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

May 8, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 8 May 2003 Jeudi 8 mai 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMMIGRATION

GRIDLOCK

IMMIGRATION

GRIDLOCK

IMMIGRATION

GRIDLOCK

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Thursday 8 May 2003 Jeudi 8 mai 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMMIGRATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should enter into discussions

with the federal government forthwith pursuant to which responsibility for immigration matters pertaining to the province of Ontario would be transferred to the government of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Mr Tascona has moved ballot item number 3. He now has 10 minutes to present his resolution.

Mr Tascona: I'm very pleased to begin the debate with respect to the resolution. I want to start by quoting a history

article I've received, The

Long Road to Canadian Diversity, written by LucaCodignola. It's in the magazine, Partners: Italy & Canada. I want to start by speaking to that because my father's family originally immigrated

to Canada in 1907. In fact, it was the first Italian family in the city of Winnipeg at that time.

I want to quote this article, which is at page 11:

"While growing from" 11 million "in 1941 to over 31 million in the year 2001, and in spite of the leadership of Prime Ministers of apparently conflicting views,

post-war Canada has continued to profit from de facto choice immigration (between 1950 and 1970, Canada welcomed over 430,000 Italians), its proximity to the United States and its traditional

British and Commonwealth heritage. Meanwhile, it has maintained certain features that are uniquely `Canadian': a great regional diversity together with provincial powers that have been steadily

Immigration for this country has been very successful. The point I'm making today with respect to my resolution deals with the failure of the federal government

to provide appropriate screening at airports and the recent report by the federal Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, detailing the inability of the federal government to manage the country's customs

and immigration. That's the catalyst for my private member's resolution in the Legislature today.

Ontario's economic prosperity has been and continues to be strengthened by the immigration of skilled workers, professionals and their families, all in search of

a better life. The quality of life for all Ontarians is enriched by an immigration system which properly screens, selects and enforces the law.

The federal Auditor General's report clearly indicates there is a growing number of people who are still in Canada despite Citizenship and Immigration Canada's

having directly removed them from the country. Fraser notes that this gap has increased to approximately 36,000 over the last six years. According to Fraser's news release, "Enforcement activities

should be given higher priority. The growing backlog of removals undermines the system used to admit people to Canada."

Other findings from the federal Auditor General's April 2000 report indicate the following; this is her critique of the Department of Immigration: "Immigration

officers are present at only 44 of the 272 staffed ports of entry and most of those 44 ports are not staffed 24 hours a day by immigration officers. Ports of entry where no immigration officer is

present handle about 15% of the total traffic."

As of 2000, Citizenship and Immigration Canada "estimated that close to 60% of all refugee claimants arrive with no documents or with false documents....

"Facilities in the Ontario region reached capacity several times over the last few years and officers were instructed to choose people for detention carefully

and consider alternatives to detention."

I also want to point to the recent SARS crisis in Toronto as another dramatic failure of federal officials. There is no doubt that the federal government's

decision to play down the threat of SARS and refusal to properly screen arrivals to Canada was a primary cause of the WHO travel advisory and the economic damage that ensued.

I want to quote the Toronto Star with respect to the federal actions. This is an

article from April 30:

"Ottawa Failed to Heed Ontario's SARS Plea.

"Health Minister Anne McLellan was warned by her Ontario counterpart almost a month ago about inadequacies in the way the federal government was screening

travellers for SARS.

"Ms McLellan, who has been accused of not doing enough to tackle the SARS outbreak, replied to the letter from Ontario Health Minister Tony Clement by insisting

the federal government was taking reasonable and appropriate precautionary measures related to inbound and outbound air passengers.

"Two weeks after her reply, the World Health Organization issued an advisory against travelling to Toronto, noting that some SARS cases in other countries

appeared to have been exported from Canada.

"The WHO is removing the advisory today after Canadian authorities agreed to improve screening procedures, which until now have consisted mainly of putting cards

in airports advising passengers who pick them up of SARS symptoms. Most people were permitted to enter and exit the country without getting any information, either verbal or written, about SARS."

The title of this

article is "Ottawa Failed to Heed Ontario's SARS Plea."

We also have an

article from the Globe and Mail of May 1, "McLellan Fends Off Calls to Quit."

It says, "In his letter, obtained by the Globe and Mail, Mr Clement," the Minister of Health for Ontario, "expressed concern that incoming passengers,

particularly from SARS hot spots travelling to Canada through the United States, might be missed. He also asked Ms McLellan to keep him abreast of any disaster planning the government was doing,

and urged her to make sure there were enough staff at Pearson International Airport and border crossings.

"The World Health Organization slapped a travel advisory on Toronto three weeks after the letter," from Minister Clement, "warning people to avoid non-essential

trips to the city."

Also, in the National Post of May 1, 2003, an

article says, "Did Ottawa fumble its response to the outbreak of SARS in Toronto? Anne McLellan, the federal

Minister of Health, says no. On Monday, she claimed Ottawa is doing its bit to make sure SARS is being `controlled and contained.' One day later, Jim Flaherty, Ontario's Minister of Enterprise,

contradicted her. Ottawa, he said, failed to provide the sort of `significant reassurance' that would have demonstrated it was taking SARS seriously -- and possibly forestalled the infamous WHO

travel advisory. Mr Flaherty zeroed in on Ottawa's lackadaisical approach to screening for SARS at Toronto's Pearson International Airport as the worst example of this." In a quote in this article,

they say Mr Flaherty "is absolutely correct."

The resolution put forward by myself today would see the federal government give responsibility for customs and immigration matters pertaining to the province to

the Ontario government. The resolution would allow the province and the federal government to negotiate the transfer in the best interests of public safety and public accountability. That's what

this resolution is about.

The province of Quebec has responsibility for these matters already. They have an agreement with the federal government with respect to shared costs and with

respect to dealing with immigration in their particular province. This is not something that is not done elsewhere in this country.

I want to go back to the federal auditor's report. It's the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons,

chapter 5, on Citizenship and Immigration

Canada, control and enforcement. This is a scathing report of the federal government with respect to how they are dealing with our immigration matters. It says at page 29:

"Enforcement activities are under increasing stress and are falling behind. The gap between removal orders and confirmed removals is increasing. Detention

budgets and facilities are a departmental concern. The growing backlog in enforcement activities places the integrity of a major part of the immigration program at risk....

"Our examination at ports of entry found problems that have been present for several years. The department does not currently know how well the Canada Customs

and Revenue Agency is performing its immigration-related duties, nor how well Immigration's secondary examination process is working. Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Customs and

Revenue Agency need an updated agreement that includes performance standards and a way to evaluate and measure performance."

I want to repeat that. This is 5.119, page 29,

chapter 5 of the federal auditor's report. They say, "The department does not currently know how well the Canada

Customs and Revenue Agency is performing its immigration-related duties, nor how well Immigration's secondary examination process is working."

That is not acceptable to the citizens of Canada. It's not acceptable for the province of Ontario with respect to the public health and the public security of

this province. It's not proper for the Minister of Health for the federal government to wave off a letter from the Minister of Health for this province with respect to our concerns. It's very clear

why the WHO removed its travel advisory when they were promised that there would be screening done at Pearson International Airport. That screening just started today, with respect to that.

I would say that we have a serious problem in this province with respect to the federal government's approach to immigration and customs and it has to be dealt

with, like the province of Quebec is dealing with it today. They've taken responsibility. We should do so also.

The Acting Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I came into the room, I think maybe like a number of people, very interested in this particular resolution

because it touches upon a number of issues that are of great concern to all members, certainly to Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals.

In particular, I was interested to see whether or not we were here to talk about how Ontario might exercise its concurrent constitutional powers over

immigration. The province of Ontario obviously receives a vast number of new Canadians. Last year, 60% of all newcomers to Canada settled in Toronto. I would hope that, if we are going to continue

with a serious debate on this, we would recognize that the city of Toronto has got to be involved in this particular debate, because the city of Toronto is so impacted by any changes to our

immigration laws and rules. It's interesting that the greater Toronto area is larger in population than any other province in the country next to Quebec and the rest of Ontario. It's larger than

British Columbia, larger than Alberta, larger than any other province, and yet of course it plays no role whatsoever in any such constitutional changes or issues, which is what's being addressed

here.

Other provinces do have agreements with the federal government in terms of particular issues that affect immigration. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick,

Newfoundland and Alberta have all dealt with particular issues, including specific labour market needs. We're quite interested in that too. I can tell you that, particularly when it comes to

foreign-trained professionals who are currently being shut out of many industries in the midst of our labour shortage, one of our commitments for a number of years now has been that we have to

address that and get the regulating, or if not, get the Legislature working to address that.

But that's not what I heard from the member's comments today. It wasn't about those issues, and there are a lot of other issues that come with taking over this

concurrent power. Our jobs would change substantially, and everybody, I would hope, knows that a big part of what an MPP's office does is to deal with this. Amongst other things, you'd have to

dramatically change the set up of MPP's offices, budget and otherwise.

The resolution does state that the province of Ontario take over responsibility for immigration matters. It does not say some; it doesn't say all. I'd be

interested to hear from the member, maybe in his comments, whether he's talking about everything, because everything would be quite a change and not necessarily in the public interest. But on the

other hand, the government of Ontario has, for the last eight years, obviously not expressed any interest in these changes, so there must be a reason for that. Perhaps we can hear from the

government on that front.

If the member wants to have a debate about who did what right and wrong in SARS, we have been having that debate for many days. If the member wants to talk about

a change to the responsibility over airports, that's a bit of a different matter, isn't it? As the member, who's a lawyer, knows, the responsibility for airports falling under the federal

government comes not just for immigration but also, under the Constitution Act,

section 91, sub 10, Minister Collenette, for example, has responsibility over airports because that is a federal

responsibility. It's not just customs. So if the member is interested in taking over airports as well, the budget is getting bigger here.

Interesting, not impossible; there are areas where the provincial government works with, or takes over, federal areas for particular reasons, maybe health

reasons, and can do so. Sometimes it gets fought out in the courts, but by and large, if provinces want to take over responsibilities, then they should.

We, on this side of the House, are interested in this debate and this discussion, particularly as it relates to the workforce in Ontario and as it relates to

economic issues and public safety issues in Ontario. But if this debate is going to be about who did what right and when, who ought to have been golfing or not golfing in Arizona, then we can have

that debate. I hope that the spirit of this doesn't turn into a debate that ought to take place in the federal Parliament, but rather one that deals with the serious provincial issues that have

come to the fore that we talked about in our Opposition Day motion yesterday. I look forward to seeing whether this is just going to be fed-bashing or whether this is a serious discussion about

changes to the responsibilities of the province of Ontario when it comes to new Canadians and airports.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is a delight to stand up here and to speak to this issue, having spent so much of my life speaking to

this issue on many occasions. For members of the House who may not be aware, for 20 years or more before becoming an elected member, I served as counsel to the Minister of Immigration. In fact, I

wrote some of those laws in Ottawa; I enforced the act through the Immigration and Refugee Board at ports of entry and much of what member Tascona had to speak about today.

I will tell you that I came here to speak in favour of his motion but I'm somewhat troubled by the tone with which he speaks. With the greatest of respect, he is

attempting to enter areas of total federal jurisdiction.

It's quite clear that the provinces have a role in immigration, and it is quite clear, in my view, that that should be exercised. I go back to where the province

gets that jurisdiction. It's

Section 95 of the British North America Act, which is still extant, and I'd like to read that into the record.

Section 95 of the British North America Act reads:

"In each province the Legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that

the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the

Legislature of a province relative to agriculture or to immigration shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far as it is not repugnant to any act of the Parliament of Canada."

It's quite clear that when this was written it was the intent that the provinces would have a say in agriculture and immigration but that the federal law would

predominate, and where they were in opposition the federal law would be the one that went forward.

In this province, since 1867, we have always had an agricultural minister and no one would have thought for a moment that we should not have an agricultural

minister, either in this province or federally. In fact, to this day we have them and they co-operate and they come together and they make rules related to agriculture. But this province has never

taken the opportunity of exercising the second option, which is for immigration.

In the days of 1867, most people lived on farms and agriculture was a very large component of the economic lifeblood of this province. It has declined,

unfortunately, and continues to decline as people leave the farms and we get into agribusiness, to the point that immigration is by far the more important of the two roles that can be jointly

exercised today.

I would suggest that a number of other things have happened which make this particular resolution timely. The immigration classes have changed. In the 1950s and

1960s and even up until the late 1980s, those who entered Canada came primarily in the family class and from sponsored and dependent relatives. I know, because I processed some of those

applications for a time. Those people came and they were looked after by the relatives who sent for them and who signed for them to make sure they would not become public charges; by the relatives

who went out and found them work, and by the relatives who made sure that if they fell into tough economic times they did not go on welfare.

Those times have changed. They slowly started to change in the 1980s and then rapidly started to change in the 1990s. Today, the majority of immigrants do not

fall within the family class. The dependent relatives class has been obliterated; it is no longer part of the legislation, and today the majority of people come in the independent category. With

respect, it is because they come within the independent category that, more than ever, the province, and particularly the province of Ontario, has to have a say.

Today, people come from all around the world. Up until the 1950s and 1960s, they came primarily from Europe and from the United States, which were the feeder

countries. Today, quite literally, they come from all of the 180 countries around the world, and they come here expecting that they are going to be treated very well. They come here expecting that

this is a land of opportunity -- which it is; that Ontario is a province of opportunity -- which it is.

When they come here, I will tell you that many of them are disappointed. They are disappointed because Ontario has never done what it is supposed to do, and that

is, be involved in the selection process, and has never really exercised what it needs to do, and that is, to recognize the skills that have been obtained in foreign lands and to use those skills

in a way that will benefit not only the people who come here with them, but will benefit the broader Canadian and Ontario community. We have failed to do that, with respect. We have failed to do

that, and what this bill could do, if it wasn't about fed-bashing, is plug that hole.

I go back to the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec in 1978 established

an act related to immigration in that province, and that act has been changed

some 15 times in that period. It was at first a fairly small act,

an act that established a grid so that people could be chosen with criteria that were not those on which immigrants were chosen for

the rest of Canada, but gave particular points and incentives for people who were able to speak Canada's two official languages, particularly the French language. It gave particular points because

that province was looking for professors and teachers and engineers and doctors and nurses who were able to converse in French. It has been, I would suggest, very successful.

The act today is a much better act than it was in 1978 when I first started to work on it and with it in Ottawa. Today the act contains a number of things which

I think this province should emulate. It contains provisions that allow for the selection of immigrants, as it has always done, but it has broadened out today to include integration, how

applications are made abroad, work permits for people who need to come into the country for a very short period of time, and financial assistance to allow new immigrants to choose Quebec as a place

to live and to work. So Quebec is the chosen designation as opposed to Ontario or British Columbia or other places immigrants might naturally tend to want to go to. Quebec has been very successful

in its application of the law.

What Quebec has not chosen to do is what the member opposite suggested in his opening statement. They have not chosen to go into the enforcement field because

quite literally, and with respect, they cannot. The enforcement field has always and will always continue to be a field that is under federal jurisdiction, and indeed it must be. How do you deport

a person from one province who may not be deportable in another? The law has to be the same. The law has to be dealt with the same and the enforcement aspects of who gets into Canada at a port of

entry or who is forced to leave after they are here if they run afoul of the Immigration Act must be the same in each and every jurisdiction. If it is not, one could merely move from one

jurisdiction to another or fly into one jurisdiction or another or cross the border at one jurisdiction or another and have different applicable laws as to who is admissible and who is not. With

the mobility requirements of the charter, this is an impossibility of which the member speaks.

I am supporting the motion, notwithstanding that I think he has started on the wrong tenet. I am supporting it because it is a good resolution. We see other

provinces that have got into the immigration game as well, such as Manitoba. Manitoba has done many of the same things, and the city of Winnipeg today is a thriving community because people are

coming from all around the world with the skills that Manitobans want. Manitoba has set out the welcome mat. Manitoba has assessed the people who are coming in for their foreign experience. They

have worked hand in hand with industry, particularly in Winnipeg, to bring in skilled workers to make sure that the development of that province proceeds ahead. We would like to emulate, and

believe that we should emulate, what is being done in Manitoba.

In fact, Ontario is the only province of the 10 in Canada that has not signed an immigration accord with Ottawa. Ontario, which is the province most immigrants

come to, has not signed the accord. Because we have not signed the accord, the monies that flow here for immigration settlement are less --

Interjection.

Mr Prue: I'm going to listen to you. I think I know what I'm talking about a good deal more than you do on this topic.

They have not signed the accord. That has to be the first thing that we do: we need to sign the accord as a province. Having signed the accord, we need to do

what Quebec has done; particularly, we need to do it in three fields. The first is in the selection. We need to be there when we are choosing immigrants from around the world. We need to choose the

professionals we need in this province. If we need doctors or nurses or nurse practitioners or if we need atomic scientists or if we need people in particular fields in this province to help

Ontario grow, then we should be there to choose them and to make sure that their transit to Canada and their coming into the general workforce is done in a seamless manner. That is why we need to

be in the selection process.

We need to be in the application process as well. We need to do the assessments overseas, and that will involve a great deal of money, I hope the members

realize. You have to send the equivalent of visa officers to posts around the world to choose those immigrants. But having chosen them, we have a golden opportunity to provide them guidance. We

have a golden opportunity to choose, once we have chosen them, to tell them what upgradings they are going to need in the period they have to wait for their immigrant visa before they come to

Canada. We have an opportunity to tell them that we will accept their qualifications if they take an additional three- or four-month or six-month or a year's course in Canada to upgrade their

skills to meet Canadian standards. People will have an opportunity to determine at that point whether they want to choose Canada and choose Ontario, and we will be better off for it because when

searches, things that we need to do in this province for new immigrant populations.

What we do not need to do, with respect, is get into the whole argument about whether our borders are being properly enforced, whether the Immigration and

Refugee Board, or whatever it's going to morph into in its newest iteration, is doing a proper job. Of course there needs to be more money spent federally; of course there does. Having worked there

myself for more than 20 years, I will tell you there were never enough immigration officers; there was never enough enforcement. And I will tell the members opposite, the very worst minister we

ever had was Flora MacDonald, who opened up most of this stuff and made a mess of it. If you really want to know when it became a mess, it was in the time of Brian Mulroney.

What we should not get into is the whole argument about SARS, because if you work at Pearson airport, as I once did, you will know that the whole issue of health

is handled by an official of Health Canada and by a doctor who is on duty at international airports. That doctor does not work for immigration and customs; that doctor works for health, and anyone

who is deemed to be sick is referred on primary inspection.

The whole issue about customs: customs is a total federal responsibility; it is not a shared jurisdiction. The customs officers at ports of entry belong to the

revenue department and not to the immigration department.

When you're looking at the issue of refugees, which is contained within the Immigration Act, it is a United Nations convention to which Canada is a signatory

nation, having signed as one of the earliest nations in 1951. We are also a signatory nation to the protocol signed in New York in 1967. The protocol signed in 1967 involved Canada, not the

provinces of Canada. It is Canada that is responsible for determining which persons are refugees, how the hearings are held and what rights of appeal they have, not the provinces.

Last but not least, the enforcement aspect is entirely within federal jurisdiction. I explained that earlier. If the removal is to take place, it cannot be a

removal from one province to another; it cannot be a removal which is predicated on different standards. It must be a removal from the country. If people are inadmissible, the same thing holds

true: the inadmissibility must be Canada-wide, not province-wide.

Having said that, I commend the member for bringing this forward. It is high time that Ontario got into the immigration game. It is vital to the security of this

province, but what is more important, it is vital to the economy of this province. If Ontario is going to continue to lag behind the other provinces, if Ontario is not going to seize what is

rightfully theirs, which Quebec so long ago, in 1978, realized was important to them, to their culture and to their economy, then I think we in this province are going to be the losers. It will

cost money, but it is important and it would be the right thing by the people who choose Ontario and the people who choose Toronto as a good place to live.

Mr Speaker, we will be supporting the motion.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I'm quite pleased to be able to rise and speak to this resolution. For the members opposite,

especially the one from Beaches-East York who just spoke, and also the member from St Paul's who spoke, I don't believe the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford was doing any fed-bashing. I think his

resolution is quite clear. He says, "In the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should enter into discussions with the federal government forthwith pursuant to which responsibility for

immigration matters pertaining to the province of Ontario would be transferred to the government of Ontario."

It's not a matter of fed-bashing. In his speech, the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford used sections of the Auditor General's report to justify why he felt a

review is necessary and why we should enter into negotiations. He stated, for example, that there were 36,000 immigrants who had been ordered exported from the country -- deported from the country,

I should say -- over the course of the last six years that the government had lost touch with. They lost touch with 36,000 people whom they had ordered deported.

If you look at this in actual years, in 1997, removal orders were issued for over 14,000; only 8,000 were actually deported. There are similar figures in 1998

and 1999. In 2000, the figures actually improved somewhat in that more than 12,000 were ordered deported and nearly 9,000 were in fact deported. But in 2001 and 2002, the figures seriously reversed

themselves. In 2001, nearly 18,000 people were ordered deported from the country and only 9,000 were in fact deported. In 2002, 14,000 were ordered deported, and only 8,000 were removed from the

country. That is the source of the member's concern.

In addition, and this is very serious, he pointed out the Auditor General's statement that "Immigration officers are present at only 44 of the 272 staffed

ports of entry." Only 44 of 272 ports of entry have an immigration officer. And of these 44 ports, most are not staffed 24 hours a day. That is very, very serious.

What is important to me as a member of a riding in a community that receives the fourth-largest number of immigrants in all of Canada -- I'm not talking

percentages of immigrants; I'm talking numbers of immigrants who make major contributions to our community and to our province and to our county -- when something takes place like September 11,

many of the Sikhs or Muslims who are making major contributions to our community are tarred with a brush and suffer major racial prejudice as a result of the attacks on the federal government's

failure to monitor its immigration system properly. These people should not be tarred with that brush, and wouldn't be tarred with that brush if our government was monitoring its immigration

system. That is why the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has suggested that Ontario should take a greater part, should sit down and negotiate with the federal government on how we can screen, how

we can enforce the immigration process in this country.

The member for St Paul's said that the number of immigrants to Toronto constitutes 60% of all immigrants to this country. That's true. I'm sure he feels, like

I do, that they are making a major contribution to this province and to this community.

And then we have the member for Beaches-East York, the posh Beaches area, suggesting that perhaps we should put restrictions on foreign-trained

professionals.

Interjection.

Mr Wettlaufer: You said that. You said we should put restrictions on them, that we should monitor the skills that are needed in this province

and in this country before we bring them in. You said that. I don't agree with that.

Mr Prue: You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Wettlaufer: You already said that earlier. You said that you knew far more about this issue than anybody else in here. I don't think you

do.

The Acting Speaker: Through the Speaker, please.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Speaker, I appreciate that.

We talked about the immigrant settlement allowance. The member for Beaches-East York said that Ontario was the only province in the country that hadn't signed

the immigration settlement agreement. There are very good reasons for that. That is, the federal government wasn't offering us what it offered the other provinces. It's very simple: they offered --

and agreed to -- the province of Quebec four times what they were willing to offer Ontario. That, of course, is not odd, because in the area of tourism -- which is slightly off topic, I agree --

the federal government offers Quebec, gives Quebec, eight times what it gives Ontario in tourism-events planning. So that's not out of the ordinary.

Even more important, of course, was the issue of SARS. The federal government was not doing proper screening. The World Health Organization stated this. The

only condition on which the World Health Organization withdrew its travel advisory to the city of Toronto was that the federal government would properly implement a screening procedure, which is

something that wasn't being done.

I do say that I will support the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford in this resolution. His motives are very noble.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): When I came in this morning, I guess I was anxious to hear from the government member what the rationale

for this bill was. I can tell you that from listening to the debate this morning I'm quite disturbed as to what this is all about. It sounds innocent on the surface. When you look at what they have

said, though, more than what's in this resolution, this has been about SARS, it has been about screening processes and it has been about September 11. Let me suggest to you that I believe this

resolution here today is dangerous, in view of the way it has been put by the government members. To try to somehow exploit the SARS tragedy and link it to immigration -- we're talking about

screening processes here. We're talking about Canadian citizens who have travelled overseas and come back; Canadian citizens leaving the country and coming into the country. To somehow link SARS to

an immigration policy is outrageous, disturbing and, in my view, exploiting a tragedy in this province.

They talk about screening processes. What does that have to do with a Canadian citizen travelling somewhere else and coming back into Canada and not being

properly screened? What does that have to do with immigration?

The cap of all of this is the quotation from the member from Brampton Centre: "We should at least be more careful about the kind of immigration that comes

in.... I think we should look at it closely, yes, absolutely, because of SARS and because of anything else we ... run the risk of incurring."

What an ignorant comment. What an ignorant comment from a son of an immigrant. I'm lucky, and most of us in this room and across the province are lucky, that

there was no law that decided the type of immigrants that would come into Canada and Ontario. It is disgusting.

Mr Tascona: Mr Speaker, I want that comment removed from the record.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Hamilton East take his seat, please. Which comment?

Interjection: All of them.

Mr Tascona: "Ignorant comment from a son of an immigrant."

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, I don't see, in that context, where that word is unparliamentary. Please take your seat. The member will

continue.

Mr Agostino: I'm upsetting the member because I'm breaking his little code words that he has put in this resolution here.

To do it in the context in which it has been done, to do it in the context of the comments from the member for Brampton Centre, and to somehow put this as some

benign immigration policy is an insult to the millions of immigrants in this province.

Mr Tascona: You're an insult.

Mr Agostino: What are the right types of immigrants? You tell me what the right types of immigrants to Ontario are, sir. Maybe when you get

your chance, you'll tell me what the right type of immigrants are. To link the SARS outbreak to an immigration issue, to somehow suggest that if you come from a certain country you're to blame for

what's happened here in Ontario, is disgusting.

Mr Wettlaufer: You're an apologist.

Mr Agostino: I'm angered. No, I'm an apologist for your comments, sir. What your member has said -- and no one has distanced himself from that

-- in this policy today, in my view, is an insult to all Ontarians who have come here from other countries.

This is simply a code word to try to blame others for what has happened in Ontario, to try to blame people who come from other countries, who have different

skin colour or a different religion for SARS and September 11, as has been mentioned. I'm angry. I think many Ontarians are going to be angered by this. This is not some feel-good policy to control

immigration and make Ontario a better place. This is to choose who comes into Ontario. This is to somehow link immigration with the fact that the federal government may have failed in their

screening process at Pearson airport. To somehow link the failure of the federal government to properly screen people who have come into this country, maybe Canadian citizens coming back, to an

immigration policy is absurd, to say the least.

I cannot, in any way, shape or form, agree with this. I realize the members are getting a little rattled over there, and I appreciate their uncomfortableness

with having what this is all about exposed. The reality is that the immigration policy in this country, despite its flaws, has worked well over the years.

The member talks about the number of illegal immigrants or people who haven't left the country. Yes, that's a problem. He refers to 36,000. Ideally there

should be none. These same members who wrap themselves in the American flag every chance they get should realize there are over 350,000 illegal immigrants in the United States of America today.

Despite their crackdown, despite their anti-immigrant stance, there are still over 350,000 illegal immigrants in the United States of America. As they wrap themselves in the American flag every

chance they get, they should remember that.

I cannot, under any circumstance, support this type of bill -- a bill that, in my view, is anti-immigration; a bill that, in my view, is set up to screen the

type of people who come into Ontario; a bill that, in my view, exploits the SARS tragedy, somehow blaming it on certain people from certain countries.

The breakdowns that have occurred should be fixed, but to somehow suggest that they are linked to the immigration policy of the federal government and that

Ontario controlling this would somehow fix it is absurd. In my view, it's an insult to every immigrant who has ever set foot in this province, in this country. There is no way that I could ever

support this type of biased policy; it goes against the grain of everything we believe in this province and against the intent and grain of every immigrant who has ever come to Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, right now.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd like to bring things back to sort of a normal pitch, if I may, respectfully. I want to start by reading the

member for Barry-Simcoe-Bradford's resolution, which we're discussing, and clarify some of the weak and very spurious information that was presented just a few moments ago.

"In the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should enter into discussions with the federal government forthwith pursuant to which responsibility

for immigration matters pertaining to the province of Ontario would be transferred to the government of Ontario."

I think that's a reasonable request. There are certain suggestions -- I think there are really three aspects to the immigration process: the selection process

first, the screening and the enforcement. I think it's really on the latter, the enforcement part, where the federal government has to some extent, and more recently, fallen down.

This isn't a comment made by this government as much as it is a comment made by the federal Auditor General. With your indulgence, I would like to read, for

the record, some of the comments she made. I think she was trying to say to us that the issue of enforcement has shown up more recently under the SARS initiative. It's for the public's safety. All

Ontarians, indeed all Canadians, need to be reassured and have some confidence that the federal government is exercising due diligence and taking public safety seriously. The Auditor General said

here in her report for April, 2003 -- and I just want to repeat these for the record. It's from page 24 of her report. "During the past six years, the department" -- that is the Department of

Citizenship and Immigration Canada -- "has removed an average of about 8,400 persons per year." There's a

schedule here to exhibit that. "In 2002, some 8,100 persons were removed from the country."

The point she's making here is, "The gap between removal orders and confirmed removals has grown by about 36,000 in the past six years." That really implies that the court or some process, some

legally constituted process, has determined that there's a number of removal orders -- these are people who are here illegally who should be removed -- and that list is growing. The chart shows

very clearly that that list, the removal orders, is growing faster than the orders to remove. In other words, they're not actually practising due diligence and dealing with the enforcement

matters.

It's even more alarming, actually. All Ontarians, indeed all Canadians, need to understand this is the fundamental issue that I think, respectfully, Quebec has

used to their advantage by taking a more proactive position on the three phases that I mentioned earlier.

This is the second alarm bell on page 16 of the auditor's report on Citizenship and Immigration, in

section 5.56. It says, "Immigration officers are present at

only 44 of the 272 staffed ports of entry and most of those 44," of the 272, "are not staffed 24 hours a day by immigration officers." Those persons who illegally want into the country or abuse the

privilege of living in Canada -- this information would be on the Web site, as is appropriate. So guess where they would be coming in? At the most vulnerable spots.

It's those few people who spoil it for the vast majority, and when I say the vast majority, as I look around the House, I see even our Minister of Citizenship,

who is here listening today -- he's also, by the way, the provincial minister who would be responsible, the senior person on the lead file of immigration provincially; he has a Portuguese

background. In fact, if I look at myself -- I always look in the mirror -- I have an Irish background. If I look at Mr Tascona, he has an Italian background. The previous speaker, Mr Wettlaufer, I

believe has a German background. I'm looking around me and almost every person -- Mr Mazzilli is here this morning; he's Italian. Almost all the members here very much reflect the collage of

different cultures and nationalities, and religions, for that matter, that make up this great province. This in no way has, nor would I want anyone to imply that this has, any tone of intolerance

to it, because I would not stand here and support any resolution on any side that had any tone of intolerance.

There will be those who will draw political fire to it and potentially -- the Liberal members like to think they have ownership. But if I look at the comments

made by the Auditor General -- and more recently, by Sheila Copps, the federal minister who is in the leadership thing, she has brought up that Anne McLellan isn't properly executing her

responsibilities. The member for Hamilton East used to work for Sheila Copps, so I think he comes to this without a clear, objective position.

If you're going back to the premise of Mr Tascona's resolution here, it's for the collective safety that governments are responsible for, in the case of West

Nile virus, in the case of SARS, in the case of persons who constitute a threat. The province is responsible for the issue of public safety, and in that respect I support this. Any suggestion of

tampering with the selection process, the screening process, I have very serious reservations that it could be misconstrued. What this is to me, in

summary, is a respect for process, respect for

people, respect for the responsibilities that governments are required to execute and carry out on behalf of the people who elect them.

It would appear, from what the Auditor General has said and the comments here this morning, that that respect has been threatened and the execution of those

responsibilities is at risk. It's in that context that I respect and support Mr Tascona's intent to have the province meet forthwith and discuss with the federal government responsibilities for

immigration matters that pertain to the province of Ontario. In that context, I am supportive of the resolution.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I'm here today basically to express my outrage at this cheap attempt by the member for

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and his Conservative colleagues to exploit a most tragic health situation that occurred in Ontario, the SARS outbreak, and equate it to basic problems, supposedly, as they've

said, with immigration. They have talked about immigration as a problem, illegal immigrants -- the member from Oshawa just stood up -- they've talked about September 11, all in this resolution

about immigration now being taken over by Ontario. The people of Ontario are much smarter than you. They know what you're up to. They know what your intent is. Your intent is to basically say that

if we control these immigrants, we're going to solve these problems.

The SARS outbreak was not about an immigration problem or about the immigrants. SARS was a health problem. It was a government problem. It was not about these

people from different countries who have built this country, built this province with their blood, sweat and tears. For you, the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, to say it's their fault that

we've got SARS is an abomination, and you should resign your seat for blaming that on immigrants.

As an immigrant myself, I've seen for too long how you Conservatives patronize new Canadians. Why don't you have a resolution celebrating the great

contributions immigrants have made to Ontario? Instead, you come here trying to slag them and blame them for problems like SARS. That's what you're trying to do. You're trying to speak to the

extreme right-wing radicals in your party who like beating up on new Canadians. That's what you're trying to do.

The people of Ontario can see through this phony resolution because immigrants have come here, worked and raised families. One of the reasons Ontario's so

prosperous is because new immigrants have bought cars and houses. Ninety-nine per cent of new immigrants work and are law-abiding. They don't cause any problems. Yet, we have a resolution here

today trying to exploit this horrific tragedy of SARS, saying that if we do something about immigrants, if we stop them at the airport, if the feds start stopping them at the airport, then we won't

have these problems.

We know what they're getting at. Thankfully, the people of Ontario have moved beyond blaming things on groups. That's what you're doing. You're blaming these

groups of immigrants. If the feds step on them, screen them and put them in jail, then this problem will be eliminated.

This is an amazing indictment against the Conservative Party and all of you members who stand up here at this time of great provincial and city danger in terms

of health. We have to come together as a community and say this is not about the Chinese, Italian, Portuguese or Sri Lankan communities. This is about all the citizens of Ontario solving a problem

of health. It's a health issue that we've got to solve. Instead, you've done the worst thing possible.

The member from Barrie should be ashamed of himself for trying to exploit this issue of health and blaming it on immigrants. You should withdraw this

resolution. You should be condemned for trying to exploit this for your political advantage. It's a shameful resolution that nobody should support.

The Acting Speaker: I believe all party time has expired in terms of the caucuses. Therefore, Mr Tascona now has up to two minutes for closing

remarks.

Mr Tascona: I'm very pleased to close out this debate. Certainly the province has a role in the immigration system constitutionally, as

pointed out by the MPP for Beaches-East York. The resolution I have put forth today speaks to exercising that provincial role, which we constitutionally have the right to do. It's vital to our

economy and to the security of this province. Yes, we've entered a new world since 9/11. That's a fact. But the fact also is that the federal Auditor General is not satisfied with the enforcement

of the immigration system.

What I'm speaking about today is dealing with proper selection, proper screening. That's something the province of Quebec is doing right now. That's their

constitutional right. They negotiated with the federal government. I think the member from St Paul's pointed out that other provinces -- he mentioned Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Alberta

-- have gone into specific issues with respect to immigration. Why can't we? Why can't we stand up here today and say that we want to have a role like other provinces? What's wrong with that?

That's all my resolution speaks to.

This province has a role to play. This resolution says, "Start exercising that role." That's what other provinces are doing. Public security and the public

health of this province are the responsibilities of this province. The federal government makes the rules with respect to criminal activity, and we enforce those. We have that role.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. This is not going to get out of hand; I'm telling you right now.

GRIDLOCK

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): I move that in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government should adopt Dalton McGuinty's

Growing Strong Communities platform to tackle gridlock by dedicating two cents of the existing gas tax to municipalities to use for transit, and by creating the Greater Toronto Transportation

Authority and giving it the resources and mandate to repair the damage from years of neglect by:

Putting more GO trains on existing lines;

Expanding GO parking;

New vehicles for the TTC;

Removing highway bottlenecks;

Establishing a seamless integrated ticket system allowing users to move across the GTA region with a single ticket.

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Mr Sorbara has moved private member's resolution number 4. The member for Vaughan-King-Aurora

now has up to 10 minutes to present the arguments for his resolution.

Mr Sorbara: Sooner or later Ernie Eves, the Premier of Ontario, is going to have the courage to call an election. That may come later on this

month. He said it might come in September. He said it might come next year. Voters all across --

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Just be ready.

Mr Sorbara: My friend says, "Just be ready." There is no doubt, sir, that we're ready.

I think the marvellous thing about elections is that the population of the province has an opportunity to examine the record of the incumbent government, in

this case the Harris-Eves government. I think when that examination takes place, overwhelmingly the theme will be this: that during the course of eight years, when the economy of Ontario was

growing and expanding rapidly, the great tragedy in Ontario was that public services of every variety fell into disrepair.

That certainly has been the case in education.

That certainly has been the case in health care, and we see that most recently in the case of the quality of public health care in the province of Ontario.

That certainly has been the case in our public services that deal with environmental protection.

I submit to you today -- and it's the basis of this resolution -- that that is most assuredly the case when it comes to managing transportation systems, the

public responsibility to do that, and certainly in the greater Toronto area.

In my two years back in this House representing the people of Vaughan-King-Aurora, I hear on a daily basis how angry people are about the fact that over the

course of the past eight years, nothing has been done to improve public transportation throughout the GTA.

You hear it every day. Let me just give you an example of what I'm talking about. Back in 1989, I was part of a government that made a commitment to expand the

Toronto subway system along University Avenue up to York University. It was approved by cabinet, the funding was there, we were going to go ahead with it. It has never been done.

Right across the GTA, we've had expansions of close to 100,000 people and more. What has the government done in the area of public transportation? People who

use the TTC every day know that just the buses themselves, the regularity of the subway -- the whole system has fallen into disrepair.

In York region, some attempts have been made to start a system, and in that regard -- let's be fair here -- I want to congratulate the government on one small

point. At the 11th hour, a few days before an election, they finally had the courage to take one small step. They have adopted the fourth part of the resolution that we're proposing: establishing a

seamless, integrated ticket system allowing users to move across the GTA. We heard the announcement from the Ministry of Transportation just a few days ago. That's yet another thing that has been

lifted from Liberal proposals for the campaign and incorporated into the Tory pre-election announcements. Good. Let's get it done. That's one less thing, I tell my friends over there, we'll have to

do after the next election.

But I'll tell you something: this does not work unless --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. Take your seat. Hopefully I'll only have to do this once.

I'm not going to mention the members. You know who you are. I'm going to ask you to be quiet or you're going to leave.

I'm sorry for the interruption. I hope there won't be another one.

Mr Sorbara: The point I'm trying to make is that this announcement by the Minister of Transportation doesn't really work until we do what

really needs to be done and acknowledge that the greater Toronto area needs a greater Toronto transportation authority.

Sir, you and I were very young when the Toronto Transit Commission was formed. I'm not even sure you were born. But I have a vague memory of it. It used to be

that in Metropolitan Toronto, now the city of Toronto, there were 13 transportation authorities. The wisdom of Metropolitan Toronto was that there would be one transportation authority in Toronto,

and that was the TTC. That was in the early 1950s. At that time, that was all that was necessary. Well, over the course of the past 50 years, the transportation area has expanded to take in all

five municipalities in the greater Toronto area. What we're proposing here and what needs to be done and what is going to be done after the next election, should we be successful, is we're going to

create a greater Toronto transportation authority to integrate the transportation system so that one can move seamlessly through the system without the chaos which now exists.

My friends over there are cackling and making noise. I just want to tell them that last Saturday, I had the opportunity to speak at the annual general meeting

of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, an organization that is friendly to all political parties but which has had, shall I say, a special relationship with the government party. I just want to read a

resolution passed by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce at their annual meeting:

"To immediately create and fund the resolve, a task force to conduct a three-month study on establishing a transportation authority.... The study will make

recommendations on the authority's geographic scope, mandated activities, governance structure, business plan, revenue streams and accountability provisions."

That's not much different than the Ontario Liberal Party is proposing, should we win the next election. This is not even a partisan thing. This is something

that needs to be done. This city, this region and this greater Toronto area is not working any more because of gridlock.

Over the course of the past eight years under their administration, what have we seen in terms of initiatives? Transportation systems falling into disrepair.

There is a theme from over there. If you're in the private sector, things have gotten better. If you're a public transportation user, things have gotten worse. You see that in education. If you go

to private schools, you're getting a tax credit. If you go to public schools, everything is cut back. It's the same thing in transportation. You ask one user of the Toronto Transit Commission

system whether it's better now than it was eight years ago. During a time of great economic growth, no investments have been made, and this has got to stop. We are choking on our traffic out

there.

I am delighted that just a few minutes ago my leader announced to the province that, should we be elected, we're going to be rolling back rates on Highway 407

and we're going to be regulating them. Highway 407 is yet another example of where if you're rich, if you've got all the resources you need, you get private highways built and there's no limit to

the fare increases. What investments, I ask my friends on the other side, have you made in public transit in the same area that is served by Highway 407?

These themes must change. Government in Ontario has to start looking at the public interest, the consumer interest, has to start looking at what is in the

interest of the overall population. Selling Highway 407 at bargain-basement prices and inviting the owners to raise rates at their leisure was not in the public interest. Falling behind eight years

in building public transportation systems was not in the public interest, just like giving tax credits for private education is not in the public interest.

But all that, sir, I tell you, is going to be re-examined over the course of the 28 days when this province determines a choice for the new government. I want

to put my friends on the other side on notice that during the 28 days, this party will be campaigning exclusively for the public interest of Ontario, not the private interest, and it is in the

public interest in Ontario that we have this kind of transportation authority.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this Liberal resolution, and I want to speak to a couple of points in the

resolution.

First of all, the Liberal Party says it wants to put more GO trains on existing lines. Well, that's nice, but it's a sign that Mr Sorbara doesn't really

understand transit. If the Liberals had any experience with real transit issues, they would know that it's not just a matter of buying more trains. I have news for the opposition: trains run on

tracks. Sometimes the track can be as much of a problem as the trains themselves. In the GTA, several parties own the tracks at different points: GO Transit, CP and CN Rail in particular. Those

tracks aren't always able to handle more traffic, especially because of grade separation issues or

schedule complications. The work is expensive. To put more trains on, which we already have

budgeted the money to do, we have to fix the tracks as well, and do it in a way that matches the schedules.

That's why we brought the federal government to the table last winter to negotiate a partnership -- without, I might add, the help of the opposition Liberals,

who for eight years now have never stood up to their federal cousins in Ottawa. And again on this one, they helped Ontario not at all. We persuaded the federal government to match strategic

infrastructure fund monies to our innovative $1-billion GTIP fund. For people at home, that's the Golden Horseshoe Transit Investment Partnerships. The Liberal Party of Ontario proved that they

value political partisanship more than the public good when they pushed their federal colleagues to push the announcement of these investments out prematurely. They really did this; they tried to

sabotage a major transit investment for their own political ends. But I'm pleased to say that despite these efforts, the opposition will be hearing those new trains coming down the tracks, right at

them, in the near future.

Second, the Liberal Party wants new vehicles for the TTC. Our Ontario transit renewal partnership fund is already replacing and refurbishing vehicles not just

in Toronto but across the GTA. I want to ask the members across the way, why is it that the Liberals only seem to believe that transit is about Toronto? What about Mississauga or Barrie or Guelph

or Niagara? If they want to reduce congestion, don't we have to serve new riders as well as old?

Finally, the real gem. The Liberals, in this resolution, want to establish a seamless integrated ticket system allowing users to move across the GTA region

with a single ticket. This is very funny. We've already been piloting such a system in Richmond Hill. The pilot is now over. Yesterday we announced our --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member in the backbenches of the Liberal Party will know that I didn't allow what he's now doing on the other side of

the benches, and I'm no more going to allow it from him than I did them. Now stop.

Sorry for the interruption; please continue.

Mr Maves: Yesterday we announced our fare card plan, which will allow riders to do just what the Liberals now, all of a sudden, seem to want.

It's like a light went on over there. It will be phased in over the next five years.

Yesterday, when we announced this in this House, it was interesting to note that even though they have the resolution today calling for it and will probably

vote in favour of it, the members from Don Valley East and Eglinton-Lawrence stood up and actually mocked us for the fare card plan. We had a stupid idea, they said. Today I think they're going to

vote in favour of it with this member's resolution.

They said we lacked vision. Why would they say this? Apparently our crime is that we are already establishing a seamless, integrated ticket system allowing

users to move across the GTA region with a single ticket just like the one Mr Sorbara calls for, just like the one we talked about yesterday that the Liberals mocked but they're going to vote in

favour of today. They really should coordinate their resolutions and their comments a little better.

As they said in a press release yesterday, the TTC is participating as a member of the Ontario government task force on inter-regional transit fare cards. The

release goes on to explain that the TTC's hope is to move into the system at the end of the life cycle of their existing fare technology. The Liberals call for this technology to be throughout the

province in 18 months; the TTC says it's not possible. We have a more rational

schedule and we're willing to work with the TTC on this.

Finally, Mr Sorbara and his colleagues stand there and insist that we are stealing ideas from the Liberals. As I've just said, this whole idea has been in a

pilot project system for quite some time now. The Liberals want the public to believe that all of this stuff is somehow the brainchild of their caucus. Well, our Smart Growth and smart

transportation policies have been in development for years, because good policy takes time. Some of the ideas are ours, but most of them are from other cities, from stakeholders, from thoughtful

leaders who volunteered their time for the Smart Growth process, and quite frankly from our party's policy advisory council process, a standing process started by Mike Harris in 1990 where we have

policy advisory councils that meet monthly to discuss policy in every aspect of Ontario government life.

Also, I would point out our Seizing Tomorrow's Opportunities process, where we undertook the largest political consultation in Ontario's history. Many

transportation issues were raised: expansion of GO, the integrated seamless fare system. All of that has come about over the past few years. It's nothing new, but apparently, as I say, a light has

gone on for the Liberals opposite.

What makes this government work is the fact that we, unlike the Liberal Party, can be relied on to actually make things happen, to actually do what we say we

are going to do. Some of this work is underway as I speak. Money is flowing, new buses are being bought, and construction is underway. So we thank Mr Sorbara for his resolution and we thank him for

the opportunity to talk, but he's wasting his breath and ours. He's behind the times.

If he wants to waste his breath on something, I suggest that for once the Ontario Liberal Party start to stand up to their federal Liberal cousins. Several

years ago, we challenged the federal Liberals to match our $3-billion transit infrastructure program. The federal Liberals have refused to match that $3 billion. Ontario Liberals likewise have been

the only political party in Canada that has refused to stand up to the federal Liberals about their underfunding of health care. At some point in time, they're going to have to stand up to their

federal cousins. Health care would be a help. Transit might be another area where Mr Sorbara would decide to go to his federal cousins and stand up for the province of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would like to speak in favour of the resolution from a member who is from the GTA and has a resolution

which I think, for the purposes of the GTA, has some compelling arguments and can be expanded to other parts of the province.

First of all, I want to say that I'm delighted to hear the news that finally somebody is going to tackle the exorbitant Highway 407 rates that we're seeing.

It's most unfortunate that at the last election the government sold Highway 407 so they could balance the budget. Once again we hear the Dominion Bond Rating Service saying, "No matter what the

provincial government is saying today, there is no way they can balance the budget without having yet another fire sale."

You took a public asset, which was Highway 407 in essence, and made it a private asset and now people are being gouged for the purpose of using it. So people

who are wealthy enough to use it do so and those who are not are forced to use the other roads.

In terms of transit, I was once chair of the transit commission in St Catharines. At that time the provincial government -- it was the Bill Davis government at

that time, a Conservative government, and then with subsequent governments the same thing happened -- paid 75% of all approved capital costs for municipal transit systems and approximately 50% of

the costs of operating. Today, this government pays nothing. First of all, they got out of the business altogether until probably around 2000. They made an announcement, "We're getting out of the

business of public transit."

I always felt, again as a person who is involved in public transit, it was important to have, as any jurisdiction in North America would say, a strong

provincial component to it, and yet individual transit commissions have been abandoned, unfortunately. They have to purchase their own equipment. Once in a while they get some money from the

government and their own operating costs. So it comes either from the fare box or the property tax, which in my view is not fair.

There's a need to expand public transit to a lot of the province. The federal government made an announcement -- and my good friend from Niagara Falls might be

surprised how often there is communication that takes place with the federal representatives, suggesting what would be good and demanding what would be good for the province of Ontario. I know it

was disappointing to the government because they wanted to make an announcement themselves, but the federal government put their chips on the table and said, "Look, we're prepared to provide

funding for such things as highways and GO Transit." I suspect that we may see an announcement -- I hope we do -- that there will be highway improvements through St Catharines because there are

egress and access roads, exits and access roads, in the city that are quite dangerous at the present time. I suspect that announcement may come very soon because we have the federal government of

course saying that they're prepared to be participants in this, just as they said with GO Transit. As we've expanded around the province, the federal government has now put its chips on the table

and said, "Look, we want to see it in places like Niagara." My friend from Niagara Falls and my friend from Erie-Lincoln, Mr Hudak, and probably I would think our minister from Stoney Creek, Brad

Clark, would all want to see an expanded service in that area. We have not seen it yet, but with the federal government coming through with its money now it'll increase the pressure on the

provincial government to move in this direction. I think it would be good.

My friend from Niagara Falls would agree with me that it's a two-way street. I think he would say it's a two-way street. Not only would there be an opportunity

for people who have medical appointments or business appointments or perhaps employment in the city of Toronto to go back and forth from the Niagara region, but also he and I would like to see

people coming from the Toronto area to Niagara on a more frequent basis. That would even mean, for instance, that Via Rail may want to increase the number of trains that they have coming in. We

need that expanded public transit, but we need a definite commitment.

The wrong signal was sent out when the Harris government, when Premier Eves was the Treasurer, totally abandoned public transit, got out of the business

completely. Well, as a result of the opposition making a good case for it, as a result of the public and the municipalities and so on, they were essentially forced back into public transit. It was

very reluctant. My suspicion is that if they were to be re-elected we would see them go back to their old position.

The Liberal Party has said -- and I thought this was a very good piece of the platform -- that we would give to municipalities the right to two cents of the

gas tax in the province of Ontario to be designated for transit purposes. That would go an awfully long way to helping municipalities meet their obligations and their desires in the field of public

transit.

There are a lot of good things in this document, and a lot of good things in a lot of our documents we've put out, Growing Strong Communities and others. Yes,

the government has lifted many of these. I could call for a police investigation of the theft of these ideas, but I consider it flattery when another party takes your ideas and wants to implement

them.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I looked at this resolution today. I didn't get past the first line and I realized that this was entirely

a political document. Quite frankly, I don't know how the honourable member expects anyone to support it, even though it does have some laudable goals, unless of course one is a member of the

Liberal Party, because it reads, "The Ontario government should adopt Dalton McGuinty's Growing Strong Communities platform." If I were as a person to vote for this, then I would be saying that I

adopt the Liberal platform. Of course, it is impossible for me to do that knowing full well that their platform is far inferior to our own. I would suggest that the Tories have already adopted most

of the platform. We heard squeals form you this week at the time of the throne speech that they were stealing all of your ideas. I heard from the honourable member opposite --

Mr Sorbara: We didn't steal any of yours, my friend.

Mr Prue: That's good. We don't want them to steal our ideas because our ideas are unique and progressive, which is why they will not steal

them.

Having said that, that's the point at which I must start. Are there some good ideas in this? Of course there are some good ideas in this. Is it progressive? Is

it long-going? I don't think that it goes far enough. Speaking of stealing ideas, it goes on in that first sentence to say "by dedicating two cents of the existing gas tax to municipalities to use

for transit." That was first proposed by the NDP more than two years ago. It was the first place that it surfaced in all of Canada. It was there, it was proposed before I even came to this chamber

and it is now part of the Liberal platform. It is not unusual around this House or in political parties for one party to steal another party's ideas. The only thing that I would wish was that they

would give credit where credit was due.

Mr Sorbara: Are you saying you're a Liberal in a hurry?

Mr Prue: That was an old definition of a New Democrat, being a Liberal in a hurry. I would like to think it goes a little bit more than

that.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Prue: I have also heard that Liberals are often Conservatives who go a little slower.

You have the whole problem here --

Interjection.

Mr Prue: Mr Speaker, I thought you were trying to maintain order. Is that still going on, or is Mr Sorbara unique from the group?

Anyway, I think the problem with this resolution goes to the Greater Toronto Transit Authority. This was proposed yesterday and I heard Mr Caplan speak against

it. Mr Caplan spoke against what was being proposed by the Conservatives, but today we find that a very similar proposal is being put forward. And we, with the greatest of respect, think this is a

wrong-headed way to go. By establishing an authority over the entire GTA, it will have two effects. One is that it will give additional monies, which is not necessarily a bad thing, to the 905 area

in order to get people out of their cars and on to public transit. But the second effect is not a good one. The second effect, I would suggest, is to literally starve the Toronto Transit

Commission. We know that the Toronto Transit Commission carries more riders, 80% of all the riders in the GTA. We know that the buses and the travelled routes are 90% of all of those travelled in

the GTA. And we know that the Toronto Transit Commission has not been properly funded since the election of the Mike Harris government. In fact, even though the members opposite will talk about

giving some $3 billion spread out over five years, and having given a little bit of money for the Sheppard subway, the people of Toronto know that is a far cry from what happened prior to 1995.

Prior to 1995, the government of Ontario paid 75% of the transportation costs for capital -- not for operating, but for capital. That 75% allowed for the building of subways. That 75% allowed for

new buses and new technology so that there wasn't all diesel. We had natural gas and other exciting things. That 75% allowed for the community buses that used to go around our neighbourhoods. That

75% allowed for buses and streetcars to be regularly upgraded and the systems upgraded.

All of that has passed. With respect to the Sheppard subway -- which was, I think, the wrong place to build it, but at least it was a subway -- we see that

that is the only subway system that has been built in many, many years in Toronto. With respect, in a very mature urban environment, transit is absolutely essential.

We see this proposal as not doing enough.

Whereas the member opposite said, "You know, they seem to be Toronto-centric," I would suggest the Liberals are not

Toronto-centric enough.

We, in the New Democratic Party, believe that you must reward communities that have transit systems. That is why our proposal is very different from the one

here. That is why I cannot support theirs, even though it is moving slightly in the right direction, because it does not go far enough.

If you will allow, this is what we think needs to be done. It's taken from Public Power, our practical solutions, page 42, if anyone is interested. In a

nutshell:

"Howard Hampton and the NDP would guarantee stable year-after-year funding to build a strong public transit system and properly maintain our highways and

roads. The NDP's Ontario transportation trust fund would dedicate there cents from the existing 14.7 cents a litre gas tax ($468 million a year) to transportation, and to no other purpose. An

independent board would ensure accountability. Municipalities would have the option of increasing the percentage of the fund to be used for public transit, set initially at 60% for municipal public

transit and 25% for road and highway maintenance. The remaining 15% -- a total of $70 million guaranteed each year -- would be dedicated to building and maintaining Go Transit. That will help

people from the 905 communities around Toronto to commute to work, shop and study.

"Finally, the NDP public transportation plan would provide targeted funding to allow college and university students, senior citizens and people enrolled in a

job training program to obtain public transit passes at one third the full rate."

That seems to me to be a great deal more sensible in terms of solutions. It is not Toronto-centric, because it allows the people of Niagara Falls, Guelph,

Kitchener and London, who have public transit systems, to use the money from the gas tax. It allows municipalities that do not have transit systems to use some of the money for building and road

maintenance to make sure that we don't have potholes. It allows for the purchase of buses in communities that do not have a transit system so that they might have one. It also ensures that the

money is dedicated to resolving the gridlock problem. We do not see that in this particular resolution.

The resolution goes on to talk about how the Liberals are going to sort of work against sprawl. This resolution is going to help the problem of sprawl. One has

to remember back -- it's a few years ago now, and I don't like to go back to governments that are 15 years old. But we all remember that when Mr Peterson called the election in 1990, he was brought

down. He was brought down largely because the public was fed up with the close ties the Liberal Party had at that time to the developers. Names like Patti Starr, of course, come immediately to

mind, but also those of Bratty, Muzzo and De Gasperis. Those names brought the Liberal Party down. They were involved in all of this sprawl. They were involved in the building of homes in the GTA.

They were involved in the deals that were being made that, quite frankly, the public had no time for.

At the same time that all of these arguments -- a few years went by, the NDP brought in --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): You've got the same sort of plan as the Liberals.

Mr Prue: We don't have the same plan.

Mr Gerretsen: Yes, you do.

Mr Prue: No, we have a better plan. At the same time, after the coming of the NDP government in 1990, the NDP put forward a planning act, a

green planning act. That planning act was to try to stop urban sprawl. The Liberals voted against it. The Liberals vowed that if they won the next election, they would get rid of the planning act.

Of course, they did not win the next election, and the Tories did it for them.

But the reality is that they wanted to go back to the days of sprawl. I would suggest that this is nothing more than a cover-up of their real intention.

What else is needed here? What is being talked about is a greater Toronto transit authority. We do not believe that transit authority would be in the best

interest of the people of the GTA. We think what is far more important is to get back to a governance structure that has proven it can work. We believe the Greater Toronto Services Board of elected

officials within the greater Toronto area is the way to mediate and the way to get things done. That was our proposal. It was implemented by the Conservatives and now disbanded.

With respect -- and especially with respect to Hazel McCallion, whom I admire very much -- the Smart Growth panels are not the way to resolve these issues. The

Smart Growth panels are made up of non-elected people who do not have to go back to the public and who do not have to be accountable. We need a Greater Toronto Services Board of elected officials

from each of the municipalities, who can sit down and negotiate, and we need a province that wants to be part of a huge development of infrastructure related to transportation to stop gridlock.

It makes absolutely no sense that in Toronto the subway stops at Finch Avenue. That subway should extend up Yonge Street. That subway should go all the way up

Yonge Street, as far as it can possibly and reasonably go to pick people up. It should not stop at Finch Avenue; it should be included. I don't know how one does that when it ends up that the city

of Toronto is responsible for paying for it. That's why it stopped at Finch. That's why it doesn't go beyond Finch, up to Steeles. That's why it doesn't go beyond Steeles. That's why it doesn't go

to York University or beyond York University, if you're talking about the University line. It's because the city of Toronto, quite frankly, cannot pay for it. It needs to be paid for by some of the

other municipalities, and the municipalities under our plan would have the money and the wherewithal to do that.

We also think that the province should get back in in a bigger way. Sure, it's laudable that some money is being given after the 75% was cut, but it is simply

not enough. Our proposal would put in some $468 million to do precisely that. What is contained in this Liberal platform document that is being put forward here today is the total of some $312

million. Again, the part that is problematic is not that $312 million is not enough -- we don't think it is -- but how that money would be split. There is nothing in this motion or in their

platform, with respect, as to which municipalities would get the money. Would it be the municipalities that have transit systems already in existence that need it? Would it be municipalities that

don't have any transit system per se? Who is going to get it? How are they going to get it? Is the GTTA going to give the money on a 50-50 basis, both inside and outside Toronto, based on

population, as it is approximately 50-50? Is it going to be based on ridership? Is it going to be based on need? It quite simply is not here, and many of us fear that the Toronto Transit Commission

would ultimately be the loser.

That is why all of the members of the Toronto Transit Commission, from its chair to the people who work for the commission -- the various commissioners, those

who occupy senior positions -- oppose a GTTA. They oppose the fact because they believe that in the long term, the overwhelming majority of transit users in this province who live in mature

environments like Toronto, like London, like Ottawa will ultimately be the losers. So, quite frankly, I have some very real difficulty supporting this today.

I'd just like to go back to where I started from: that this is clearly a political document. It is not untoward, I suppose, with an election looming in two or

three weeks and everyone expecting to be out there knocking on doors, that people are trying to put their party's best foot forward, but this should not be seen as anything more than an election

document, an attempt to try to put the Liberal Party's position before the people of Ontario in this Legislature. It is not illegal and it is not immoral, and I guess people can do that if they

wish, but it should be seen as nothing more than that. It is not a solution; it is an election document. The Conservatives have put forward theirs and I suppose I have put forward mine now as

well.

The people ultimately will decide who speaks best for transit, who speaks best and who is committed to transit in the province. We believe that the three-cent

dedicated fund, the $468 million, the sharing on an equitable basis and the building of roads is the way to go, and we cannot support something that only goes halfway.

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's a pleasure for me to join in the debate this morning. I have

to say that I rarely agree with the NDP speakers but the member for Beaches-East York, who was a former councillor and a former mayor, when he says that he can't support this resolution, it's clear

that we can't support this resolution because it doesn't do enough.

I find it strange, actually, that the Liberals would bring this forward in this manner instead of waiting for an opposition day and introducing legislation for

full debate. It comes to us on a Thursday morning at private members' hour as a resolution, dashed together like all the other policies that are not well thought out and introduced by someone other

than their leader -- wannabe leader, but not their leader, the leader they keep under cloak. They need to do this in case they change their mind later on, the way they changed their mind on Hydro,

the way they can't decide on the double-hatter issue and the way they changed their mind on the equity in education tax credit, the way the Leader of the Opposition changes his mind on teacher

strikes. Yesterday he was for it; today he's against it. We await the decision of tomorrow.

We do know one thing about the Liberals and that is that they will raise taxes, increase spending beyond revenue and run deficits. How do I know that? Because

of their record. Everyone in the province knows that.

So let me begin my remarks with this qualifier: we debate this Liberal policy today knowing that they will change their mind later, knowing that they will use

the kind of method for creating policy that is just trying to play politics. Bringing forward sound ideas for the people of Ontario is not the Liberal way and the Liberal plan.

We have in the recent throne speech made various commitments to municipalities. The government recognizes there's a number of local challenges municipalities

experience. We've committed to working with municipalities and local representatives to find proper solutions for some of the issues they bring forward.

Premier Eves and Janet Ecker in the recent budget speech increased the level of funding for municipalities. We have made long-term commitments so that the

municipalities that receive funding know what it is they have to work with. By 2005-06 these new commitments will result in an increase of 18% or $106 million over 2002-03. Our multi-year funding

approach is contingent upon three factors: economic growth, levels of federal government support and the results municipalities achieve through greater accountability to the taxpayers.

In 2001 we announced a 10-year, $3.25-billion plan to ensure the province has a transit system that will help strengthen the economy and protect the

environment. The government also committed to more than $10 billion over 10 years for the province's highway network. The $3.25 billion that I mentioned just a moment ago includes $359 million in

transit assistance through the transit investment plan.

Just yesterday the Eves government introduced a new way for commuters to travel across the Golden Horseshoe with a world-class integrated transit fare system.

I must tell the House that my constituents in Thornhill are very happy to have the new transit plan. Everyone in York region will benefit from the convenience of this new transit card that will

allow them access through nine municipalities. Acting on advice from the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel -- and I have to say, the Smart Growth panel is a body that is not motivated by any

political pressure. They are people who have a vested interest in the benefits of the province and the communities. These are people who have come together to give good advice to the province, and

we are taking that advice.

Through their advice, this government is investing $40 million toward the establishment and operation of this new, integrated system. We are also investing

$33.2 million in the year 2003-04 for the new GTA bus rapid transit system to help provide a new rapid transit route so that commuters will be able to travel across the top of the GTA from Halton,

through York region and on to Durham. We are investing over $1 billion in 2003-04 to improve Ontario's highway network. Since 1995, when this government was first elected, we have invested more

than $3.6 billion in public transit and $7.5 billion in highways.

Our municipalities are core to our province. We believe that we, as the provincial government, are working well with the municipalities in getting input from

them. Throughout last year, I conducted consultations in seven cities across the province and connected with a lot of the stakeholders across the province, and they told us that we need to consult

with them. That's what we're doing. We're consulting with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Through our memorandum of understanding, there's constant dialogue. I believe, as the

provincial government, we are doing our part to help the municipalities.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I'm pleased to join this debate and lend support not only to my colleague from

Vaughan-King-Aurora for his resolution but to the proposals of our party. You won't be surprised to find that I'm going to vote in favour of this.

It's astonishing that the newly crowned minister stands up and makes this enormously proud defence of her government's record. I think the most telling piece

in there is not that a year or so ago, as they saw the train coming to them in the tunnel, did they make this commitment for a 10-year plan for three billion bucks a year -- it will be interesting

to see if it's backed up by the estimates spending since it was announced -- but that the minister gave us a real glimpse into what has been going on under these guys: $10 billion for

transportation, combined highways and transit, over eight years equals the lowest level of capital investment in decades.

What has the effect of that been? It has been environmental degradation in terms of communities that have no capacity to properly incorporate public transit.

It has meant loss of family time as a result of the kind of gridlock which has become the norm for so many people in our province. It has meant that so many of the gains that urban areas like

Toronto had been able to be so proud of because of the investments made by government after government over time, regardless of their stripe, to enhance the quality of our public transportation

systems -- then these guys came to office in 1995 and said, "No more will progress in an urban area be measured on the basis of the capacity of individuals to get from work to home or from home to

school without starting up their own car."

I have the honour of representing a riding that probably has one of the higher densities and the most comprehensive public transit system in Canada. So many of

the subways that people benefit from run underneath my riding. I have the opportunity to campaign at subway stops and to see thousands of people walk to a subway stop and go to work and, in doing

so, have a more modest footprint in terms of their impact on the environment. We're living instead in this city where you can, on so many days, suffer health hardship, effects to your health

because of the air that we breathe.

These guys opposite, as an election nears, always find a way to make a promise. But as we saw on the 407, we should be very wary of any promise that they make

around election time. In the case of the 407, we saw that in fact, although Mr Sampson was pleased to send out a release, the effect was that people using the 407 have been gouged.

The last point I want to make about this is that I'm proud to be part of a political party that views the nature of its relationships with municipalities as a

mature relationship, one that allows municipalities to do their job, to plan comprehensive integrated transportation systems. With much ballyhoo, they talk about their commitment to Sheppard.

Sheppard is providing some limited benefit and some dividend, but it stands alone as a stub of a subway, disconnected at either end from the kinds of enhancements and expansion that would actually

bring meaningful benefit, like linkages to Scarborough or westward, past Downsview and perhaps toward an airport.

But there is nothing in what this government does that says, "We will work with our municipal partners and allow them the freedom to fulfill their

responsibilities to plan for an integrated transportation system." That's where we're different.

Two cents a litre on the gas tax dedicated to public transportation projects reaffirms this commitment and will allow cities like my city of Toronto to plan a

transportation system that can incorporate even more people into our great city. That's why I'm supporting this resolution.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I know there's limited time here. I just want to put a few things on the record. First of all, this is another

Liberal tax grab. Clearly, if you look at their booklet, it's quite short on numbers and long on rhetoric. They say by allocating two cents -- Mr Sorbara's resolution addresses that specifically.

It's a tax increase.

But if you look at this government's record on investments in transportation, Mr Klees said it all yesterday. In fact, the longer record -- if you want to look

back further, the purpose of establishing the Greater Toronto Services Board in 1995 was for one reason: to address the transit and integration issues. The bill Mr Klees introduced yesterday was

the next step on the route to integrating transit across the GTA. It's the right thing to do. Mr Sorbara's method is: tax the people.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): This is not only a resolution whose time has come -- it certainly should be supported and looked at as

a positive effort put forward by a member of this Legislature; yes, it has our leader's name attached to it -- but it is an idea whose time has come, is long past due.

This is a government that clearly does not recognize how far we are being set back by their lack of good policy. Smog: gridlock causes smog. Smog is killing

1,900 people a year in this province. It's a very serious matter. In fact, the air pollution caused by the ever-increasing number of cars on our roads is a serious threat to our health and the air

we breathe; it becomes dirtier. There is no question about that. The fact is, it is a health issue. It is a matter of life and death for many people. Supporting public transit is a very big

priority that should be taken seriously by this government and has been for the time that it has been in office.

It is also an economic question. Gridlock is causing the economy to be set back as well. It's costing us $2 billion per year in lost productivity in the GTA as

a direct result of gridlock. Gridlock is caused by the fact that we do not have -- and there's a clear connection -- adequate infrastructure to keep up with the growth in population, to keep up

with the growth in this economic engine that we call the GTA. I tell you, our growth as a vibrant economy in the future is going to be threatened if we do not have the kind of investments in public

transit that we desperately need in the GTA. It is clear that when we talk about growth in the GTA, we cannot continue to build more highways, put more cars on the road and believe that is going to

solve all our problems. Public transit is clearly the only way to go.

We need a GTA-wide authority to coordinate that, to have an integrated system, because the GTA is a massive area. If you ask anyone, there is no way to get

around the GTA easily on public transit. You can't do that. You can't go from Pickering to Mississauga. You cannot get there in a reasonable amount of time and there is no integrated fare package.

So the initiative by the minister to begin that process is a good one, but you have a long way to go.

When you talk about the lack of fairness, everything this government does lacks the fairness that should be there, with a view to ensuring it is affordable.

People use public transit precisely because it is affordable, so when you force them on to the 407 in the 905 because there is no alternative -- in fact, I would argue that other people in the

greater city of Toronto do not have an easy way to get around because they're forced to use the 401, which is highly congested. There is no alternative. We have gridlock beyond compare in North

America. It's a result of the neglect of this government. Fairness does not enter into their vocabulary, not once. When talking about making sure that we have more infrastructure, they want to

build more toll roads, which obviously will appeal to people who can afford to pay those tolls. But it's the ordinary, average citizen who has to get to work in the morning and who must use public

transit who is being shortchanged by this government.

There is no public transit to speak of in the 905 area that is easily accessible, an interregional transit system that you can use to get around the 905. That

doesn't exist in Toronto at the present time. That's what we're calling for in this resolution and that's why we should support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the member's debate on this has expired. The mover of the motion, the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora, now has

up to two minutes to wrap up.

Mr. Sorbara: If anyone wants to know what this debate is really about, I invite them to reread the comments of my colleague Mr Bradley, of my

colleague Mr Smitherman and of my seatmate Mr Cordiano.

I want to turn to the point Mr Bradley made, because this is really at the heart of what has happened in Ontario over the past eight years. It was Premier Mike

Harris who said, on behalf of the Conservative government, "We're no longer in the business of public transportation." Now compare that to what has happened in every other great city region in the

world, whether it's Boston or Los Angeles or New York, to name the ones on the North American continent -- massive investments in public transportation, new governing authorities to make sure those

city regions work.

As Mr Smitherman pointed out, the commitment the new Ernie Eves government made, the $10 billion or $8 billion over how many years, represents the lowest level

historically of capital support for transit in the recent history of this province.

The record of this government when it is finally defeated will be the deterioration of public services in every area: education, health care, the environment,

and notably, support for growing communities. The people of Ontario have an opportunity to choose soon. If they choose with us, they will see a new era in public transportation. I thank you, sir,

for the opportunity to talk about it today.

The Acting Speaker: The time for debate has expired.

IMMIGRATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Mr Tascona has moved private member's notice of motion number 1. Is it the pleasure of the House

that Mr Tascona's motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

GRIDLOCK

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Mr Sorbara has moved private member's notice of motion number 2. Is it the pleasure of the House

that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please indicate by saying "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

IMMIGRATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Mr Tascona has moved private member's notice of motion number 1.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name has been recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McLeod, Lyn

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Di Cocco, Caroline

Kennedy, Gerard

McMeekin, Ted

Phillips, Gerry

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63; the nays are 12.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The doors will now be untiled for 30 seconds to leave or enter the chamber before the next

vote.

GRIDLOCK

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): All those in favour of Mr Sorbara's private member's notice of motion number 2 will now rise and

remain standing until your name is called.

A y es

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Levac, David

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 26; the nays are 48.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

This House will now stand adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Members will be aware there appear on today's orders and notices paper two notices of an opposition day to be

debated next week. Under standing order 42(d), the Speaker is required to select one of those notices for consideration, taking into account the order in which they were received. I would like to

advise the members that the motion by Mr Bradley is the one that will be selected for debate next week.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Thursday, May 1, 2003, the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Mr Conway, rose on a question of privilege

to indicate that the circumstances surrounding the presentation of the budget speech in a private facility in Brampton on March 27, 2003, a day on which the Legislature stood prorogued, amounted to

a prima facie case of contempt of the House. According to the member, the events of that day were an offence against the authority and dignity of the House. He also indicated that the government

made a clear and deliberative choice to deliver a budget outside the House, thereby offending the convention of responsible government and undermining the financial function of Parliament.

The member for Niagara Centre, Mr Kormos, also spoke to the incident. According to the member, the government breached the constitutional convention of

presenting the budget in the House. He indicated that the breach was conscious and premeditated, and that the budget was presented in a controlled environment with invited guests, that budgets are

confidence matters and that the Speaker has the authority to remedy the breach.

The government House leader, Mr Stockwell, responded to these arguments by indicating that the Speaker cannot deal with constitutional arguments, and that a

budget process should not be characterized as a matter of contempt; if anything, it is a matter of order and as such, the process that occurred on March 27 did not offend any standing order,

practice or precedent.

I've had the opportunity to review the Hansard from last Thursday, the written submissions from the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and the member for

Niagara Centre, and the relevant standing orders, precedents, practices and authorities.

I will begin by addressing the arguments that were raised concerning the constitutionality of the budget presentation, or the question of whether a

constitutional convention exists, respecting the budget process.

As members will know, Speakers have ruled on numerous occasions that it is not open to the Speaker to give a decision upon a constitutional questions, or

decide a question of law.

It is settled in our precedents, and indeed in our practices and precedents of Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth, that legal and constitutional issues

are best left to the courts and to litigants.

For instance, the fourth edition of Australia's House of Representatives Practice indicates the following at pages 189 and 190: "[T]he obligation to interpret

the Constitution does not rest with the Chair.... [T]he only body fully entitled to do so is the High Court. Not even the House has the power to finally interpret the terms of the Constitution....

[I]t is not the duty of the Speaker to give a decision on (to interpret) a question of law."

Citation 168(5) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne states that "[t]he Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of

law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege," as indeed has occurred here.

Therefore, the Speaker has no authority to make a determination of prima facie breach of privilege or contempt where such a determination is based on the

constitutionality or legality of the presentation of the March 27 budget outside the House; this House is not the proper place for those questions to be resolved. However, I will consider the case

that has been made by the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and the member for Niagara Centre to the extent that it does not put the Speaker in the position of having to decide a constitutional

or legal issue.

Before doing so, I want to reflect on the argument of the government House leader, who suggests that the Speaker should address the budget issue by looking to

the standing orders. He also suggested that if the standing orders do not resolve the issue, then and only then the Speaker should look to practice and precedent, and that if practice and precedent

do not resolve the matter, then and only then the Speaker should look to the parliamentary authorities. In effect, the government House leader contends that the budget process of March 27 was in

order and that as such it is not a matter of contempt. In view of this argument, I shall initially address whether anything about this process raises a matter of order.

By way of background, it should be noted that on March 27, just before the Minister of Finance presented the budget in Brampton, the budget and related papers

were deposited with the Clerk of the House pursuant to standing order 39(a). The standing order reads as follows:

"Reports, returns and other documents required to be laid before the House by any act of the assembly or under any standing order or resolution of the House,

or that any minister wishes to present to the House, may be deposited with the Clerk of the House, whether or not on a sessional day, and such report, return or other document shall be deemed for

all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House. A record of such document shall be entered in the Votes and Proceeding on the day it is filed except that where it is filed on a day

that is not a sessional day, it shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings of the next sessional day."

Standing order 39(

a) does not specifically indicate whether the budget and related papers are "documents" within the meaning of that standing order. However,

it gives ministers a wide latitude to deposit with the Clerk of the House any documents they wish to present to the House -- and even if the House is not meeting.

I appreciate that standing orders 57 and 58 provide for a budget process inside the House, but they do not prohibit a supplementary budget presentation outside

the House. I doubt that the House contemplated the occurrence of a supplementary budget process outside the House when it created standing order 39(a), but I am satisfied that the House intended

that this standing order should be given a broad

interpretation, and so that is what I am giving it.

I'm reinforcing this view by the knowledge that on April 20, 1988 the Votes and Proceedings, which were published under the authority of Speaker Edighoffer,

indicate that the budget and budget papers were deposited with the Clerk of the House pursuant to what is now standing order 39(a).

I appreciate that the procedural circumstances in 1988 were different than what they are in 2003. In 1988, the calculated reading of petitions of the House by

members of one of the opposition parties prevented the Treasurer from making the traditional budget presentation and speech on the floor of the House on budget day. In addition, the House had

denied the Treasurer's request for unanimous consent to end the routine proceeding Petitions at 4 pm on budget day so that he could move the budget motion and present the budget.

In the wake of these developments, the Treasurer deposited the budget and related papers with the Clerk of the House in order to protect the confidentiality of

the budget process and to release the lock-up. I refer members to page 142 of the Journals and pages 2654 and 2655 of the Hansard for April 20, 1988.

These extenuating circumstances were not present in the 2003 budget. Even if they were, I cannot see how they are relevant to determining whether or not the

deposit of a particular document with the Clerk of the House pursuant to standing order 39(

a) is a matter of order, the

interpretation of which does not turn on the presence or absence of

extenuating circumstances.

The other distinguishing feature about the 1998 budget is that the House was actually meeting. In the case before me now, the House was not meeting because the

Legislature has been prorogued on March 12. I have reflected on whether the standing orders permit the budget to be deposited with Clerk of the House after the Legislature has been prorogued. I

find that our practice has been that all manner of documentations have been deposited with the Clerk of the House in the intersession period, and that these documents have been recorded in the

Votes and Proceedings soon after the commencement of the new session. On this point, I refer members to the Votes and Proceedings of May 1, which indicates, at pages 9 and 10, that 37 items,

including the 2003 budget and related papers, were tabled in the interval between the third and fourth sessions.

If there was nothing out of order concerning the deposit of the budget and related papers on March 27, was there anything out of order in what the government

did next? I am referring here to the budget-like speech by the Minister of Finance in a private facility, not inside the House or the precincts, before an invitation-only audience selected by the

government. The argument was made that the government was not respecting the traditions of the House -- in particular, the tradition that the budget should be presented formally in the House.

Looking to our precedents, I note that, apart from the 1988 budget incident, there have been other occasions when a budget or a budget-type speech has not been

presented inside the House. On April 21, 1993, Speaker Warner made the following statement, at page 160 of the Hansard for that day, concerning the government's intention to present its social

contract proposals, which some members referred to as a mini-budget, outside the House:

"I think the honourable member for Parry Sound should know my views on this subject. I hold a very strong view that the matters of substance dealing with

Parliament should be announced in Parliament. I think that's a very sound principle.

"The member will also know that for better or worse there is nothing in our standing orders or procedures which compels the minister to make the statements

inside the House, including budgets, and indeed there is nothing out of order about announcing a budget outside of the House, and if memory serves, that in fact has occurred in this province.

"But I would reiterate that all matters of substance of a parliamentary nature should be made here. I have no control over making that happen. I can only ask

that people do that."

Immediately thereafter, the House refused a request for unanimous consent to allow the Treasurer to present his budget proposal to the House.

On budget day in 2001, the House refused two government requests for unanimous consent to recess the House so the budget could be presented to the House. After

the first request was refused, the Speaker indicated that "if there is not unanimous consent [to recess], the Minister of Finance does not need to read the speech in here." Shortly after this

ruling, the budget speech was delivered in the House when the government was able to secure the adjournment of the House, which does not require unanimous consent. I refer members to pages 559 to

562 of the Hansard for May 9, 2001.

What I am essentially saying, then, is that the 2003 budget process does not raise a matter of order. The government House leader submits that if this is so,

then that process is not a matter of contempt. I disagree because "order" is conceptually distinct from both "privilege" and "contempt."

To exemplify this distinction, let me refer to the January 22, 1997 ruling that was mentioned by the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. In that ruling, a

member rose on a question of privilege to indicate that government advertising amounted to contempt of the House, and the Speaker responded by finding that a prima facie case of contempt was

established. Like the case before me now, the incident occurred outside the House and the precinct. Were I to accept the government House leader's argument, it would have been open to the Speaker

in 1997 to rule that there was no prima facie case of contempt -- and that it was not necessary for him to consider the merits of the arguments based on contempt -- because the advertising in

question did not offend a House rule.

In short, then, I say that a finding that nothing is out of order about the budget process does not preclude the Speaker from assessing the merits of the

arguments based on contempt. The tiered process that the government House leader referred to -- that is, first the standing orders, then practice and precedent, and then the authorities -- is

applied to consideration of matters of order, not matters of privilege or contempt.

Before turning to those arguments, I want to explain the meaning of "contempt," and the best way for me to do that is to first explain the meaning of

"privilege." Parliamentary privilege is defined at page 65 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. Like Erskine May, standing order 21(

a) indicates that there are two overarching categories of

privilege. The first category consists of privileges that are enjoyed by the House collectively: the power to discipline -- that is, the right to punish persons guilty of breach of privilege or

contempts and the power to expel members; the right to regulate its own internal affairs; the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its members; the right to institute inquiries and

to call witnesses and demand papers; the right to administer oaths to witnesses; and the right to publish papers containing defamatory materials. The second category consists of privileges that are

enjoyed by individual members: freedom of speech; freedom from arrest in civil actions; exemption from jury duty; and exemption from attendance as a witness in the courts.

Having outlined the meaning of "privilege," I want to refer to a May 9, 1983, precedent in which Speaker Turner ruled on a question of privilege concerning a

budget leak. The Speaker made the following ruling, which can be found at pages 38 and 39 of the Journals for that day:

"Budget secrecy is a political convention as is the practice that the Treasurer presents his budget in the House before discussing it in any other public

forum. It has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege.

"As I stated in my ruling of February 1, 1983, `although it is a courtesy to the Assembly for a minister to release information in the assembly before

releasing it to the press or the public, it is not a breach of the privileges ... of the assembly if this does not happen.'"

In effect, Speaker Turner stated that the presentation of the budget was not a matter that fell under any collective or individual privilege. Given this

ruling, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established with respect to the presentation of the budget outside the House.

Contempt: I now turn to the issue of whether the