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

June 4, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L021 - Thu 4 Jun 1998 / Jeu 4 Jun 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADULT EDUCATION

SENIORS' MONTH

GIOVANNI CABOTO

NURSING STAFF

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SPORTS IN BRANTFORD

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

PAY EQUITY

OPTIMIST CLUB FESTIVAL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL

STATEMENTS BY MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

GAMING CONTROL

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

AIRCRAFT PLANT CLOSURE

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

ELECTORAL REFORM

SPORT FISHING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

NURSING STAFF

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

SPEAKER'S RULING

PETITIONS

ELECTORAL REFORM

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ROAD SAFETY

ABORTION

TUITION FEES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ELECTORAL REFORM

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 0958.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Bisson moved second reading of the following bill:

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : J'aimerais premièrement expliquer pourquoi ce projet de loi est important.

Mais comme on le sait, le gouvernement provincial est présentement en train de transférer beaucoup de ces services aux municipalités. Par exemple, on sait que le gouvernement provincial veut transférer le système de logement aux municipalités ; on sait qu'ils veulent transférer le système d'ambulances aux municipalités, pour n'en nommer qu'un couple, et une gamme d'autres services qui vont être transférés.

Je répète, on a travaillé trop fort dans la communauté francophone, on a oeuvré, on a travaillé, on a tout fait pour être capable d'avancer au point qu'on est. Je regarde les actions des groupes comme l'ACFO, je regarde l'ouvrage du père Thériault dans mon coin, je regarde l'ouvrage de M. Grandmaître, qui est ici aujourd'hui, qui est le père de la Loi 8, je regarde l'ouvrage que tous les francophones ensemble ont fait les dernières années pour être capables d'avancer les droits des francophones au point qu'on les a comme c'est là.

C'est ça que le ministre, qui est ici, va nous dire, parce que c'est ça qu'il me dit quand il me parle en privé. Mais je veux lui dire publiquement à travers cette Chambre que ce n'est pas une garantie législative. C'est ça le problème. Et ce qu'on demande au gouvernement, c'est de nous donner au moins une garantie à travers un projet de loi et non une entente signée entre les municipalités et le gouvernement.

Et ce n'est pas un processus public qui arrive à ce point-là. C'est un processus privé entre la municipalité et la province. Et à ce point là, il va y avoir assez de pressions des municipalités parce qu'on sait la direction où le gouvernement s'en va avec les coupures et le transfert des services aux municipalités. Il va y avoir beaucoup de pressions par les municipalités sur les ministres de la Couronne dans les années à venir de demander de réduire ces droits qu'on a présentement et d'ôter cette garantie dans l'entente. C'est un des points que je veux faire.

Excuse-moi. Penses-tu pour une seconde que la province ne va pas transférer tous ces services aux municipalités ? Eh bien oui, ils vont les transférer, parce que s'ils ne le font pas, toutes les municipalités à travers l'Ontario - une bonne gang, pas toutes - vont dire : «Tout ce que j'ai besoin de faire c'est de passer une motion pour dire que je donne seulement des services en anglais.» Il va y avoir une gamme de municipalités qui vont passer ces motions pour se protéger contre le dévoluement des services provinciaux aux municipalités.

Quand le gouvernement va se lever tout à l'heure, il va essayer de nous répondre sur ces points-là en nous disant : «Inquiétez-vous pas. Ayez confiance en nous autres, fiez-vous sur nous. On va vous protéger.» Mais c'est bien trop dangereux et c'est bien trop sombre, toute cette affaire-là.

Premièrement les ententes, ce n'est pas une garantie législative ; deuxièmement, l'entente est quelque chose qui est signée entre la municipalité et le ministère et elle peut être changée dans le futur sans aucun procès public, ce qui veut dire qu'une municipalité peut revenir et demander à un ministre d'ôter cette section-là de l'entente, et les droits des francophones seront oubliés ; troisièmement, et ce n'est pas la dernière assignation, mais j'ai seulement 29 secondes, c'est comment traiter des municipalités qui disent : «On a passé des motions pour dire qu'on est uniquement anglophones» ?

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 17, introduced by the member for Cochrane South. First of all, I want to say we have a slight problem with the title of the bill. I think the member's purpose is to deal with the realignment of services between the provincial and municipal governments in relation to the Provincial Offences Act. I would point out that some of the transfers generate revenue and some reduce revenue to municipalities. This is one that increases revenue to municipalities, and I would say that municipalities would likely have some concern with its being called downloading. I think they appreciate the ability to raise funds.

Having said that, the goal of this bill is admirable: to confirm that the existing language rights protected under the French Language Services Act are unaffected by the provincial-municipal realignment of services and responsibilities. We support that goal. However, the government prefers an approach which will incorporate the flexibility to meet the needs of both the francophone community and those of the municipalities which will be providing services in French.

As a government, we believe services in French are important. Early in the local services realignment process the potential loss of acquired rights to services in French was recognized as a major issue. The government realizes that the francophone community is concerned about the transfer of provincial services and its impact on the delivery of these services in French.

We are certainly aware of the importance of maintaining French language services in the province's designated areas. That's why we will work in partnership with municipalities to develop options for the delivery of these services in French. In the transfer of provincial programs to municipalities, all service levels, including linguistic ones, will be negotiated on a program-by-program basis. There are obvious benefits to this approach. It allows the flexibility to choose the method of providing French language services for each program or service that is transferred.

Municipalities in designated areas are aware of the needs of their francophone residents and already provide a range of municipal services in French. In fact, a quarter of the municipalities located in the province's designated areas have either passed resolutions declaring themselves bilingual or have stated that they are in favour of minority language rights. Sixty-three percent of the francophone population in designated areas reside in these municipalities. I think this shows that Ontario's municipalities in designated areas recognize and serve their francophone residents.

Our government believes our current course of action is the right one. It means that the provision of services in French will be rationalized based on the francophone community's needs, and builds on the existing services currently offered by municipalities located in designated areas.

In closing, the government will not be supporting this bill as we believe the strategy that we have developed will meet the needs of the francophone community. I would like to commend the member for Cochrane South for bringing this bill forward simply because it once again brings the importance of French language services to our attention.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): The government shares the member for Cochrane South's concerns that French language services be protected as the province proceeds with the realignment of local services.

The Attorney General is pleased that the proposed transfer of Provincial Offences Act responsibilities provides an opportunity to enhance the provision of French language services. The framework provided by Bill 108 and the transfer agreement ensures that municipalities will be able to demonstrate their commitment to provide Provincial Offences Act French language services. Combined with monitoring and clear sanctions, francophones are assured that they will have access to the same level of bilingual service in the provincial court system as they do currently.

L'AFMO has stated: "We accept your offer to participate in the review committee.... By participating, both associations can ensure that current services in French will be maintained."

L'AJEFO has written that "the government ensures respect for the basic principles of justice and for language rights by municipalities interested in signing an agreement with the Attorney General."

L'ACFO commented that "...linguistic rights and basic principles of law will be preserved when Ontario municipalities are transferred the responsibility for lawsuits and some provincial infractions." Further, they state, "We say kudos to the Ontario government."

Both l'AJEFO and l'AFMO will continue to work with us to ensure that our approach is effective. They have agreed to participate in the review committee that will monitor municipal performances and assess disputes. Our partnership approach ensures that French rights will be maintained in a flexible, cost-effective way.

We believe that this cooperative approach will do much more to foster the understanding between anglophones and francophones in this province than legislation possibly could. Our approach to protecting French-language services necessitates training and education, cooperation between levels of government and between francophone and anglophone organizations.

We believe that, in the long run, working together in this way will benefit Ontarians' access to French-language services more permanently and more profoundly than any attempt to legislate these rights could ever achieve.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Premièrement, je dois vous dire que c'est le début d'un grand débat, parce que le gouvernement de l'Ontario est déterminé de dévoluer plusieurs de ses responsabilités au niveau municipal. Comme vous le savez, la Loi 8 n'oblige pas les municipalités d'offrir la même qualité, les mêmes services qu'au niveau provincial.

Pourtant, en 1986, lors de la présentation de la Loi 8, tout le monde était d'accord. Ils ont voté de façon unanime : le ministre actuel des Affaires francophones, M. Villeneuve, le premier ministre de l'Ontario, M. Harris, tout le monde était d'accord avec ce modèle.

Mais, par contre, aujourd'hui, le gouvernement de l'Ontario change le modèle. Comme l'adjoint parlementaire aux Affaires municipales, le député d'Oxford, a mentionné tantôt, «We prefer a different approach.»

Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire ? Ça veut dire qu'on veut détourner la Loi 8. On veut la détourner et se satisfaire. Quand je dis «se satisfaire», satisfaire le gouvernement, et c'est ça qui nous fait peur. Ce n'est pas que je n'ai pas confiance en le procureur général lorsqu'il parle de la Loi 108 et aujourd'hui du projet de loi de mon collègue Bisson. C'est que j'ai peur de ce gouvernement. Ça me fait peur, parce qu'on parle seulement d'un service aujourd'hui, les infractions.

Alors, voici que, comme mon collègue Bisson a mentionné, tantôt nous allons parler du logement, nous allons parler du service d'ambulance, nous allons parler d'une grande gamme de services qui seront dévolués au niveau municipal.

On peut parler de l'ACFO, on peut parler de l'AJEFO, on peut parler de l'AFMO, on peut parler de toutes les «FOs», mais laissez-moi vous dire, j'ai confiance en ces gens-là, mais je n'ai pas confiance en la sincérité du gouvernement d'aujourd'hui, pour la simple raison que je me suis fait dire, en Chambre, après une question posée au ministre des Affaires francophones et une question semblable posée au premier ministre de l'Ontario : «Inquiète-toi pas, Grandmaître, les services seront en place.»

Mais, par contre, lorsqu'on pose la question au procureur général, «Est-ce que les municipalités de l'Ontario auront l'obligation d'offrir les services au même niveau que sous la Loi 8 ?» le procureur général nous dit, et je cite, le 1 er juin, «This is a compromise which, in my opinion, benefits all parties. The government ensures respect for the basic principles of justice and for language rights by municipalities» - écoutez bien - «interested in signing an agreement. »

Monsieur le Président, j'ai peur du premier pas, du premier geste du gouvernement de l'Ontario, et ce n'est pas fini. Un jour, on se retrouvera en cour, chose dont je ne veut pas entendre parler. Je ne veux pas me retrouver en cour. Je veux que le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui reconnaisse que les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes ont un droit acquis par la constitution du Canada, et on veut que ces droits-là soient respectés en Ontario et à travers le Canada.

M. Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Je suis content d'avoir l'opportunité de dire quelques mots sur ce sujet, un sujet qui, je crois, touche d'une manière essentielle une question très importante, parce qu'il s'agit d'une question de principe.

Le gouvernement est en train de réduire, selon nous, selon mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud - et je le félicite pour l'initiative qu'il a prise de présenter ce projet de loi et le fait qu'il l'a fait après avoir essayé de convaincre le gouvernement, le procureur général en particulier, de faire des amendements au projet de loi 108, chose que le gouvernement refuse de faire, pour assurer qu'il y aura dans ledit projet de loi les mêmes protections pour les francophones de l'Ontario qui existent maintenant.

La protection qui existe maintenant est essentielle, est une protection de base, est un droit auquel on est arrivé à travers des discussions, à travers un consensus politique parmi tous les partis représentés ici à l'Assemblée de l'Ontario. Ce que le gouvernement de M. Harris est en train de faire aujourd'hui, et d'une manière particulière à travers la position qu'ils ont prise sur la Loi 108, c'est de réduire, de diminuer les protections et les droits de nos concitoyens francophones ici en Ontario. C'est donc une question de principes, une question sur laquelle il faudrait réfléchir sérieusement.

Si on commence ici à réduire, comme le gouvernement est en train de faire, les droits essentiels qu'ont les Franco-Ontariens maintenant, on pourrait se demander jusqu'à quel point le gouvernement de M. Harris est prêt d'aller. Si on est prêt, comme le sont M. Harris, M. Harnick et le gouvernement de M. Harris, à diminuer les droits qui touchent les questions essentielles comme le droit au procès, qui font, comme vous le savez, la base de notre système démocratique, alors on pourrait vraiment se demander jusqu'à quel point le gouvernement est en train d'aller.

Ici il s'agit clairement de noter ce que le projet de loi 17 présenté par mon collègue M. Bisson de Cochrane-Sud est en train de faire. C'est d'assurer que si le gouvernement veut transférer certaines responsabilités du niveau provincial au niveau municipal, il faudrait avoir dans ces transferts et dans la loi qui permet les transferts de certains services, les mêmes protections pour les Franco-Ontariens qui existent maintenant. Il ne devrait pas être question de réduire, ou même la possibilité de réduire, ces droits.

Il y a donc là un changement dans le niveau de protection qui existe. Même avec l'amendement proposé, le bureau des conseillers législatifs nous dit : «The failure to comply with the agreement results in prejudice to the defendant's rights to a fair hearing." That's essentially the proposal, the amendment of the government. In other words, failure to provide a bilingual prosecutor in accordance with an agreement might not invalidate a proceeding in every case, but it would invalidate a proceeding if the failure resulted in prejudice to the defendant's rights to a fair hearing.

Donc, ce que le projet de loi 17 de M. Bisson est en train de faire, c'est franchement ce que le gouvernement devrait faire : d'assurer que, dans ce transfert de services, il y aura pour les Franco-Ontariens de l'Ontario la même protection, les mêmes droits qui existent maintenant, droits qui, selon le projet de loi 108, ne seront pas au même niveau qui existe maintenant, et droits qui, selon de projet de loi 17 de M. Bisson, seraient garantis au même niveau qui existe maintenant. Donc, j'appuie certainement le projet de loi, parce que je vois dans ce projet de loi la prise de responsabilité de la part de M.

Bisson qui, franchement, n'est pas là de la part du procureur général et du gouvernement de M. Harris. Chose que je trouve troublante, c'est que le gouvernement Harris est en train de commencer ici ce qui pourrait être le premier pas dans la réduction, la diminution des droits des Franco-Ontariens en Ontario. C'est quelque chose qui devrait nous préoccuper sérieusement.

Donc j'invite, j'encourage, les députés de l'Assemblée de tous les partis à appuyer la proposition de loi de M Bisson, parce que ça donnerait un message clair au gouvernement de l'Ontario, à M. Harris, à M. Harnick, de dire que vous devrez réexaminer la question et être prêts à accepter cette proposition. Et certainement l'acceptation de ce projet de loi donnerait aussi à la communauté franco-ontarienne l'assurance que nous, comme députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, sommes sérieux dans notre appui des droits des franco-ontariens ici dans cette province.

L'hon. Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Ça me fait plaisir de participer au débat en deuxième lecture du projet de loi 17.

Pour le reste de la population francophone, notre gouvernement est persuadé que les municipalités vont respecter les ententes et nous avons confiance en eux. Ces municipalités seront les mieux placées pour livrer les services de qualité de façon efficace et responsable à leur communauté, qu'elle soit anglophone, francophone ou bilingue. Les municipalités gardent leur autonomie, tout en respectant leur responsabilité linguistique. C'est pourquoi chaque programme - et je répète, chaque programme - sera négocié sur une base individuelle avec les gouvernements locaux et régionaux.

La lettre du président de l'AFMO, M. Jean-Marie Blier, le maire de Hearst, exprime clairement à M. Harnick l'appui des municipalités francophones :

«Les outils et les moyens énumérés dans les annexes sont perçus par l'AFMO comme un ensemble de ressources indispensables pour la mise en oeuvre efficace de ce projet de loi et l'appui de nos municipalités membres. Les révisions au projet de loi 108 que nous avons discutées le 21 avril dernier vont persuader celles et ceux qui n'étaient pas encore convaincus, de l'engagement de votre gouvernement à la préservation des droits acquis linguistiques en Ontario. Le conseil d'administration et les municipalités membres encouragent le gouvernement et l'Assemblé législative de l'Ontario à approuver dès cette session le projet de loi 108.»

M e Tory Colvin, président de l'AJEFO, suite aux négociations indique dans sa lettre du 7 mai à mon collègue l'honorable Charles Harnick :

Interjection.

L'hon. M. Villeneuve : C'est exactement ce qui c'est produit, monsieur Grandmaître.

Le collège d'Alfred maintient son mandat comme le seul collège francophone agro-alimentaire en Amérique du Nord hors Québec.

Interjection.

Le Président suppléant : Alors, s'il vous plaît, monsieur le Ministre. Le député d'Ottawa-Est, s'il vous plaît.

L'hon. M. Villeneuve : En terminant, je peux vous assurer que les services et les besoins de nos francophones vont être bel et bien rencontrés et comblés.

Donc, c'est facile de dire, «Nous allons nous assurer à ce que les droits linguistiques soient protégés pour les francophones de l'Ontario tel que stipulé dans la Loi 8.» Mais d'après moi, le projet de loi que mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud vient de déposer ce matin, c'est pour protéger les droits linguistiques des francophones hors Québec.

Nous savons qu'actuellement avec le dépôt du projet de loi - c'est pour ça que nous débattons le projet de loi de notre collègue de Cochrane-Sud - nous n'avons aucune garantie que les droits francophones seront respectés par ce gouvernement. Nous n'avons qu'à regarder. C'est le début de la fin de la Loi 8. Quand je dis «le début de la fin de la loi 8», M. le ministre vient de mentionner : «C'est laissé à la discrétion des municipalités si elles veulent donner le service aux francophones de l'Ontario.»

Je n'ai qu'à regarder dans mon secteur en l'est ontarien, Prescott et Russell, pour savoir que souvent des services ambulanciers ne sont donnés que par des anglophones lorsqu'il vient le temps d'apporter des services additionnels si des ambulances sur place sont déjà partis avec un autre service ailleurs.

Donc, actuellement dans mon comté nous avons au-delà de 20 % de la population qui ne dit pas et ne parle pas un mot en anglais. Lorsqu'on va parler de services de santé, c'est très difficile de dire, «J'ai mal à la tête», ou «J'ai mal à l'estomac» si on ne sait pas le dire. Donc, l'ambulancier va essayer d'apporter des services aux patients selon les mots qu'ils vont mentionner.

Ensuite, nous avons les services de santé. Le bureau de l'est de l'Ontario actuellement qui dessert cinq comtés - on nous dit dans la rapport de restructuration des soins de santé de SDG et Prescott et Russell que nous avons seulement 14 % ou 18 % de francophones. C'est encore faux. On dit en Ottawa-Carleton 14 % ; on a complètement oublié Prescott et Russell dans la restructuration des soins de santé à Ottawa. Est-ce que c'est fait exprès par ce gouvernement pour s'assurer à ce qu'on ne continue pas les services aux francophones de l'est ontarien aussi bien qu'a travers la province ?

Lorsque je regarde l'ACFO, l'AFMO, l'Association des juristes, ils ont dit au gouvernement : «Oui, c'est très bien. On l'accepte». Je me rappelle un matin à Radio-Canada où on disait que tout était beau et clair, que le gouvernement avait consenti à s'assurer que des services seraient donnés dans les deux langues. C'est faux. Il n'y a aucun garanti. Lorsque nous avons eu le débat de la Loi 108, les deux ministres se sont levés ici en Chambre et ils ont dit : «Oui, c'est assuré.» Mais quand on ajoute donc à la Loi 108, on n'en est pas capable.

C'est parce qu'on essaye de dévier afin qu'un jour on puisse dire : «Les francophones de l'Ontario, si vous êtes prêts à apprendre l'anglais, allez-vous-en ailleurs qu'en Ontario. C'est ça que j'ai dit lorsqu'il est arrivé le débat pour l'accord de Calgary. Encore là, on s'en va dans le même sens.

Je trouve regrettable que ce gouvernement n'accepte pas de mettre ces clauses dans la Loi 108. Définitivement, j'espère que la Chambre en entier supportera le projet de loi 17.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to congratulate Gilles Bisson, the member for Cochrane South, for putting forward Bill 17 this morning. However, I'm dismayed that we're even here debating this today.

In 1986, Bill 8 was introduced in this House and was supported by all three parties. Mr Speaker, I know you were here at that time, and if you were in your seat today - I know you're neutral now - you would be speaking, I'm sure, in favour of Mr Bisson's bill, because I know how strongly you feel about it. We've talked about this.

Bill 108 cannot guarantee French services as they exist today. We know that. The government is trying to find ways around that in the way they're speaking today, but we know exactly what it means: This is an erosion of the rights guaranteed under Bill 8. Mr Speaker, as I think you said to me, it hurts no one. Why start eroding that? At the end of the day, once that erosion starts, it may be small now but it will grow over time.

In my view, it's a very dangerous thing we're doing here today and it should be taken extremely seriously. It seems perhaps like a small thing, but it's a very dangerous move since the all-party support for Bill 8, which guarantees these services.

I was appalled when the member for Oxford said that all it means is flexibility to reflect the needs of the francophone community and the municipalities that provide for them. Well, "flexibility" can be a very dangerous word. In this case, it could mean certain rights for some people in some municipalities and no rights or not the same rights, equal rights, for people in other municipalities.

The minister himself said it. He said that he has faith in the municipalities, essentially. Well, let's talk about what happened in Thunder Bay. That is one example, isn't it? The council there proclaimed Thunder Bay as unilingual. Recently, I know the new council tried to overturn that, and they couldn't get the votes to do it. Is this the kind of province we now have under the Tory government, where we're allowing the rights of the francophone community throughout Ontario to be eroded because of their downloading?

Let's really get real about what's happening here. This has to do with downloading. We know that municipalities are under a great deal of financial stress, and we know that certain services are going to have to be cut. We know there are going to be more user fees, we know there are going to be tax increases and we know there are going to be services cut. Our fear, when we talk about flexibility to the municipalities, is that some municipalities are going to cut some of those services.

The province, in my view and I think in the view of most Ontarians, has the responsibility to make sure that the rights of all our citizens are upheld. I think it's a disgrace that this is happening. Over the years, as my colleague Gilles Bisson said, and some of the other members from both the Liberal Party and the NDP, in the past the Tory party, the francophones of the Tory party, have fought alongside the people from the francophone communities all over the province for their rights.

To see a party, any party, come into this House and start literally eroding those rights is dangerous, and I think it should be fought vigorously. Given all the issues people are having to face across the province these days, this one is getting lost; this is getting lost in the mix. But in my view and certainly in the view of my caucus, and I'm hearing it from the Liberal caucus today, this is a pretty big issue. I think, as with many of the services that people, various minority groups, have fought for across the province for a number of years, we're seeing the erosion overall across the board.

I would urge people to support this bill today. It's very, very important.

M me Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview) : Je veux ce matin appuyer catégoriquement le projet de loi 17 de notre collègue néo-démocrate, Gilles Bisson de Cochrane-Sud. C'est un projet de loi très important parce qu'il clarifie de nouveau la position de beaucoup dans cette province.

C'est très important de reconnaître que c'est la Loi 108 qui est le problème. C'est une loi qui vraiment réduit les droits des francophones, des Franco-Ontariens dans cette province.

J'ai entendu ce qu'a dit le ministre des Affaires francophones, et le procureur général avant lui à une autre occasion, et c'est clair que nous sommes d'accord que ce n'est pas nécessaire de réduire les droits des francophones. C'est pour ça que je ne comprends pas leur obstination à ne pas clarifier la situation. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi ils ne disent pas une fois pour toutes que les droits linguistiques des francophones qu'ils ont dans cette province depuis la Loi 8 soient garantis une fois que les services seront transférés aux municipalités.

Je me demande si c'est une question de préjudice, de vrai préjudice d'une position en faveur de certaines municipalités et contre les droits d'une minorité dans ce pays, dans cette province, la minorité francophone. Je ne veux pas croire qu'on parle de racisme mais il est vraiment très difficile de comprendre la position de ce gouvernement aujourd'hui.

Mais si on regarde la Loi 108, il n'y a pas cette incorporation par référence. Alors c'est un support, mais un support qualifié de la part de ce groupe. C'est la même chose avec l'Association francophone des municipalités parce qu'ils sont reliés un peu à la position des juristes. Alors, on ne peut pas croire en la position de ce gouvernement dans ces choses.

We have numerous letters and critics of this government's position. All they need to do is clarify that linguistic rights in this province are guaranteed.

I just want to cite a couple. I won't go through the whole body of evidence against this government's position, but I just want to read from the London Free Press, a Tory bastion at best, and what they have to say about this:

"French-speaking Ontarians deserve to have their day in court in the official language in which they are most comfortable.

"It is not a favour to francophones to provide that service. It is something they are entitled to."

Now is not the time to weaken official language rights in our province. To do so would be to open the door for Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard to gain more fuel for his separatist fire. Ontario should not be a party to that, nor should it be a party to denying francophones their rights in this province.

Je veux dire simplement au gouvernement que c'est le temps d'agir de façon noble et de respecter les droits de la minorité francophone dans cette province.

Le Président suppléant : Monsieur le député de Cochrane-Sud, vous avez deux minutes.

Au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, je veux dire seulement ceci. C'est une tradition que les ministres de la Couronne ne viennent pas se prononcer sur un projet de loi d'un membre privé. Aujourd'hui, le ministre des Affaires francophones, le ministre nommé à siéger au Conseil des ministres afin de parler pour les francophones, est venu dans cette Assemblée pour nous vendre et essayer de nous faire passer un sapin faisant affaire avec ce que son gouvernement a fait à la communauté francophone. Il vient ici comme un vendu pour nous dire ici que ce gouvernement -

Le Président suppléant : Monsieur Bisson, ce n'est pas un mot que j'accepte. S'il vous plaît, le ministre est un honourable ministre, et je vous demanderais de rétracter, s'il vous plaît.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

Mr Colle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve Safety at Highway Intersections by providing for the installation and use of Red Light Cameras / Projet de loi 20, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'améliorer la sécurité aux intersections de voies publiques en prévoyant l'installation et l'utilisation de dispositifs photographiques de feu rouge.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I am here today basically trying to get the provincial government and the members of this House to support the installation, really, of safety devices which are normally called now red light cameras.

What the bill is really asking for is that the government give permission to municipalities which so choose the right to install these safety devices. It's not forced upon different jurisdictions, but if they wish to have these cameras installed at high-collision intersections, hopefully this legislation will allow them to do that.

Just to give you the origins of this bill, about two years ago there was a very unfortunate accident in my own community at Dufferin and St Clair, where a red light runner ran through an intersection at high speed, crashed into a streetcar island and hit and injured 10 people who were standing waiting for a streetcar and killed a gentleman, a constituent of mine. At that point we approached the municipal officials and looked for ways of making sure this would never happen again.

What came up basically was that there was one technology or one approach that helped to stop this red light running, as they call it, happening. They recommended that this technology, which was being used in the United States, Australia and many European countries, could help prevent red light running. That's where this bill really germinated from.

Over the last couple of years I've worked with members of the Metropolitan Toronto council; I've been working with police chiefs like Julian Fantino, the police chief of London, and Chief Boothby here in Toronto, who have been supporters of this technology, along with community groups and school groups that feel this is one part of the answer in terms of ensuring this epidemic of red light running doesn't continue.

In terms of how these devices work, essentially the camera only takes photographs of vehicles that cross into the intersection after the light has turned red. That's when it's activated, when the light has turned red. If you're typically caught in an intersection sometimes trying to make a left-hand turn, that isn't considered a violation. It's the direct running of a red light, red on red, and that is who they're trying to stop.

If you look at this red light running, as you know, we are hearing more and more about it. At first it seemed it was maybe an exception, but it seems it isn't an exception. There are a growing number of violations where people are running through red lights and it's reached, as some people have said, epidemic proportions.

I know that in the city of Toronto there are about 1,800 intersections. The estimates are that every 12 minutes one of these red lights is run. The problem with the red light running is that usually it's associated with high speed and it's usually associated with catching other drivers or pedestrians unaware. It's a total surprise. Usually these accidents that occur at intersections are much more severe in terms of personal injury and fatalities, and also in terms of damage to vehicles etc. They are generally more serious accidents than your normal accident because of the speed and the right-angle collisions that take place.

In looking at this technology, it's quite clear that wherever it has been installed - in Queensland, Australia; in San Francisco; in the UK; in New York City - it has acted as a deterrent. The incidence of red light running has been reduced and the number of collisions generally are reduced at those intersections by about 30%.

That's not to say you would have a camera at every intersection. These are for high-collision intersections. In all our communities, in all our ridings, we usually have one or two intersections that are considered dangerous. The police know about them, we know about them, and our constituents ask us to do something about them. This is where those cameras would be deployed, at the high-collision intersections. Generally speaking, the police officers in our communities know which ones they are. These cameras would act as a way of making us think twice.

It's ironic. In talking to people recently about this issue, one of the things they're saying is that because there has been more awareness about red light running, people are starting to think twice, as I am. What I've been told by a number of people recently is that as they're now slowing down for the red, they're being almost rear-ended by people behind them because they're stopping for the red.

There have been reports given to me about people being passed when they stop for the red. This is what we've come to. It's not just a Toronto or a Hamilton situation. This is all over North America, and I think international, because of, I guess, pressures in the workplace and the increasing number of motor vehicles. There is what they call road rage.

I know they were saying that 20 years ago in Toronto people used to actually stop when the light turned amber or orange. Now, as you know, that's very seldom the case. People not only don't stop at the orange lights, they don't stop at red lights, surprisingly enough. The worrisome thing is that we have grown accustomed to thinking that green means okay and that red means stop, but that is changing. It is becoming a situation where, as one of the police officers in Toronto said, one of the most dangerous things we have is a fresh green light. People, by instinct, think when the light turns green they can go.

It's important that we do something to bring back some civility to our roads, and especially at intersections, where red has to mean stop. These cameras have worked. They have made people become more cognizant of the severe penalties for bodily injury etc. They have worked all over the world where they've tried them.

I know the technology is sometimes debatable. I know the Premier mentioned the fact that he would prefer the frontal technology that takes a picture of the driver's face. That's available and it's used in San Francisco. They take a picture of the licence plate plus the driver's head. The problem with the frontal technology is that generally it's more expensive and there are all kinds of variations with weather, with light, with what the driver is wearing or not wearing, and it's not as effective.

If we could get this bill to committee, those kinds of changes and pilot projects on various technologies could be worked out. I'm not saying there's just one technology, but the one that universally seems to work, according to police forces in Australia, the UK and the United States, is taking a picture of the licence plate.

I know there are privacy concerns, but the privacy concerns would probably be greater if you took a picture of the driver. Taking a picture of the licence plate would be less intrusive and, generally speaking, it's much more enforceable in terms of issuing a fine.

The number of accidents involving red light running is increasing. The Toronto police report there's been a 30% increase in the incidence of red light running over the last three years alone, so it is not an issue that's going to go away. We have to have a comprehensive program and education. We can use all kinds of other means of promoting safety at intersections, but I think the cameras are one integral part.

I know some people say, "We can have extra policemen." The problem is, there aren't the resources. I know police chiefs across Ontario said they don't have the resources to be at all these intersections. You can imagine a city like Toronto with about 1,800 intersections. You can't have them. If we can get more police officers, fine, but the police need technological support.

This is a technology that makes the police do their job better. It allows them to do other things, and it goes hand in hand with good road safety. That is why it's a complement to what the police are doing and what I think the public is demanding.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I am standing in support of Bill 20, Mr Colle's bill. This is private members' hour and because of that I'm not going to take a lot of time ribbing the Liberal Party for not supporting the NDP's photo-radar. I think if Mr Colle had been here he would have, given his passion for this issue and particularly what happened in his own riding.

We're talking about a safety issue here. We're talking about the fact that somebody died in Mr Colle's riding. Of course we know that's not the only incident over the past while where people have been killed or maimed, standing innocently on street corners, by drivers who have gone through red lights. It's a very serious issue.

This is a private member's bill. As I look around, I would say that all of the members in the House at the moment - except perhaps for myself and the Speaker - weren't here during the time we brought in photo-radar. I know the arguments of the time. Some of them were, quite frankly, just political, because we were doing it and the opposition said, "Because you're doing it as a government, it's bad." But there were some concerns expressed about privacy and individual rights and that sort of thing.

I keep coming back to this situation, as I did with photo-radar, that we're talking about safety and we're talking about people's lives. We're talking about the fact that when people get behind the wheel of a car, it can be a weapon. It kills people. Vehicles kill. It's not the vehicle, of course, it's the driver. But that is the reality and we all know that. We have to take it very seriously.

I would say to those government members who have said they oppose this, that they want to put more police officers on street corners, that that's ridiculous. We don't have the resources to do that, and even if we had the resources to put more police officers out there, why would we do that? When we need police officers in so many situations these days, why would we do that when sophisticated technology exists? We are in the 1990s. This is what it's all about. We can use this technology to our benefit and this is a perfect example of where we should be doing that.

I would like to speak personally for a moment. I ride a bicycle. I've been riding a bicycle for many years now in the city of Toronto.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Tell us.

Ms Churley: I can't even remember when - since I was a kid in Labrador but the roads were pretty safe there. Here in Toronto, for a number of years now. I ride my bike everywhere. I ride my bike downtown. Some of you have seen me here at Queen's Park with my helmet. I like to ride my bike, but I'm riding it less and less these days because I'm scared. There have been a number of deaths of cyclists, not particularly at red lights but in unsafe traffic.

I am scared. I recognize what Mr Colle is saying personally, both from driving my car and from the fact that I do stop at ambers. I have had almost that same situation he described, of somebody nearly running into me, people beeping their horns angrily because I stop at an amber. They're mad because I didn't go through that red light so they didn't get the opportunity to go either. People get very angry about it. It's happening more and more.

We don't ever get to make a left turn any more on an amber. It's always on a red, absolutely always now. It is common. That's the way it is. That is dangerous, and it's happening more and more. You see the car just boot it as the light is starting to turn red, and you see it more and more, just going right through the red light.

As somebody who rides a bicycle, I am getting more and more nervous about doing so. This road rage is very real. When I was on Toronto city council I chaired the city cycling committee for a while and we worked, at least here in Toronto - I know there are other such committees across urban areas - to educate drivers about cyclists, and yes, cyclists about safe riding, safe cycling, as well. But the reality is that there are a lot of people out there now when I'm riding my bicycle who don't want me on the road and they make that quite clear.

I try to obey the road rules as a cyclist, but there are times, even when obeying those rules and having my place on the road, when I feel I'm in danger, quite frequently now, because drivers are getting more and more impatient. If you're a cyclist and you're out there on the road, they often see you as an impediment.

These are the kinds of conditions we're facing more and more, either as we walk as pedestrians - I think the bill before us today deals more specifically with that, with the fact that we could have children standing at bus stops on corners, and it's happened and they have been hit by cars.

Before I close, I want to pass on a little tip I heard on CBC Radio the other day. Andy Barrie was talking. I had forgotten all about this but it's true. It reminded me that when we're sitting at street corners sometimes, waiting to make that left-hand turn, waiting for the light to change, we turn our wheel ready to make that turn. He made a very good point, that we shouldn't do that because if you're rear-ended from behind and you have your wheel turned to make that left turn, what'll happen is your car will go up on the curb, it'll go in that direction,

whereas if you keep your wheel straight ahead, if you're rear-ended, you will just go out into the traffic.

I know that has been something that years ago I heard and I forgot all about, and as soon as he said that, I thought, yes, I do that sometimes, that impatience, just to be ready to get going. Part of that is because often when you're waiting to make that left-hand turn, you know you're going to be waiting until the light turns red because the other traffic will keep on going, and you know you're going to really have to boot it to make that left-hand turn at all. I thought that was a very good tip and something people should think about as they're waiting on that corner to make that turn. I would like to thank Andy Barrie for that tip.

I would like to close by saying to all members of the House that we should pass this bill today. We should get it out to committee. We should then at committee stage deal with the kinds of concerns that some of the government members have expressed. This would be a good step forward. I see this as the kind of bill that we can work together on in a non-partisan way, all three parties, because we're talking about the safety of our citizens and the safety of our constituents.

This would give us an opportunity to work together to make sure we do what we can as legislators to try to protect people and to do what I think we're here to do, and that is, if there's a problem within our society, we see it and try to find ways to fix it.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's my pleasure this morning to join in the discussion on the member for Oakwood's bill regarding the issue of installation of red light cameras.

I don't think there's any question the government is committed to working with municipalities to solve this problem. This is a problem, though, that reflects the deterioration of society's respect for rules, a society that's in too big a rush. This is more than an issue of installing red light cameras.

We've already talked about the fact that we're prepared to look at raising fines for running red lights, that we're prepared to look at the idea of community safety zones, municipalities being able to designate community safety zones where fines could be doubled. But the real solution of course is to have more police officers patrolling those areas where there are known problems, and in actual fact providing a fine to the operator of the vehicle and thereby demerit points, impacting their right to drive.

The member for Oakwood identified 15 problem intersections. If they are that easily identifiable, I don't understand why the city of Toronto would not increase enforcement at those intersections as they did in a blitz not that long ago. The increased income they would generate from the fines could then be used to pay for those police officers, because obviously they would expect that the increased fines would pay for the red light cameras.

It's interesting that the Liberals have this idea that we should fine vehicles. Mr Hoy, the member for Essex-Kent, had an idea about people who pass school buses: Let's just fine the cars; to heck with the drivers if we can't identify them, we'll just fine the cars. I wonder where this would all go. What Mr Colle would suggest is a further proliferation of this. Should we use those cameras to fine jaywalkers at intersections, because that's a danger. Should we use the cameras to take pictures of people who go against the "Don't Walk" signs, because that's an issue. There are lots of issues.

There's nobody who is more of a danger on the road than drunk drivers. Technology is there to have ignition air lock systems to prevent drunk drivers from driving. I guess if we want to target something, maybe we should target that rather than red light runners.

If you want to get really silly about this, you could say: Should we set up cameras to monitor houses? Then, when we can't identify the people who are participating in the illegal activity, should we find the owner of the house? That would be the next step we would move to.

I'm certainly in favour of increased law enforcement. We have lots of rules and regulations on the books and we should enforce more of them. It scares me, though, as I see us, and the members of the opposition especially, flirting with photo-radar and then flirting with Mr Hoy's bill about finding cars that pass school buses regardless of whether we can identify the driver: we'll just find the car on the word of the school bus operator. Now we're talking about red lights set up in intersections to find cars that go through intersections.

I would hate to think that we live in an Ontario where George Orwell would be right that big government will be looking over our shoulder in every single thing we do. We need to make a determination as a society: Do we want to educate people and do some societal things to recreate that sense of respect for law and order? Or do we want to set up a monitoring system that is so oppressive that every move we make is monitored day in and day out?

I don't think that's the direction in which we should be going. My Ontario, as I envision it in the future, is not an Ontario like George Orwell described. I believe that Mr Colle's bill will continue to lead us down that slippery slope of government monitoring all the activities of our lives because we, as citizens, are not prepared to obey the rules of the province. For those reasons, I will not be able to support the bill from the member for Oakwood.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to rise today in support of the bill introduced by my colleague from Oakwood. I think it is a progressive piece of legislation. It's a bill that's long overdue. I want to commend my colleague for the hard work and effort - this is not a one-day issue - that Mike Colle has put into this and the drive he has started across Ontario in support of this bill. This is not a question of being Orwellian or a question of invasion of privacy; this bill is a question of public safety and nothing else.

In my own community, just in the last eight months, we've had two tragedies: a 12-year-old girl was killed in December at an intersection as a result of someone going through a red light; a week ago, an individual driving a vehicle was killed in a collision in the middle of an intersection as the result of someone going through a red light. In my community the increase in violations of cars running red lights at intersections went up by 27% last year.

The evidence is overwhelming that it is a deterrent. The evidence is overwhelming that it works. Frankly, I'm astonished that government members and the minister, who has not had the courage to come out and take a stand in favour of this, would somehow play politics and play games with this issue of public safety.

The member for the government spoke about policing at intersections. Yes, in an ideal world, if you had a police officer at red lights, you could cut down dramatically. Police departments have many things to do. Traffic enforcement is one of them. But it's ironic that the government would speak about this at the same time as they've cut police budgets across Ontario. Municipalities can't just pick police officers out of the air. You cut police budgets, you reduce the funds available and then you say, "The answer is to have more police officers out there." Talk about doublespeak.

The member for Hamilton Mountain, Trevor Pettit, one of your own members - but I know this government's not going to allow him to speak to the bill today - has had a petition in Hamilton with over 2,000 signatures in favour of this. I'll quote what Mr Pettit says, "I disagree entirely with their philosophy on this particular issue," in regard to your government's position on cameras at intersections. Mr Pettit won't be allowed to speak today, interestingly enough. You've muzzled him because he supports this bill.

What we're talking about here is giving municipalities the power to choose to install these cameras at intersections where they believe the greatest dangers occur. It has not been imposed on anybody. You've given municipalities that choice and they best know where the dangers exist, where the most problems are and where they can improve public safety. But it really is a question of public safety. It is a question of public safety here and, yes, the owner of the vehicle has to bear some responsibility.

Yes, you go after the owner, because if I am going to loan my car - or someone else is - to an individual, then I've got to take some responsibility that comes with that. So there is going to be some mechanism so we can deal with the driver and the owner.

This bill may have some changes that are necessary. We can send it to committee and make the necessary changes if we want to make sure that we crack down on the driver rather than necessarily the owner, if that is the will of this government. There is room to move here, but there is not room or time for the government to kill this bill today. The message you'll send out to Ontarians is that you talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. You're the big, tough, law-and-order guys. You've got your crime commissioners, you know, the Mod Squad, running across Ontario talking about crime.

Here you've got a clear opportunity to act, you've got an opportunity to take a responsible step and to say to the people of Ontario: "We want to protect you. Public safety is foremost in our minds."

Ontarians support it. Polls have shown that over 70% of Ontarians support this, the vast majority of drivers support this, but you are bent on some philosophical kick of yours that you're going to block it today and you're going to block it from coming forward. I find it absolutely astonishing that you allow blind ideology to dictate and rule over public safety. I think it's irresponsible, I think it is bad public policy decision-making, but I think, most of all, you are risking the lives of Ontarians every single day at intersections across this province by refusing to act.

Again, I urge the government members who have been whipped into shape by the Minister of Transportation on this issue, having been read the Riot Act by the Minister of Transportation, to look at their own communities and ask themselves how many intersections they can think of in their ridings where this would help public safety. I'm sure you can name intersection after intersection. I ask you to think of those people. I ask you to think of the 12-year-old girl who was killed in December in Hamilton when you are speaking to this issue.

I ask you to think of the safety of your constituents and to move away from really playing, as I said earlier, cheap philosophical politics with this issue. This is an issue that goes beyond political lines.

I ask you to look at the results. If it was proven that it was not going to be a deterrent, then I don't think any of us would be sitting here today saying, "Let's do it for the sake of doing it." This is not here to be a revenue-maker for municipalities, for police departments. This bill is there to work as a deterrent, because I can tell you if individuals know that at certain intersections there are red light cameras and they're going to get nabbed, they are going to slow down, they are going to stop, they are not going to go through a red light.

But if you take that away it's hit and miss. If a police officer happens to go by an intersection or be there when it happens then, yes, you will do it, you'll stop if you see him, and you'll get nailed if you go through it. But in most cases police officers do not have the time to sit at intersections or to blitz, as they did a few weeks ago, here in the city of Toronto. They don't have that opportunity, they don't have that time, they don't have that resource, because you've taken that away from them.

I want to commend my colleague the member for Oakwood for the leadership he has shown in this and I want to ask the government members to look at this from the point of view of the safety of children, of pedestrians, of the elderly, of people in your community and to do the right thing. Put aside the gamesmanship here, put aside the political games; do what is right, what is good for the people of Ontario. Protect them and approve this bill today.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise in support of this bill from the member for Oakwood. I want to say that it's always a brave man, it's always somebody who has a certain amount of courage, who can change his position on something at certain periods of time. We know at one time the Liberal caucus was opposed to the photo-radar technology. It seems they've changed that position, and I commend them for that. I'm not going to take the political shot that I can take.

I just want to congratulate the Liberal caucus for changing their position and now endorsing the photo-radar technology approach as they start to realize that technology such as photo-radar can play a very important role when it comes to making our roads safer for both the motoring public and those pedestrians who walk along the sidewalks and cross streets in their municipalities.

I want to say, however, I'm a bit disappointed in the government's position on this. I think when individuals cannot change their minds in the face of reason, it says something about the capability of those individuals when it comes to making good decisions for Ontario. We know from example after example after example, through jurisdictions across North America and outside North America, that technologies such as red light radars or photo-radars, whatever you want to call them, usually work. We have seen over the period of time that technology has been put in place that it saves lives.

I ask a very simple question: What is it that the government doesn't like about saving lives? Why are they opposed to an initiative that would ensure that somebody in this province who is alive today will not die in a car accident because somebody ran a red light? Why would they not want to put in place legislation that would protect that life? I can only think that (

a) it's an ideological position that the government is taking, or (

b) this government just does not want to be seen as changing its mind on anything.

We know the Mike Harris government, then the third party in opposition to the NDP government, had opposed photo-radar on our highways when the Bob Rae government, under the leadership of Mr Gilles Pouliot, had put in place photo-radar. Let me go back and revisit that a bit, because I think it's quite telling.

Just recently I drove from St Catharines to Toronto. I had an aunt of mine who passed away on the weekend and I had to drive to St Catharines and back. I'm just amazed that, as a driver on the Queen Elizabeth Way or on the 427, on one of those major highways, I could be driving at the speed limit of 100 kilometres an hour and have cars passing me on both sides, inside lane and outside lane, zooming by me at 130 kilometres and 140 kilometres per hour. The medium speed on those highways is 120 kilometres to 125 kilometres per hour. We know that speed kills, but this government chooses to do nothing about it.

We had an opportunity for a short period of time, when photo-radar was put in place, to have certain highways patrolled by photo-radar. What was the effect of that? I remember the first time I came out of the airport parking lot in Toronto and pulled on to the 427 after photo-radar was put on, coming on to the ramp that leads eventually on to the 427 from the airport, I had to put my brakes on. In the past when I got on to a major highway, I was so used to the traffic going at 120 kilometres an hour that, just by instinct, I came on to the freeway at a speed I would normally do, and the speed was actually down to what it should be at about 100 kilometres per hour.

The point I make is that we know photo-radar worked. Why? Because the medium speed of people driving on those highways when photo-radar was in place was slower than it is now.

The other thing that's interesting, if you go back and look at the stats, the stats will demonstrate there were fewer accidents under photo-radar, which means we saved injury and death to the motoring public in Ontario, saved money to our health care system and, as well, we found there were actually fewer problems with traffic when people drove at a reasonable speed.

When people were driving at the speed posted on the speed limit, you had far fewer traffic jams on the QEW and the 401 than you have now. What causes a traffic jam on those highways is that people are coming along at 120, 130 klicks down the QEW, they get to the old Humber bridge, before they did the fixing, and people slow down. They put their brakes on, just touch them, all the traffic behind them slows down and you end up with a traffic jam.

The point I make is, we know that initiative worked. This member, the member for Oakwood, is saying, "We want to take that photo-radar technology as it was applied under the NDP government, put it on street corners and capture people who are rushing through red lights and putting people and themselves in danger when it comes to being struck by a car." I think that is a good idea, and I commend the member for Oakwood and the Liberal caucus for having brought this forward. They've changed their position from when we were in government, and for that I give them full credit because we know that initiative would save lives.

There was one member, the member for Hastings-Peterborough, who spoke earlier and I really thought it was interesting because he went on to talk about how this initiative was something Orwellian. He was quoting George Orwell and felt that somehow government introducing photo-radar was like Big Brother moving in to tell people what to do. He gave analogies that the government would then put cameras on people's houses to take pictures of people as they walked out the door, and they'd have cameras all over.

Give me a break. Do you think the people in the province of Ontario are silly enough to believe what the member for Hastings-Peterborough said? This initiative is strictly about capturing people as they -

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Chatham-Kent.

Mr Bisson: I correct the record. It was the member for Chatham-Kent. Those photo-radars being used on intersections are only going to capture those people who are running a red light. It's not going to be put outside your front door to capture you and spy on you as walk out of your house.

It brings me to the point that this government makes a big thing about being tough on crime. They've got their crime bosses they have travelling around the province through this crime commission, trying to give people the impression that they're tough on crime and, oh, boy, this government's just going to whack all those criminals and whip `em right into line.

But every time this government gets an opportunity to do something that's progressive and something that will have an effect, they run the other way. That tells me they're not serious, it's nothing but fluff, it's smoke and mirrors, and when this government have the opportunity to do something concrete, they run in the opposite direction because it is not in keeping with the message they're trying to give to the Reform base they're trying to appeal to in Ontario.

I urge all members in this House, Tories, New Democrats and Liberals alike, to support the resolution from the member for Oakwood. It's a positive step that will save lives in the end, and to vote against it says: "I don't care about those lives. I'm willing to see them go."

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would like to address this issue of red light running in its broadest perspective. I want to make sure we have on the record the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario's and the government of Ontario's position on red light running, and the specific set of solid policy initiatives that we have already made with regard to this issue.

First off, with the Road Safety Week which is now going on in at least 24 municipalities throughout this province, the folks in the various communities that are involved in a whole set of activities involving Road Safety Week and the ministry itself have already set out the top priority of red light running or amber light running - either, if you want to look at it - in stressing the importance of preserving public safety on our highways and in our municipalities through the public education initiative that we have already taken.

That is ongoing in terms of trying to ensure through public safety the importance of preserving safety on our roadways for our younger children and for all the citizens of Ontario. That is one of the key ways in which this government sees that you can deal with the issue realistically instead of posing.

The second specific way we've already taken action and have provided leadership far in advance on this issue is that the government has committed itself to working with the municipalities to improve intersection safety in Ontario. We have announced our intention to raise the current minimum fine from $60 to $150. That is another clear way in which we are demonstrating action and leadership on this issue in a realistic way.

Third, that can be followed up, and already is, by effective police enforcement on this whole situation. We have already announced through various initiatives and through the budget $150 million over five years to enhance policing initiatives for dealing with a whole set of public safety challenges, including this particular problem.

Fourth, the acting Solicitor General has introduced legislation through the Community Safety Act to ensure that municipalities that so wish can designate community safety zones for which furthering, doubling fines for red light running offences will apply. So here are again, looking at it in terms of the penalty provisions of the $60 minimum to $150 for red light and amber light running, we're looking at it through the Community Safety Act and through increased initiatives in terms of $150 million for policing.

Furthermore, I want to set on the record a letter that was sent to Chief Boothby, the chief of police of the Toronto Police Service, on March 19 this year. I want to quote from the minister our position regarding this particular situation:

"Unfortunately, it is our understanding that current technology does not allow this goal to be achieved. We are, however, willing to consider proposals to introduce red light cameras if a municipality can demonstrate the following three criteria:

"

(1) The program identifies and charges only the driver with the offence, not the vehicle owner.

"

(2) The program is acceptable in terms of satisfying Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner's concerns.

"

(3) The municipalities pay for provincial services required to assist in the administration of the program on a cost recovery basis."

Here we have on March 19 a letter sent under the signature of the minister, Tony Clement. I think that clearly sets out what we are doing in dealing with this issue. I hope that people, members of this House, will look at what we have already accomplished and at what is required in terms of satisfying criteria when you're dealing with emerging technologies.

I will wind up and conclude that putting together these types of initiatives is one of the key, effective ways of dealing with this ongoing problem; not only that, but when you link it up with convictions in the courts, you will ultimately have demerit points on the driver's record. That is key and important when you link that up with potentially higher rates for insurance to drive a vehicle in this province. Hence, those ranges of initiatives are effective ways of responding to this issue.

Mr Cullen: I'm very pleased to join this debate on Bill 20. I want to applaud my colleague the member for Oakwood for this initiative. I have to tell the members here that I served on the city of Ottawa municipal council and on the council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and at both those councils there has been strong support for the introduction of red light cameras so we can control the carnage that's occurring at our intersections.

Everyone in this hall knows that all politics is local. When you go door to door, sure, people may want to talk to you about the big-picture things, but everyone wants to talk to you about what's happening on their street. I want to let folks know what is happening on their street.

Recently the Ottawa Citizen ran a letter to the editor from Linda Wagar of Ottawa. Linda Wagar is the mother of Sophie, aged 3, and five-month-old Justin. I'm going to read this letter into the record because I think it establishes the case why we should move forward with this bill, why we should be doing something to protect the lives of innocent people when they walk out in good faith to cross the streets in our own communities.

That's what we're talking about: public safety. How best can we deal with public safety? How can we stop the terrible loss of life, the unnecessary loss of life because of some few thoughtless people? We have this problem. We as a government ought to be addressing it.

She begins her letter by saying:

"I can't sleep because in the last four months I have twice been a victim of motorists who run through red lights.

"In one incident, my husband and I drove with our two children to Conroy Pit to walk our dog. I remarked on how little traffic there was. After walking our dog with both children in their respective strollers, I decided I would take a longer walk with our son, who had by then fallen asleep.

"My husband drove home with our daughter and dog. I walked to the corner of Hunt Club and Conroy roads with the intention of returning home along the nearby bike trail.

"As I proceeded to cross the road with my son in the stroller, I remember feeling the impact of a car swerving to avoid hitting us. I remember thinking that I was not going to be hit, but my five-month-old son was about to be. I also remember looking at the light to see if it was indeed green and it was green. I remember looking at a dirty red sporty car driving away, and then slowing down a bit, but choosing not to stop.

"I remember thinking my baby is alive, I am alive. I ran across the road, even though the light was still very green and there was technically no need to run.

"A couple in a van, obviously shaken by witnessing the event, stopped to see if I was okay. I was surprisingly calm and told them yes, of course I was all right. They informed me that the car had missed the stroller by no more than a foot. The woman gave me her business card in case I needed a witness.

"I don't, however, need a witness. I am lucky. I am lucky because my son is alive and sleeping upstairs. I don't need a witness because there was no blood, no ambulance ride, no emergency trauma unit, no little casket for my little one.

"If what I write can make a few people slow down and maybe even stop running red lights, this will be good. I hope that with time I will stop reliving the stress this has caused me. Meanwhile, I remind myself that my son is alive, my three-year-old daughter has a brother, my husband and I still have a son."

That was written by Linda Wagar from Ottawa.

This is what we're trying to deal with, the safety of our citizens as they go about their business, their lives, and cross our streets. This is what the city of Ottawa, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and many, many other municipalities have asked this government: to give them the authority to put into place these red light cameras. Why is it we can put parking tickets on cars but we cannot photograph them when they violate the law? Why is it you can drive on Highway 407 and pay for your toll because someone took a picture - this government took a picture - but you cannot take a picture of someone who has run through a red light and endangered all our lives? It is wrong.

I want to read to you the motion that was passed by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton at a regional council meeting:

"Whereas there are over 55,000 motor vehicle collisions at intersections throughout Ontario every year; and

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas the installation of red light cameras at dangerous intersections has proven to be successful in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore and the UK; and

"Whereas there is a shortage of police officers; and

"Whereas the collisions at these intersections are resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on Highway 407; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to utilize red light cameras;

"We, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, request that the government of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

This is what we ask. We ask that this government approve this bill at second reading. Send it to committee. We can work out the kinks, if there are any kinks. Quite frankly, I think the member has written an extremely responsible bill.

I cannot accept the comments from the members opposite who say, "Simply better public education, higher fines, more police officers." I have to gag at the comments made by the members opposite. Why did they cut $8 million from the regional police budget from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton if they believe we should have more police at the intersections safeguarding the safety of our citizens?

I ask them now to stand up and support us. Don't simply talk it, walk the walk. The lives of our citizens in our communities, people you know, are at risk. Please support Bill 20.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I've been listening to this debate very intently and I think the Liberals have finally lowered themselves to an all-time low in flip-flops on this particular issue.

First, the original resolution that we were going to debate at this time was brought in by the member for Hamilton East and was going to be one on the environment, and he has exchanged and is now in position 96. I gather, because of the length of the term, his will never now never come up. He indicates how committed he is to the environment, but yet he steps out and isn't even going to use it. I was really looking forward to that particular debate.

Listening to the member for Ottawa West who was speaking just a few minutes ago, he was the only person in this whole assembly to vote against the Calgary accord because it didn't enshrine the charter of rights. He was talking about there was nothing to ensure due process. And now what is he speaking on? Something that doesn't support due process.

Interjections

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. Order, members.

Mr Agostino: How many more people have to get killed?

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I want to warn you to come to order. Thank you. The member for Northumberland has the floor. He may speak to the bill as he sees fit. Please allow him that opportunity.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for being able to return to this important bill that's been brought forward. I do compliment the member for bringing this forward and for expressing his real concern about this particular issue, but you have members in his own party who are flip-flopping, and of course this is a flip-flop in position.

I was interested in hearing the member for Riverdale when she spoke. She was talking about enjoying biking. Her name was on the list for kickoff for bike week and I was really disappointed that she wasn't there to take

part in the kickoff for bike week. Unfortunately, I guess she wasn't able to make it.

Ms Churley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: That was a really low blow. As you are aware, a very good friend of mine died recently and it was a very difficult week for me. I think that was inappropriate. It's the first year in nine or 10 years that I have missed that Bike to Work Week. I wasn't doing too well that day. However, the member might like to know that I did ride my bike to work that day and rode it home that night, and continue to ride it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, that's out of order. You must withdraw the comment you made.

Mr Colle: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, those words are out of order. I said that yesterday. You must withdraw those comments.

Mr Agostino: Withdraw it.

The Speaker: Member for Northumberland, you have to be very careful about commenting on members' whereabouts. I don't know where they are and I don't want to start getting involved in trying to determine where they are. It would be helpful if you would stick to the crux of the bill. I would appreciate it.

Mr Galt: My apologies to the member for Riverdale and the present circumstance she's in. I was unaware of that.

In connection with this particular bill, has anyone ever really asked, what is the problem? Is the problem related to road rage or is it related to the competitive nature of Canadian drivers, our hurry-up lifestyle, or it is related to trying to escape from the squeegee kids, and rather than stopping and being attacked by them, are we trying to get through these red lights? Why do normal, law-abiding, average citizens run red lights? Nobody has really ever asked to have a good look at this.

I'm told that drivers here in Toronto are probably the worst in North America. What indeed is the root of that particular problem? I would suggest that this proposal is about trying to treat the symptom, not looking at the real disease problem. What we're going to do is treat the symptom and let the patient die, and that's not in order whatsoever.

I suggest that what's needed here is some sort of modification of our social behaviour, as people are driving and it's certainly not acceptable behaviour. In the past some things like education and enforcement have been very successful; things like enforcement, the recent test that was run in Toronto where some 1,400 people were charged for running red lights. It really changed the driving attitude, the driving patterns here in the city of Toronto. I was very impressed with that particular change. That would appear to be the route we really should be going.

There's been tremendous reduction in the serious accidents here in Ontario, and I would suggest that has been related to things like the RIDE program reducing drinking and driving, the use of seatbelts and also the graduated licence for beginning drivers. This is all about education and enforcement. I suggest that is the proper approach to take with getting rid of and helping with the running of red lights here in Ontario, and particularly in the city of Toronto.

There is no question that our government is committed to working with municipalities if they have some suggestions on how the driver who is running red lights in an illegal manner can be identified and can be properly charged. Once a municipality comes forward with this - and at this point in time we have not had a municipality come forward - we will address it in the most thorough manner.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I can't understand why anybody in this House would not support this legislation. Aren't we in Ontario supposed to be about saving lives, protecting our neighbours, protecting those things that we find precious, which are life, limb and property? Isn't it important that everyone in Ontario understands that their elected members want what's best? This legislation is what's best for the people of Ontario. I cannot believe that anyone in this House would be voting against it.

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, to summarize.

Mr Colle: I want to thank all the members, on both sides of the House, for participating, except for the member for Northumberland. I thought that low comment about the member for Riverdale was the worst comment I've ever heard in this House. I think it was disgusting.

I'll just wrap up by saying that I think the comments made by the Reform-a-Tories on that side - not all of the members of that side, but the Reform element of the Mike Harris government - just show that they're about stupidity and ideology when it comes to this bill.

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, that's out of order. It's not parliamentary.

Mr Colle: I will take it back.

The people of Ontario are worried about safety at intersections. There are 55,000 collisions at intersections; 80% of these accidents that occur as a result of red light running are serious accidents that maim and kill people. They're asking their government to do something that other jurisdictions are doing that works. That's all they're saying. Municipalities are asking for it. The mayor of Ajax today faxed me and said: "You have my full support. I have been personally dismayed at the adamant refusal of the government not to take the appropriate action on this matter." Police chiefs want this to take place, because they know they don't have enough police officers.

For this government to vote against this bill, what they're saying is that they're going to put their Reform ideology ahead of basic public safety. They really are putting, as I said, politics ahead of something that makes sense, something that will save lives. I really wonder what's going to happen when you do cross an intersection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Bisson has moved second reading of Bill 17.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Colle has moved second reading of Bill 20.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour of Bill 17, please rise and remain standing to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Carroll, Jack

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sheehan, Frank

Tilson, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You know what? I need some order, members.

Should the bill be referred to the committee of the whole?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Speaker: Is there a majority in favour?

All those in favour, please rise.

The majority is in favour. It is therefore referred to general government.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds between the votes.

RED LIGHT CAMERA ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES DISPOSITIFS PHOTOGRAPHIQUES DE FEU ROUGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We're now dealing with second reading of Bill 20.

All those in favour, please rise all at once and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Fox, Gary

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Johns, Helen

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ross, Lillian

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Bob

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise all at once and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Carroll, Jack

Ford, Douglas B.

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Tilson, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 40; the nays are 14.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall this bill be referred to the committee of the whole House?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker: Is there agreement to refer the bill to the standing committee on social development? Agreed? Agreed.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADULT EDUCATION

In Toronto, the school board used to fund adult education at $7,000 per student per year. Under the new provincial funding model, under $3,000 is allotted per adult student. This drastic cut will likely decimate adult day school and its valuable ESL program.

I have received dozens of letters from students in various schools telling me what this ESL training has meant to them, asking me to urge the government to continue funding for students who will follow them.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): June is the month we normally celebrate the contributions of seniors in our community. I'm pleased to have a few seconds to talk today about the seniors in my community of London and to salute them for their actions.

They are active as citizens, as volunteers, as social activists, as participants in local events. Seniors are an essential ingredient in every aspect of life in London. From the Forest City to the Hamilton Road seniors' centres, from union retirees' associations to third-age activity groups, seniors gather to discuss the issues of the day, to participate in recreational activities, to plan collective action and to make their wisdom and influence felt by all of us.

One example of senior power is the very strong effort made by the CAW retirees and a group called Side Effects to alert themselves and other members of the community to the misuse and overuse of medication.

This project is essential if we are going to deal with some of the very serious effects that happen when medications are not used appropriately. One of the things that we salute our seniors for in our community is their concerted action to ensure that this problem is understood by the community and that action is taken to end it. I'm very proud to salute the seniors of London today.

GIOVANNI CABOTO

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): On June 24 we will be marking 501 years since the formal discovery and founding of Canada by the Italian explorer Giovanni Caboto, known to us by his anglicized name of John Cabot.

Giovanni Caboto, a citizen of Venice, Italy, was employed by King Henry VII of England, who supported Caboto financially in his travels to the New World.

In 1497 Caboto landed on the eastern shores of Canada in what is today Newfoundland on his own festa, St John's Day. Evidence is strong the Italian words "bona vista," meaning a wonderful site, were first uttered by Caboto himself in his admiration for the new country he was about to land in.

And so it was an explorer of Italian and not French or British background who formally founded Canada. Giovanni Caboto is also the founder of Canada's multicultural community and way of life.

In honour of Giovanni Caboto and in tribute to the many ongoing contributions of the Italian community of Ontario, early next week I will be tabling in this House my private member's bill to establish June 24 in Ontario as Giovanni Caboto Day.

I ask all my colleagues in the House, and especially those who share our founder's Italian ancestry, to support unanimously this bill to help promote greater awareness of our history and multicultural traditions, especially among our youth. Viva Canada. Viva Italia.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today to make a statement to the government, to bring them a message from the province's nurses which was delivered today by some of the representatives of nursing in the province, specifically the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, who are with us in the gallery.

I think, to some dismay of the members opposite, they will learn that the things they've been hearing from the nurses in their constituencies, that firing qualified nurses is no way to provide qualified care, that the kind of assumption you've been making - that nurses are simply going to stretch and stretch and stretch and be able to cover things - cannot stand, that nurses simply can't do it any more and can't be presumed upon by this government.

In fact today the nurses tell us that fragmented and potentially dangerous mistakes can result from the policies that have substituted for well-trained nurses, who intuitively and through their training can provide the best possible care, with undertrained and not regulated workers. That kind of effort has been what this government has put forward.

But what we heard today is even more significant, because we heard that the government is offside with the public, that more than 68% of the public see the quality of their hospital care being determined by their nurses. More than 65% of them strongly agree that the government should put funding aside specifically for nurses in hospitals, in home care and in their new roles as nurse practitioners.

If this government, which met with nurses long ago and so far hasn't acted to meet their standards, thinks they're going to get away with diminishing care, they're going to have to reckon with the nurses of this province. I can tell you that the answer the nurses are giving them is that it's simply not good enough.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, I rise today to inform the House and respond to an

article in the Hamilton Spectator dated Wednesday, June 3, by columnist and former Hamilton Mayor Jack MacDonald, wherein Mr MacDonald chastises the member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino, and myself for not supporting the resolution last June of Hamilton Mountain MPP Trevor Pettit.

I think it's important to remind the House that at that time it was not just the Liberals and New Democrats who voted against it; there were not enough Tories who voted for it. There were enough of them in fact who voted with us that that resolution went down to all-party defeat.

The reality is that resolution came on the very last day of the House, if you will recall, in June before we would break for the summer holidays. Second, it was only five months away from the actual municipal election. Anyone else who's been in municipal government will know that changing the whole, complete structure five months before and imposing it while you're doing that is totally unreasonable and would create nothing but electoral chaos. The last thing is, there wasn't this $27 million, the cheque waiting to be signed, to be handed down if we should get this done.

So I think it's fair to reflect on the history of how this happened and would remind members that's the important thing here.

SPORTS IN BRANTFORD

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): As many of my colleagues know, the city of Brantford has enjoyed a long tradition of association with sports. Brantford is the home town of a number of prominent athletes, including hockey legend Wayne Gretzky, and each year hosts more than 100 significant national and international sporting events, attracting thousands of visitors to my riding.

Some of the more notable competitive sports include minor hockey, where we have the Wayne Gretzky Hockey Tournament every year, curling, wrestling, basketball and swimming, to name but a few.

In recognition of the increasing numbers of young athletes drawn to the community each year to compete in these events, and due in no small part to the efforts of a group of dedicated people in my riding, including Pat Shewchuk, Dean Falle, Bill Page and Paul Stillman, the city of Brantford on May 25, 1998, proclaimed itself by a resolution of council to be the Tournament Capital of Ontario.

It is with great pride that I rise in the House today to share this announcement with my colleagues and enter into the record for future generations that Brantford, in addition to being known as the home of Wayne Gretzky and the telephone city, will from this day forward also be known as the Tournament Capital of Ontario.

I offer my congratulations to the city of Brantford, to its elected council and to the aforementioned group who brought this idea forward.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In a media piece from the Wall Street Journal, there is coming to be quite a bit of consensus that across three nations, Mexico, the US and Canada, we're having a significant problem with infrastructure in our transportation system. Specifically, our transportation at border crossings is having a great deal of difficulty.

What I'd like to see from the Ontario government is a leadership role being taken specifically to address this issue. I'd like to call on the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism and the Minister of the Environment to come together to strike a working group. This working group ought to sort out levels of responsibility that actually address the issue of transportation.

What we think should be a priority is development of a state-of-the-art, safe, clean, automated superhighway that ensures the smooth, fast transportation of goods between Canada and the US.

I am asking them specifically to talk about the roles and responsibilities of all three levels of government. In Windsor, on July 23, 1997, we did strike a working group, a task force to look and study and call on all three levels of government to discuss the creation of a north-south superhighway. What we know is happening today and will continue in the future is that much of our economic boom is based on trade and the increase of trade. I'd like to see the Ontario government play a lead role in this.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Harris government has once again demonstrated its disdain for the rights of women to be paid what they deserve. The Harris government has also demonstrated its disdain for the value of health care workers in the home.

People may remember this issue from a little while ago. About nine months ago there was a crisis in home care. This particular crisis was announced by the impending demise of Red Cross homemaker services. At the time, you'll remember, the Harris government tried to blame this on pay equity legislation. The Red Cross, on the other hand, stated that because of the competitive bidding process in home care, they would be forced out of business, unable to compete with the private sector providers who pay the lower wages.

Well, that's exactly what's happened, and now all of a sudden the Red Cross pay equity has been recalculated, manipulated, and the problem recalculated out of existence. A little math fix and women who were told seven years ago that they would get pay of $14 an hour are now being told that was a mistake. Whatever the homemakers now earn has been deemed to be in line with the provisions of pay equity.

These people provide some of the most important services we can think of in the homes of our elderly, our sick and our vulnerable. This is a disgrace. I would ask the government today to go back to the drawing-board and pay these workers the moneys they deserve.

OPTIMIST CLUB FESTIVAL

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Today, I rise to inform my fellow members of the Legislative Assembly about the fourth annual Optimists in Action for a Better Day Community Festival which will be happening this Saturday, June 6, at Chinguacousy Park in Brampton. This year's theme is "Friends Towards the Future."

The purpose of this event is to celebrate the abilities and achievements of young people in our community and those organizations which assist them in reaching for their dreams and achieving their goals.

Local youth and community groups will be organizing displays and demonstrations for visitors to the park. Puppet shows, a children's penny carnival, a barbecue - all of these provided as a free service to the community, at no cost to the participants.

The Optimist Club of Brampton has been serving the citizens of the city for over 15 years and this festival is just one way in which they strive to fulfil the spirit of their motto, "Friend of Youth." They have contributed to many projects, including building the Optimist Community Care Centre in Chinguacousy Park, helping found the Ogada Wilderness Camp CARE program for troubled teens, running bicycle safety rodeos and recognizing graduates from many of our schools for various achievements.

I'm proud to have the opportunity to relay to you, Mr Speaker, and to the members of the assembly, the good works of the Optimist Club in my community and invite all members who may be in Brampton this Saturday to join us at Chinguacousy Park from 9 am to 3 pm for a fun day.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 16,

An Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others and to make other amendments respecting the Financing of Local Government and Schools.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday, June 1, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1346 to 1351.

The Speaker: We're voting on first reading of

An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Clement, Tony

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, Ron

Kells, Morley

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wood, Bob

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 31.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm pleased to introduce the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, designed to increase investment and job creation in Ontario's construction industry and improve workplace democracy to help ensure stable labour relations. This legislation is part of the government's plan announced in the speech from the throne to continue building a strong economy and to create more and better jobs.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act is designed to increase investment and job creation in Ontario's construction industry and improve workplace democracy to help ensure stable labour relations.

It is part of the government's plan, which was announced in the speech from the throne, to continue building a strong economy and to create more and better jobs. If passed, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would form part of the government's commitment to keep Ontario's labour relations system flexible, fair and efficient, which in turn creates even more opportunities for investment and jobs.

Over the past few months, small and large businesses have responded in many ways to Ontario's more favourable economic climate. Many have said they are considering major job-creating capital investments.

But actually making those investments, getting shovels in the ground and people on the job, depends on the competitiveness of our construction industry. The simple fact is that Ontario has to create innovative ways to attract outside investment. This legislation demonstrates yet again this government's commitment to attracting secure, high-paying jobs to the province of Ontario.

The bill I have introduced today would enhance competitiveness in the construction industry. It would create a framework to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects in Ontario. Such a framework has been the subject of lengthy discussions among construction employers, various trade unions and ministry officials, as we have collectively worked to resolve competitiveness issues.

This legislation would bring about project agreements that would help businesses compete for economically significant projects with the potential to bring thousands of construction and spinoff jobs into Ontario's communities. These projects might include those contemplated by the multibillion-dollar petrochemical sector, as well as other innovative, high-technology-based industries.

I want to compliment my honourable friends and members of this assembly the member for Sarnia and the member for Lambton, who have worked long and hard to accomplish this proposed legislation which will benefit the Sarnia-Lambton area in particular.

Passing the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would also address a long-standing issue. It would ensure that only employers in the construction industry are covered by the special construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act. This means that employers whose primary business is not construction, for example, retail employers, municipalities and school boards, can negotiate agreements specific to the circumstances of their sector. This corrects the situation of these employers being bound by province-wide agreements that they have little opportunity to influence.

In addition to the construction industry competitiveness initiatives I mentioned earlier, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would also amend a variety of labour relations and other legislation to meet some key goals.

First, this bill would make the union certification process more democratic so that the wishes of employees are sought and respected in all cases. The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would ensure that union certification can only occur when a majority of employees vote in favour of the union in a secret ballot.

The bill would also let employers provide evidence to verify a union's estimate of the number of employees in the bargaining unit described in the application for certification without compromising the timing of a representation vote.

Investors and employees need to have confidence in the certainty of Ontario's labour laws. These amendments would ensure the democratic rights of employees are respected in the certification process. If passed, these amendments would send a message to all investors that Ontario is open for business.

Second, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act deals with miscellaneous amendments to the Labour Relations Act, the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that create greater efficiency in adjudication procedures.

Specifically, this bill would implement the merger of the office of adjudication with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It would also let the board fully recover the costs for construction industry grievance arbitrations.

In

summary, the new, innovative reforms in the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would make our construction industry more competitive, stimulate growth in a number of key industries and improve workplace democracy. This job-creating legislation would make Ontario more attractive to investors. Above all, Ontario will be even better positioned to attract economically significant construction projects and create jobs with the passage of the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You can see that the creative headline writers in the Premier's office are at it again: the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. Somehow that term doesn't seem to apply generally when we look at Bill 26, at Bill 22, at Bill 136, at the rule changes and at Bill 103. I hope it is true that indeed you really are talking about a more democratic situation than has been there in the past, because that certainly is not the feeling of the people who are working in the trades in the unions in this province.

This bill, which I just had a chance to look at and of course will need some time to scrutinize, if passed, I believe will have a major impact on the construction industry and the way in which business is done in special areas.

I know you've had discussions, Minister, with trades and with big firms on possible projects and that some of those meetings have taken place over the last several months. I remind you, however, that the trades still have some major concerns about this. Some of the ideas you proposed are some of their proposals; this isn't just one way. Some of them made some of these proposals you announced today.

Our bottom line is really, will we truly have a situation where we will have a more competitive situation to attract projects and investment to Ontario? I'm told that in the construction industry alone you've got 19,000 fewer workers than there were seven months previous to that, which is a heck of a lot, so there's a need for a lot of activity.

Our bottom line is fairness. Our bottom line is real jobs with fair wages and opportunity for all the partners to play together and work together and put together something of substance. I know the concerns of people in Sarnia for an industry that is in deep trouble and may have, and I know have, some ideas for something of this nature. This may be able to address that particular issue.

It's got to be a win-win situation for everybody - for the people of Sarnia, for the investments, for the workers, for the people who are spending their time and their skill working on such projects - so it is not a divisive element.

I'm concerned, Minister, just on the surface, looking at the bill - I want to spend more time scrutinizing this and consulting more widely, which I have not - about some of the unilateral authority that is now vested in your office. I'll want to take a close look at that. Construction projects under your new proposed contract negotiations format, will this be in your office only? What kind of power is that? Why is it not in regulations? Why not assign this power to the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

This bill assigns a number of new powers to the labour relations board as well, and yet this is the same board this government cut back by millions of dollars; I forget how many staff it was, but several staff, a high percentage of staff a year and a half or two years ago, and now they have new responsibilities. Will they also get the concurrent resources to do the job that you're now asking them to perform?

Your system seems to give every union in negotiations one vote. If you have a union that has 100 members in one trade and you have one that has maybe 5,000, how does that work in terms of the 60% factor you're dealing with on accepting a particular project by a proponent? How is that going to work for the individual members and employers on that? It may on the surface look like one vote regardless of size, so I'll be interested to see how that plays out and the reactions of the trades on that.

You say that the new system will only apply to major industrial construction projects, but so far I haven't seen a definition of what is a major industrial project. Is it one over $15 million? Who determines it? Is it the employer, the proponent, the labour relations board, the ministry? How is this developed?

We want to take a closer look at allowing companies to exempt themselves from construction provisions if they're not primarily in the construction area.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Responses, third party.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I also want to begin by pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the title of the bill, calling it the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. Why don't you just `fess up and come clean and call the act exactly what it is: Further Gutting Ontario's Labour Laws so that Our Already Rich Friends Could Make Even More Money? That's the name of the game here.

For instance, the notion that the government now is going to exclude non-construction employers from the Ontario Labour Relations Act provisions that apply to construction workers so that these companies can be even more competitive is hard to swallow when one of the most high-profile cases involving this issue was the TD Bank. Are you trying to tell us the TD Bank isn't competitive already? That's the nature of exactly what the minister said standing in his place. He said, "We have to make it more competitive and this is why we're making these changes," and one of the most high-profile cases involves the TD Bank.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the employer lost its case at the labour relations board. You're making this change because you don't like those kinds of decisions. Any time there's a decision that goes in favour of the workers, you do everything you can to try and change it, up to and including changing the rules.

Let's take a look at one of the other provisions that you're doing. This is also a major one and resulted from another high-profile case that went before the Ontario Labour Relations Board: Wal-Mart and the Steelworkers. The board ruled that the employer's act of misconduct was so severe during the run-up to an election for certification that the board set aside that decision and said, "Wal-Mart, you have poisoned the workplace to such a degree that a fair, democratic vote cannot take place. We deem that the certification provisions have been met," and they approved it.

It requires an awful lot, regardless of who's on that board, to make a case that the workplace was so poisoned that you can't conduct a fair, democratic vote, yet in this particular case that's exactly what happened. Surprisingly, when we search, we find that there have been 15 of these in four years. What that suggests is that there are a lot of instances where democratic votes, contrary to your name for the bill, can't take place. The notion that you're going to clear things up somehow and allow another vote to take place doesn't wash.

One of the key reasons that a board would rule against an employer is if they were intimidating their employees. If you've intimidated employees to the point where they are fearful to exercise their right to vote to join a union and to the extent that the board has now said there is no democratic climate in which to hold a vote, you have to have scared people pretty significantly. That's not going to go away in a matter of a few weeks just because you say so. That poisoned environment and those intimidations are still there and it's still going to affect the outcome.

But once again you don't like the fact that in a fair, open, democratic, quasi-judicial atmosphere your friends lost the decision, so you're going to change the rules to make sure that your friends win the decisions 10 times out of 10, and somehow you have the nerve to stand there and say this is democracy.

Let me also mention that we are glad to see that the government isn't, as was rumoured, removing the words "reasonable efforts" from the OPSEU collective agreement. But I want to say that, given the fact that there's a pattern here, a pattern that when you don't like the decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board you change the rules of the game, and if you don't do it in one piece of legislation you just wait for a few months and introduce it into another, we'd like to hear from you, Minister, very clearly that you're not ever planning to introduce a piece of legislation that removes the "reasonable efforts" clause in the OPSEU agreement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last week I raised the issue of a government regulation which you and your cabinet authorized that compromises both patient care and small business competitiveness in the medical laboratory industry. The regulation, you'll remember, forces successful small labs to pay their larger competitors some of the money they've earned over the last two years because you've decided they shouldn't have it.

When you answered this question on May 25, you said you would protect access to lab services. I have here an internal memorandum from Gamma Dynacare cancelling lab services at 344 Bloor Street in St Andrew-St Patrick, at 172 Queen Street in Brampton South, at 99 Avenue Road in St Andrew-St Patrick. In other words, all the people who depend on those services no longer have good access except from a temporary service that you intend to cancel.

Minister, will you guarantee these communities that are affected by the closure of those collection centres that they will be able to have -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I think if you take a look at the locations you will know that there are other lab facilities in very close proximity. We have indicated that in areas where there is difficulty accessing lab services we will ensure that lab services are provided.

Mr Kennedy: Severely ill patients are depending on much more than that glib response, because in real life there are people affected. Doctors Wolgelernter and Charlebois in Scarborough state: "Patients do not have the funds for extra travel. Others simply choose not to have the blood work done, which is dangerous." They mention blood sugars and electrocardiograms, which have to be done promptly.

Patients are affected by your reckless decision-making here. Mrs Hall of Thornhill writes about her husband, who is a stroke victim and 90 years old. It's very difficult for him to travel for blood tests. The labs that you want to favour stopped providing the tests at home and it was taken over by the lab that you want to put out of business.

Minister, for Mrs Hall and for a whole range of patients all across the province, will you stop this chaos, will you withdraw the regulation and will you stand in the House today and guarantee they will have the same high-quality lab services in future?

Hon Mrs Witmer: This certainly was not a reckless decision that was made. This is an attempt to ensure that we have the adequ