before I do that I want to thank Kate Mulligan, the legislative intern who

worked in my office. She worked quite hard on this, consulting along with me. Kate is up there, and I'd like to acknowledge the work she has done. I've got to put a plug in for the legislative

internship program. It is a wonderful program that interns and members and the public benefit from. So, Kate, I want to thank you for the work because you've worked quite hard on this.

Mr Hampton: Talking about free labour.

Mr Bisson: Free labour, right. That's what my leader says. Well, she'll be a summer student this year. Don't worry about it.

I want to say a couple of things. The member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, I still hope you vote for the legislation, that you change your mind. As you recognize,

you did raise the points about what are traditional lands, and also the issue about First Nations south of 50. That's an issue we can deal with at committee. Let's at least refer the bill into

committee. We'll have an opportunity to deal with it there.

I think the important

part is -- and Mr Levac hit the nail on the head. I want to thank him for the passion he showed in this debate, along with other members,

but specifically Mr Levac. This is about trying to address what has been a long-time inequity. Mr Levac showed with passion, I think, what most Canadians feel deep inside. So let's not get held up

if we don't like language in the bill. That's why we've got committees; we'll deal with it over there.

I want to thank the member from Stormont-Dundas --

Mr Hampton: Charlottenburgh.

Mr Bisson: Charlottenburgh. Sorry. I can't read my own handwriting. I want to thank you. The points you made were very good.

The member from Sault Ste Marie, you will find your dealings with First Nations probably among the best experiences you'll have here, as you started to

indicate to me privately in discussions this morning. The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford as well.

I just want to end on this note, and I think Mr Hampton, my leader, also pointed out what this is all about, and that is, let's finally get some common sense

and let's finally get some equity to First Nations communities. It's not right that they can't participate in the development of wealth in their communities. This bill is an attempt to start that

process, and I look for your support.

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

SAFE STREETS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 27.

Mr Lalonde has moved second reading of Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities

of legitimate charities and non-profit organizations.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask that this bill be referred to the standing

committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

FIRST NATIONS RESOURCE REVENUE

SHARING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE PARTAGE

AVEC LES PREMIÈRES NATIONS

DES RECETTES TIRÉES

DE L'EXPLOITATION DES RESSOURCES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 28.

Mr Bisson has moved second reading of Bill 97,

An Act respecting the sharing of resource revenues for First Nations.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): First of all, I just want to thank all members. This has been a long time coming. I'm a bit emotional. I

would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1201 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GEORGE VICE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I was pleased to attend this morning the fire marshal's fire safety awards at the Royal York. More importantly, I

was there on behalf of one of my constituents, George Vice. George Vice is a very well respected, well recognized leader in our community, with 50 years of service in the Rotary Club, as well as

being the mastermind behind the fire safety house for Clarington Emergency and Fire Services. In fact, George single-handedly got this project off the ground with his personal contribution, and was

joined by the Rotary Club of Bowmanville. Also in attendance were members of the fire safety community, Bill Hesson and Randy Reinheart, also showing respect for the work and considerable support

that he has given the fire services in my riding of Durham.

Mr Vice is an outstanding community-builder. He is a former postmaster. He has a keen interest in local history and has published two books, one on his history

as postmaster of Bowmanville and one the history of the Rotary Club in Bowmanville. He holds the Paul Harris Fellowship Award, which is Rotary International's highest award, and he's a 50-year

member of the club, as I said, and past president.

I'm confident that the members of the House will join me in congratulating Mr George Vice on his recent provincial fire safety award and his life-long service

to our community. He is a community-builder. All of us should be happy to say -- you know, the Rotary motto is "Service above self." George is a symbol for their very appropriate motto. I'm proud

to have been a friend of George for many years, along with all of the community in Bowmanville and Clarington. They love George Vice, the fire safety award recipient.

CALABRESE CANADIANS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to take this opportunity to announce a week of Calabrian, southern Italian, events in Toronto,

the GTA and Ontario. It is a full week of events promoted and organized by the Federation of Calabrese of Ontario, with the participation of various groups and companies from the region of

Calabria.

The events bring people together under the rubric of "sapori and saperi," which literally means flavours, knowledge and learning; food, culture and identity.

The words sapori and saperi -- interesting, wonderful alliteration -- are two words that sound the same but are different, yet inextricably linked. This is an opportunity for all to savour and

enjoy the true taste of Calabrian history and culture and traditions. Calabrians are proud to be Canadians, yet very proud to celebrate their roots.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Centro Scuola, headed by Alberto Di Giovanni, who co-sponsored some of the events, and thank Tony Silipo, who is a

former member from Davenport and currently the president, for his leadership of the Federation of Calabrese of Ontario. If people need more information, they can call me.

ORDER OF ST GEORGE

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today and congratulate a special group in my riding of

Niagara Falls. The first priory of the Knightly Order of St George in North America was consecrated last year at Christ Church in Niagara Falls.

I was honoured to be the guest of the priory at the third investiture dinner held just a few months ago and had the good fortune of sitting with Lieutenant

Colonel Gareth Green, the lord prior of the Knightly Order of Saint George here in Canada.

The Order of St George has had a continuous existence for the past 700 years. Originally a military and charitable order founded in 1326, military service is

no longer an absolute requirement. The purpose of the Order of St George is to make a difference in the world of its members through compassion and the support of various charities. I am proud that

this order has been established in Niagara Falls and I commend all members of the Order of St George, under the leadership of Lord Prior Gareth Green, as they continue to do the good works of this

distinctive group.

NINA BURNHAM

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I stand to recognize the achievements of a former Six Nations band councillor who, after years of

devotion to serving her community, has recently received the top honour awarded by the Anglican Church, the Order of Huron. The recipient, Nina Burnham, is a member of St Peter's at Ohsweken.

This award is reserved for outstanding and selfless work, and over the years Nina Burnham has proven herself truly worthy. Whether it be her work as a dental

hygienist for many First Nations reservations, including Moose Factory and Attawapiskat, or her duties aboard the medical ship C.D. Howe, which travelled to many Inuit settlements of the eastern

Arctic to provide preventive dentistry, Nina Burnham has dedicated herself to helping others.

Nina Burnham was born on Six Nations, and it is there that she made some of her most important contributions as a member of the elected band council, where she

served as a councillor for 18 years, up until 2003. Ms Burnham also served on the Ontario Board of Parole for six years and the Ontario Trillium board for three years, and continues to be an active

member of the Six Nations veterans association.

As National Aboriginal Day approaches -- that would be June 21 -- I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Nina Burnham on the occasion of her

receipt of the Order of Huron.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I rise today in the House to share with my colleagues a wonderful event I had the opportunity to participate in

last weekend. My riding of Peterborough proudly hosted the Special Olympics 2004 spring games. More than 600 athletes and coaches converged on Peterborough for three days, from June 10 to June 12.

The athletes competed in five- and 10-pin bowling, basketball, floor hockey, power lifting and swimming.

The Ontario Special Olympics serve an important purpose. It's not just about winning. The Special Olympics have created many lasting friendships over the

years. Special Olympics programs within our schools get students with intellectual disabilities involved in sports and recreation. This builds on physical health, co-operation and self-esteem, and

sets the athletes on a path of better integration within their community. Thank you to the many coaches, volunteers and sponsors who make events such as the spring games a possibility. I'd like to

also commend the athletes for their spirit, courage and determination. It was truly inspiring.

Peterborough now has passed the torch to the Niagara region as the host of the Special Olympics summer games in 2005. Best wishes for a successful games.

LIQUOR LICENSING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In a scrum this morning, the consumer minister suggested that his bring-your-own-wine legislation

wouldn't pass this session because of the opposition. We're getting used to Liberal stretches of the truth, and this is just another example. The reality is that the government hasn't called the

bill for second reading. They are sitting on it, not the opposition. When the Liberal government does finally call the bill, the Conservative caucus will insist on public hearings.

Minister Watson, in what has become a depressingly familiar pattern for McGuinty Liberals, broke yet another promise when he tabled the bill. He had assured

groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the hotel and restaurant association that he would consult them before bringing in legislation. Instead of keeping his promise, he blindsided them. The

minister also had the audacity to suggest in response to a Liberal lob-ball question that MADD supported his announcement. That was below the belt.

The Conservative Party wants the people Minister Watson treated with such disdain to have an opportunity for input. Despite protestations otherwise, the

McGuinty Liberals are the only ones playing political games with this legislation.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to all the seniors in Ontario this month. June is Seniors Month in

Ontario. Hamilton West has many, many remarkable seniors. However, I would like to pay tribute to one. Today I will tell you about Dorothy Adler. She's an 88-year-old woman who was born and raised

in Hamilton and has operated a family business, Adler Furniture, in our city for many, many years. She's currently living at Shalom Village in west Hamilton. I was recently at Shalom Village. She's

been involved in so many community activities, so many, numerous committees and organizations that I don't have time right now to itemize them all.

Despite her health challenges, Dorothy has persevered through all her difficulties with her great positive thinking and her zest for life. Whether she's

shopping at the various Hamilton malls, lunching with her friends or family, volunteering at socials and teas, or with her regular canasta games, she is very active indeed. Shalom Village residents

regard Dorothy as the epitome of a modern senior. It's quite obvious that Dorothy has no intention of slowing down.

My visits to various seniors' homes in west Hamilton have resulted in warm and gracious welcomes, and it's sometimes difficult to leave. The wonderful

hospitality recently demonstrated at Villa Italia was something to behold; I was very overwhelmed.

I want to report to you that the provincial budget has been very well received by the seniors in west Hamilton.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): After listening to a lot of bitching, whining and complaining by the opposition, let me give you some good news

of how Ontario Liberals are keeping another election promise.

Recently the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration signed a letter of intent with the federal government to begin negotiations on a federal-provincial

immigration agreement. This is an important and long overdue step. Ontario is the only province that does not have an immigration agreement with the federal government.

For too long, Ontario's immigrants have not received the same attention as immigrants in other provinces because the previous government did not want to forge

working relationships with other levels of government. Ontario receives many highly educated immigrants who, unfortunately, are unable to find jobs in their chosen profession. In fact, many can't

make a living, as all of us know.

Will this federal-provincial agreement help new immigrants and internationally trained professionals? Yes. The agreement proposes a seamless integration of

services that provide comprehensive one-stop shopping for newcomers and prospective immigrants in accessing settlement support.

I know the opposition doesn't like what I have to say, but I just want all of you to know that we're here to keep our promises, and this is one we intend to

keep.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I rise today to speak about the report, Investing in People, which was commissioned by the previous

government in 2002. I must say this report took a very negative view of rural Ontario.

There is a feeling of outrage in my community, in our rural communities. People feel slighted and devalued. This is a result of a column in the National Post,

and I can tell you, they are in more need of life support than rural Ontario.

This report is not the report of our Liberal government. Our government is investing in rural Ontario and the north, including more than $900 million for our

municipal infrastructure. As well, as part of our government's commitment to rural communities, we are developing a rural plan to articulate our vision for our rural communities, and these

consultations have already begun.

Rural Ontario has always paid its way. Investments have paid off, and people's hard work has built strong communities. Our rural people, when ignored by the

big financial institutions, turn to themselves to create solutions, and they invest by their own innovation. Credit unions, mutual insurance companies, independent phone companies: That's rural

Ontario.

People in rural Ontario should be proud of where they are from. A healthy, prosperous rural Ontario benefits all of Ontario.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 83,

An Act to implement Budget measures / Projet de loi 83, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures budgétaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1345 to 1355.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti,