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

November 2, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-02 (PDF)

L100 - Thu 2 Nov 2000 / Jeu 2 nov 2000

ORDERS OF THE DAY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT (MINERS AND FORESTRY WORKERS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE (MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MPP BACK TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

MPP BACK TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

WARKWORTH PERFECT PIE CONTEST

TAMIL COMMUNITY

NEWMARKET BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTES

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION SIGNS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES PANNEAUX ÉLECTORAUX

ROAD USER CUSTOMER SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

FAIR PARENTAL LEAVE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE CONGÉ PARENTAL ÉQUITABLE

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

VISITOR

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

EDUCATION ISSUES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PARENTAL LEAVE

EDUCATION ISSUES

FEDERAL SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

KING'S HEALTH CENTRE

SPECIAL EDUCATION

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

CAPITAL FUNDING

COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

FARMFARE

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

HIGHWAY SIGNS

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMITATION FIREARMS REGULATION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES FAUSSES ARMES À FEU

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

REPLICA FIREARMS REGULATION AND PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION ET LA PROTECTION À L'ÉGARD DES RÉPLIQUES D'ARMES À FEU (CONTINUED)

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the federal government continues to propose legislation to replace the Young Offenders Act that does not address the concerns of Ontarians and it should therefore make the following amendments to Bill C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act: require 16- and 17-year-olds to be automatically tried as adults when they commit adult crimes; require mandatory jail time for youths convicted of offences involving weapons; require youths convicted of serious crimes such as murder to serve adult sentences; increase jail sentences.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mr Tilson moves notice of motion number 25. Mr Tilson.

Mr Tilson: This motion was first introduced into the House by me on October 16, which of course was before the federal election was called. It is now called, and Bill C-3, which was the federal Liberal amendment to the Young Offenders Act, has died, fortunately in my view, on the order paper. This motion has been brought forward by me simply out of frustration as to what the federal government is doing with respect to the Young Offenders Act.

The Young Offenders Act was first introduced in 1984, and it hasn't worked. The law, of course, is a federal law except that the provinces-the province of Ontario-are asked to administer it, to enforce it through the police and through the justice system.

I think that anyone has witnessed in their own community horrific crimes that have been committed by youths who have been tried under the Young Offenders Act, and it clearly hasn't worked. I submit that it puts the safety of the public at risk.

That's the purpose of the resolution, although it is slightly redundant with Bill C-3 dying. Whoever is successful in the federal election, whether it be any party that is running, I would hope their top priority would be to change the Young Offenders Act, specifically the items that have been referred to in this resolution.

The Young Offenders Act, as we all know, applies to youths 12 to 17 years of age at the time the criminal offence is committed. It doesn't apply to youths who are under the age of 12 at the time of the offence. These children are dealt with under child welfare legislation.

Most youths are dealt with in youth court. These are provincial courts with special expertise and facilities. In some circumstances a youth may be tried in adult court.

The rules about transfer to adult court and sentencing are summarized in the following way. It's these particular points that give me great concern as to the fact that youths in these age brackets are committing these simply terrible crimes and they are committing them as adults. They are young adults and they're out in a very short period of time. I think that's wrong and I don't think the public is being protected.

Any youth over 14 who has been charged with an indictable offence-that is, a more serious offence-may be transferred to an adult court. In such cases it's the crown that must apply to have the case removed from youth court. All 16- and 17-year-olds charged with serious violent offences-first-degree and second-degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault-are automatically transferred to adult court. However, the accused's lawyer or the crown may apply to have the case stay in the youth court. That seems to happen time and time again, where cases that clearly should be held in adult courts stay in the youth court.

If the case is tried in the adult court, a youth faces the same sentences as adults except the youths sentenced to life in prison are eligible for parole earlier. The most time a youth can spend in prison without being ineligible for parole is 10 years, where an adult may be eligible for up to 25 years. Why is that? I don't understand that. The little darlings commit these awful crimes and they're out in very short periods of time.

Youths found guilty following a trial in a youth court may be given a custodial or a non-custodial sentence. A custodial sentence may be either secure custody-that is, a detention-correction facility-or open custody, a community group home. They're just let out into the public. A non-custodial sentence includes absolute discharge, conditional discharge, probation, fine or compensation for the victim, or community service. I don't understand that either and most of the people that I speak to in my riding don't understand it.

The maximum custodial sentences the youth court may impose are: two years for an offence not punishable by life under the Criminal Code; three years for offences punishable for life; seven years-four years secure custody and three years supervision for second-degree murder; and 10 years, which is six years of custody and four years of supervision for first-degree murder.

Justice Minister McLellan, with great fanfare, said she was going to fix all that, and I think we in the province of Ontario who administer the law were quite pleased with that. Well, that isn't what happened. Bill C-3, in fact, made these sentences even lighter. It made it even softer, and the youths, who are very mature, just laughed at the federal government. I'm not laughing. I find it absolutely tragic as to what they have done.

Government officials-the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the corrections minister-asked to speak to the justice committee in Ottawa, the justice committee comparable to what we have here, and they wouldn't allow them to be heard. They wouldn't allow those ministers from Ontario to come, yet they allowed Mr Rock to come. He's the minister, or was the minister, so I guess he can come. So he's OK.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: I've only got a couple of minutes left.

Anyone can pick out newspaper clippings from their ridings to talk about some of the unbelievable results that have occurred as a result of the Young Offenders Act. The most recent one, which is still before the court, and I don't plan to talk about the merits of it, is Jonathan Wamback. The 15-year-old Wamback was beaten near his home north of Toronto in June 1999 after being swarmed by three teens. His skull was shattered, resulting in brain damage and several weeks in a coma. He's attempting to walk again. Two 17-year-olds and a 16-year-old from Newmarket were initially charged with attempted murder.

Those charges were reduced to aggravated assault. The crown attorney prosecuting the case withdrew the application to have the case heard in the adult court saying, "No reasonable prospect of transfer."

A youth convicted of aggravated assault in a youth court faces a minimum penalty of three years in prison as compared with a maximum of 14 years if convicted in an adult court. That's nuts. That's absolutely crazy to have that distinction between youth courts and adult courts. The trial has been completed and the court's judgment is set for sometime this month. But it doesn't matter, because that's what the law says. You could say, "We are going to send these people for 14 years." It doesn't matter; they can't be.

In November 1997, 14-year-old Reena Virk of Victoria, British Columbia, was swarmed by eight teenagers and then killed by two teens, Warren Glowatski and Kelly Ellard. Ellard, 15 at the time, punched Virk repeatedly and then, while smoking a cigarette, held Virk's head under water with her foot until she drowned. Ellard was convicted in adult court of second-degree murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

As a young offender, however, the maximum period for which she could be eligible for parole is 10 years. In fact, the sentencing judge ruled that due to good prospects for rehabilitation, Ellard would be eligible for parole after serving five years in prison, less the time that she had already spent in prison following her arrest and trial. Since Ellard has neither admitted guilt nor expressed remorse, the sentence provoked strong protest in British Columbia.

You can go on and on listing these cases. We all have heard them. They've occurred in our own ridings. The Young Offenders Act is an absolute disgrace to this country. We need protection of our citizens.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'm very pleased to rise to talk to the resolution today. Am I in the federal House or am I in the provincial House? It's the provincial House, right.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a federal election.

Mr Levac: Oh, there's a federal election on, that's right. I think Stockwell is very proud of the wording that's being presented again.

Mr Speaker, let's talk about what's not happening in this place. Under the Tories , there are fewer police officers per capita than when they took power. There are 500 fewer police officers in Toronto since 1995. Under the Tories , the parole officer's parole and probation caseloads ratio remains one of the highest in North America. Even with the announcement of the hiring of 165 new officers, which took almost half a year to do, to even decide how they wanted to implement them, we now know that the ratios are still the highest in North America.

Under the Tories , beds have been closed in jails and detention centres all over the province so that individuals convicted of drunk driving, peddling drugs, assaults and fraud are spending their court-imposed sentences at home-tough on crime. Under the Tories , the province has moved toward boot camps, which have a dubious track record at best, and continue to ignore proven success stories like justice circles and correctional farms such as Burtch Correctional Centre, which they're closing, closing the beds and allowing those people who are being convicted of drunk driving out on the streets because they're overcrowded.

Let's talk about what we can do in this House instead of worrying about whether or not the federal government is doing what it should do. Sure, we should be making sure that those people out there understand very clearly that we want to be tough on crime, so let's find out what else the Tories have been unable to do.

Prison work programs that can aid in inmate rehabilitation have been cut back. We've been told that the two farms in Guelph and Burtch have been closed under this regime, and now we hear the correctional minister talking about, "Well, maybe we should move to reopen those farms." Let's do it. Let's not debate whether or not you think Stockwell Day is a better Prime Minister than Jean Chrétien. Let's talk about what we can do in this House.

The youth facilities at Genest have had a 10-year record without a single escape. In the 18 months that Genest has been operated privately: three escapes. Three escapes at Genest in an 18-month period. That's confidence in the correctional facility.

Wait a minute now. Let's talk about another one: the privatization policies. Let's talk about the research that's been done on the issue of privatization of our jails: 50% more chance of a prison official being assaulted; 32% more chance of escapes. Unbelievable. They want to go down a road of privatization and let people make profits.

In one community alone, in Penetanguishene, there's going to be $3.5 million going to the United States, taking out a profit, and when they've closed all the facilities in the province it's over $150 million of economy lost to those communities so that one community can get approximately $15 million worth of economy in their system. If we want to talk dollars and cents and we want to talk common sense in our province, what our government can do, those things have not been done.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm wary of these types of resolutions when they're presented by government members in the context that they present them.

There was a previous opportunity for us to debate the Young Offenders Act when a resolution was put to the assembly by a Conservative backbencher. I recall that debate very well. The debate focused on Bill C-3, before the federal election call. I listened carefully to the debate, I participated in it, and I heard government backbencher after government backbencher speaking not about youth crime and youth rehabilitation but about some of the most tragic and most dramatic and notorious of adult offenders and attempting to cultivate an inappropriate fear of crime and, in the course of that fear, of young people.

Let's get a couple of things straight and clear: our young offenders system deals with thousands of young people every year. The vast majority of those youngsters-quite frankly, like the vast majority of adults who enter the adult criminal justice process-are first-time offenders and never reappear in the justice system. There's no question about that. The vast majority of offences committed by young people tend to be the sorts of things that young people tend to do, like shoplifting, again not to diminish the seriousness of any breach of the law.

We should be concerned with that small number of offenders-and today we'll talk about them in the context of the young offenders system, youthful offenders-who pose true threats to their community, to themselves and to their families, who are repeat offenders, who are dangers to the community.

When I talk about the context, I can't help but reflect upon what was spoken of yesterday as the hysterical response of this Attorney General and very partisan response to the Starr decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. I anticipate comments to the media in scrums and other places by Tory backbenchers, and perhaps some front benchers, about the Starr decision. I suspect that, just as it was apparent that none of them had read either the original Young Offenders Act dating back to 1982 nor Bill C-3 during this last discussion about young offender legislation, it becomes apparent that most of them have not read the Starr decision either.

Do you understand what the Attorney General is trying to do? The Attorney General, in his effort to muzzle and control judges, is creating this totally inappropriate and totally inaccurate perception of somehow scores of murderers being released. The Supreme Court of Canada, in a very appropriate judgment, upheld in the Starr decision that very basic and fundamental right of any of us not to be convicted of a crime unless the evidence against us permits a tryer to conclude that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt-nothing more, nothing less. What more could we ask for from our Supreme Court of Canada?

We could ask for much more from the federal Parliament in terms of their rejigging of the Young Offenders Act. I recall the comments of my federal counterpart from the New Democratic Party in Ottawa speaking of Bill C-3 and the announcements that preceded it by the Liberal minister as being, in effect, much ado about nothing. There weren't any real, meaningful changes to the Young Offenders Act.

I believe the bill did not begin to address some of the concerns that all of us should have about the ineffectiveness of our young offenders system engaging in protection of communities and real rehabilitation when it comes to those most dangerous and most serious of young offenders. One of the problems has been in terms of funding. The Young Offenders Act again clearly places responsibility for corrections and rehabilitation of young offenders upon the province.

I'm prepared to join those who will rightly criticize the federal government for not providing adequate funding so that provinces, and in this case Ontario, can respond appropriately in fulfillling their responsibility in terms of administration of justice and in terms of corrections, rehabilitation, for young offenders.

All those concerns being expressed, I paid careful attention to this resolution. I read it very carefully, and I'm very frustrated and disappointed at some of the very inflammatory tone of it, because it calls upon people to draw inferences that just aren't accurate. It doesn't talk about provincial judges in our young offender courts, like some of the provincial judges I know down from where I come from in Niagara and in other parts of the province, who are dealing with huge dockets and being required to work under incredible pressures and being forced to engage in what I called just the other day sausage-factory justice. They are doing their very best.

The resolution doesn't deal with the increasing privatization of young offender facilities in this province and the real lack of consistency from institution to institution when it comes to meaningful and effective programs.

I do agree that judges should have more latitude when it comes to sentencing young offenders, that there may well be cases-in my reading of C-3 and the Young Offenders Act that it purports to amend, quite right: first, degree murder, not the most frequent murder charge, maximum 10 years with effectively maximum six years in custody; second-degree murder, perhaps the more common prosecution, maximum seven years, but maximum four years in custody.

I agree that a judge may well be inappropriately and unduly hampered, restricted, in terms of the type of sentence that would be appropriate for a particular type of offender, especially when the focus in all of corrections-and that's something this government doesn't get-should be, in the case of those who are simply never going to be rehabilitated, who are going to persist in posing a threat to the community, on the longest possible prison terms to keep them out of the community for the protection of society.

But I submit to you that those are the rarer situations. That means the primary focus should be rehabilitation, which is not to say that it has to be a cotton candy kind of rehabilitation.

But what's frustrating for me, as it is for other people in this Legislature as we've been travelling around the province, is that we've seen the attack by this government on some very effective programs that have been developed right here in Ontario in the public correctional system, like the program at Rideau correctional centre in Ottawa, where there are five-week, 10-week, 15-week programs for shorter-term sentences that have proven remarkably effective at reducing the rates of recidivism, in that case, granted, among adult offenders. It's a program that's being emulated by institutions across North America.

That program is being shut down.

As far back as 1982, I had concerns about the inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds in the young offender system, that that changed the law dramatically in Ontario; not in some other provinces, where the age of adult culpability had historically been 18 rather than 16. I'm going to agree that perhaps the presumption of adult status for 16- and 17-year-olds should be made for all offences. I have no quarrel with that and quite frankly I think it's something that should be debated. It should be debated in the federal Parliament and it should be the subject matter of committee hearings.

I'm going to agree that there should be increased sentences in terms of the maximums, increased sentencing potential, so that judges have more flexibility, because for some of the very seriously disturbed young people, young offenders in the system, if you're going to have meaningful rehabilitation it's going to take longer than the maximum sentences that are currently permitted.

I have some great sympathy for the mandatory minimum sentences for young people convicted of offences while using a weapon. It would have been easier for me had Mr Tilson been more specific and talked about a particular class of weapons. But that's fair enough. This is but a resolution and some guidance. So here I am. I'm confronted by a resolution that, standing alone, carries with it some validity and accurately expresses the concerns. I'm not talking about the Toronto Sun concerns, the passions that are whipped up around a tragedy that involves a crime.

I've acknowledged, and I think all of us are inclined to agree, that somehow crime by youngsters, especially those serious crimes involving bodily harm or homicides or those egregious types of crimes committed by young people, we find more repugnant, as I hope and I expect we should.

I'm going to say this: I will support this resolution but I will do it very cautiously. I want to make it very clear that my support for this resolution is support for a reconsideration of the effectiveness of the young offenders system and the Young Offenders Act. Members should read Bill C-3. They should read it, please. In particular they should read

section 82, which makes it clear that the purpose of youth custody is to be rehabilitation.

As long as this government abandons programs of rehabilitation; as long as this government continues to give away its correctional facilities that can provide that effective rehabilitation; as long as this government continues to de-fund the criminal justice system so that crown attorneys, police officers and judges increasingly find themselves handcuffed rather than the prisoner or accused handcuffed; as long as this government wants to adopt the crass and so unsophisticated principle of, "Oh, lock `em up and throw the key away," and exploit fears out there that I acknowledge are genuine fears, and the fears are re-ignited every time we read about a horrible crime in the newspapers; as long as this government persists in its abdication of its responsibility for correction and rehabilitation and for the appropriate funding and provision of resources for the criminal justice system, all the changes to the Young Offenders Act amount to zip, zero.

With great caution I am going to support this resolution, because when it's stripped down to its bare language, aside from all the rhetoric, the so-called law and order rhetoric, when we know how bankrupt this government is when it comes to protecting communities and making communities safer, rhetoric that wants to inflame so that this government can pursue, along with its federal allies, its political agenda-as long as that persists, this resolution coming from this government smacks, my friends, of hypocrisy. But having said that and understanding the resolution, I will support it in its bare bones content.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure this morning to stand and support my colleague David Tilson, the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, to stand beside him with respect to doing the right thing for our young people. It's very clear. I want to establish the very important premise that no one can argue with this government's commitment to community safety, to the rights of victims and standing up for victims' rights, and giving police the tools to keep our communities safe places to live and work and raise a family.

I suspect I can take from the other side-the comments of Mr Phillips and others-that they are supportive of that premise. It's been established. Moving forward from there, I want to also try to establish that it's clear on the other side of that that the opposition side of it is also just as clear.

It's the kind of footprint you get used to. The footprint, the history, reveals what you are. If I look to the history, it's clear that the Liberals have failed to keep their promises in almost everything, that the red book is kind of a statement of what they won't do. We're seeing that federally now with an early, premature, unnecessary, expensive election, where the Liberals have just released their document, with nothing in it, by the way, dealing with the very serious social issue of youth justice in a general sense. Clearly it's not important to them. What's important to them is kind of painting someone into a corner.

I think there is every reason to be suspicious. That's treating it rather mildly. I look at the red book record here. A McGuinty government: it says in their red book, "Persons who commit serious crimes must pay the consequences, no matter what their age." Yet check the Hansard, check the voting record-they do exactly the opposite.

I think technically what I've established here is that as to what the Liberals say in their policy, they absolutely do the opposite. They never deliver. In fact it's suspicious to me that anyone would read the red book. When they read it they should read it as, "The red book means these are things we won't do." They protect health care-they're the ones that cut $25 billion from health care. They're not to be trusted. Those are pretty strong words.

The initiative this morning that Mr Tilson is speaking about is to establish that Allan Rock, Anne McLellan and their youthful justice critic over on the other side, himself possibly, I wouldn't say a young offender but he's certainly young and to some extent he's offensive too, so he's not a young offender but a young offensive-no, I mean that clearly don't have a very good handle on how important this issue is. I think we have started to establish it now.

The member from Scarborough-Agincourt is here, so I think it's important to have him clearly on the record, from the Toronto Star of April 30, 1999. You have time to get a pencil to write this down. I like to commit them to promises made, promises not kept. When you think Liberal, you think promise-failure. That's the kind of relationship I've established here. GST, airports, free trade, Jean Chrétien, Allan Rock, just think about it; keep mentioning the names and it'll stick. Karla Homolka should come to mind immediately. A failure to deal with crime. I know the member from Niagara Falls would get out his famous clipping. He's actually made that up.

"Deputy Liberal leader Gerry Phillips"-

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): How about "Liberals lie: Howard Hampton"? Do you like that headline?

Mr O'Toole: No, no. Wait a minute here.

The Acting Speaker: Withdraw that comment.

Mr Gilchrist: I withdraw that.

Mr O'Toole: -"said the `hot button' platform preys on people's fears with its focus on crime and welfare recipients." Clearly they are not addressing the issue. That's really what I wanted to establish here.

The National Post on May 13 said, "I am afraid it's typical of Dalton McGuinty to turn every issue-even law and order-into a call for more pork-barrel spending. Crime for him, as you just now implied, is an opportunity to hand out cheques to feminist pressure groups and school guidance counsellors and municipal social services budgets. His idea of toughness is to forbid farm boys to own squirrel guns." There's a really neat quote here. "Crime is an issue that often provokes posturing in politicians. But why must Dalton McGuinty's posture be a cringe?" Clearly, we characterize it as soft on crime.

I want to move now to the bright side. With respect to the member from Wellington, we should be celebrating youth. In the last few weeks, I've had the distinct privilege to be asked by school councils and school principals and indeed school boards to attend the graduation exercises of Bowmanville high school, Port Perry High School, Cartwright high school, Courtice high school tomorrow evening, Eastdale Collegiate, and a number of others. I'm there out of respect for those parents, for those students, for those teachers, for those future community leaders, and to celebrate with them the positive opportunities that our government and I believe all members here want.

They want the very best. They want a strong economy, to help people with issues of poverty and lack of social opportunity use their own strength and vision and hope to move out of the quagmire to which the 10 lost years contributed. They had no choice. We left them feeling hopeless and despaired. I suspect federally we have the same issue. It's more-dare I use the word?-deception.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Do they just despair provincially or federally?

Mr O'Toole: Well, it's a mixed issue. You're stuck with supporting the Anne McLellan-Allan Rock kind of message. Dalton isn't up to the job. Gerry, you would have made a fine leader. I only wish you had run. I would have had serious fears.

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: I really want to move to the higher road here. I know they are trying to drag me back, and I'm pushing against it. I'm pushing back.

We've got to make one more point here. In my riding, Kurtis Wagar and Alex McLaughlin symbolize what I think youth and opportunity are all about. By having clear consequences for your actions, I think young people will make the right choice, but now, when there are no consequences for your actions under the current Young Offenders Act, clearly there is no one taking care of the henhouse. As adults, we have sent a message to young people that there are no consequences to their actions.

I'm disappointed, but I can stand proudly behind the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and support this resolution. I call on the other side, the opposition, to stand and support it.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'm also pleased to rise to speak to this bill. It is certainly somewhat innocuous in that it has no consequences whether it's passed or not. I appreciate that there are bad people in this country and there are bad kids and we need to protect others from them, so I support the concept that there are consequences for actions that are taken by our young people.

I struggle a little bit with it coming from the government side of the House. This is a government that has cut the number of police officers in Ontario. In my riding is the town of Desoronto, where police servicing costs are $550 per household, compared to the rhetoric we heard that it should be $90 per household all across Ontario. This government is prepared to do nothing to assist Desoronto in having police officers.

I also struggle with the fact that this is a government that, as reported in the Toronto Sun, a good Conservative paper, says, "Tories Stand by Deal with the Devil." This government has upheld the deal with Karla Homolka while the rest of the province is absolutely offended by it.

Really, this House should be debating what we can do in Ontario that is meaningful to deal with this problem. I've travelled to a number of countries where young people are involved in far more crimes than here, where they do worse actions and where there is greater unrest within the community. Those countries are characterized as being countries with a weak education system, countries with very poor social supports for young people.

I fear that we're travelling that way in Ontario. Here in Ontario, we have taken the knife to schools, taken $1 billion out of education, and we hear a begrudging comment about having to fund education. "We'll cut this and we'll cut that, because the bottom line is important." It appears to me that the other side of the House struggles to spend $5,000 a year on a student in a school, yet I've never heard them complain about having to spend $50,000 on having someone locked up-an absolute waste of so many resources.

Not only do they not begrudge spending the money on people being locked up; they want to spend it in American dollars so we can ship the profit to the US, money that could be used here in Ontario to provide supports for our young people.

This government cut welfare. It was certainly politically popular; the elections have proved that. "Let's clamp down on welfare." Half of the people on welfare are children. When you took money out of welfare, you took money for food and for the basics from young people. Children now in many cases have to count on a public feeding program for their breakfast. There are schools that run lunch programs. Tell me how that hurts; tell me the impression that makes on the young people. That certainly will have consequences later. Food is a fundamental right in this province, not a privilege.

We heard a great deal of publicity a year ago about how if someone commits fraud on welfare, they are cut off for life. What a penalty, because the penalty isn't just to the individual who committed the crime, and certainly everyone here agrees that the person who committed fraud should be penalized for it. But how do you explain to the youth, to the child within that house, that there's less money coming in and there will be less food? I'm not interested in hearing comments about being able to buy dented cans of tuna. There are young people in this province who are hungry.

We have fostered children who have come from homes where they were not fed regularly every day. Is that potential for crime there? People need to eat whether they're one year or 100 years old, and they're going to do what they have to do to get food. It's our role as a Legislature to provide the supports so that people in Ontario do not have to resort to crime for food.

Mental health services for our young people are virtually non-existent. Ironically, one of the only ways they can get mental health services is to commit a crime. Prevention is a far better use of our money than is dealing with them in the judicial system.

I have had calls over the past year from young people who have come from troubled homes and need emergency housing. Not every household in Ontario, unfortunately, is like the Cleavers. Not every couple are exactly perfect parents. For some 14- and 15-year-olds, and indeed 12- and 13-year-olds, there's a need for them to get out of the home. For 12- or 13-year-olds there are children's aid societies, but for teens, 16, they're still considered young offenders. They have to do what they have to do to survive and to eat.

I cannot comprehend the penalty that must be facing some of these young people who have brilliant minds but have no future, a lack of access to post-secondary, a lack of access to proper accommodation, a lack of access to clothing and a lack of access to food.

I would like to see this Legislature concentrate on the prevention aspect to serve our young people. When there are problems, certainly the judicial system, but let's keep them out of the penal system.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I don't know if I'd say I'm delighted in joining this so-called debate, but I would commend the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey on bringing this subject once again to this Legislature.

It's interesting to note that most of the members opposite want to talk about anything but the Young Offenders Act and the lack of action for seven years, 10 years. Those folks in Ottawa know the existing bill isn't working. All you have to do is go around Toronto and look at some of the devastating, adverse impacts they have on the housing projects, and not only in my riding. I've had at least four murders this year that are in some way, unfortunately, youth related, gang related. We've had the federal minister promise on more than one occasion to bring in a new bill that would be effective, but when you look at its contents, it's even weaker than the existing legislation.

Why is this so? I think we have to come to the conclusion that the federal Grits, along with their brethren here across the aisle, are really-I know my own colleagues have used the phrase "soft on crime." I would go further. I would think that they're completely indifferent. They really don't care, with the exception of the member for St Paul's, who did introduce his private member's bill dealing with toy guns. Even then, I was somewhat reluctant to support it because I see it in a sense as part of this whole trend of symptomatology: you treat the symptoms but you never really get to the core causes.

We in this House, particularly on that side, are serial deniers that some young people, unfortunately, because of dysfunctional families and all the social causes, do not really subscribe to the thesis at all that a serious violent repeat offender, however they got there, should ever have any consequences equivalent to what you would get for crimes in the adult system. I'm in despair, quite frankly, with their approach to things.

Since the opposition leader has said they're going to support their federal brethren in this election, I subscribe to the thesis that they will subscribe to the continuing inaction, just a pile of platitudes about dealing with this problem: "There really isn't a problem in the city of Toronto. We don't have any murders. They're all fantasies I must have read about in my local media. There are no gangs in Toronto; it's all a fantasy."

But we do have gun control. People call me and ask, "Sir, why are we having any murders of people?" I tell them, "I don't think there are any. You must have had a bad nightmare. There's gun control and people are now registering their guns, so that should end all murders right across this country." That is the palaver that we've been led with, that the public had to subscribe to for the last number of years. "If we get rid of guns, there will be no problems. In fact, there aren't any problems in this country dealing with this whole issue." We'll just keep denying it, keep denying it, keep denying it.

I find my provincial Grit friends across the way are complicit with their friends in Ottawa when they join them in once again promising the public of this country, the voters-it's a big joke-that they're going to do something about young offenders. They intend to hardly do anything but in fact weaken the existing legislation. If people are expecting that there won't be any more Jonathan Wambacks or any more murders, people crippled, that neighbourhoods that are afflicted by poverty can end up having injustice ended by some new presentation from these folks, I despair completely. I wish the Lord would intervene in this and make them see what's happening to our society.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Let me just say this: Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals will support any measures, however minuscule and artificial, that will help crack down on crime and crack down on its causes.

That said, this is private members' business and I want to speak to private members' business. We have been concerned on this side of the House that the government has spent all of its time, and it is so bankrupt of ideas that it has to spend all of its time on the issue of crime, blaming Ottawa. But again, this is private members' business, and of course it's certainly within the prerogative of the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, to bring forth this resolution.

So let's go through the resolution and hold it up against his government's record. The resolution would require, under federal legislation, that 16- and 17-year-olds be automatically tried as adults when they commit adult crimes. Well, there's concern about 16- and 17-year-olds, but this is the government that would put guns in the hands of 12-year-olds. Next, they would, under federal legislation, require mandatory jail time for youths convicted of offences involving weapons.

They're concerned about youths using weapons, yet this is the government that's opposed to registering and licensing firearms that would go into the hands of these potential criminals using weapons. When it comes to gun control, this government is in the holster of the gun lobby.

Next point of the resolution: require youths convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, to serve adult sentences. I would say, with all due respect to the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, you'd better talk to your prosecutors, because guess what? The Attorney General of Ontario lags far behind the national average in terms of prosecutors seeking to have youth serve and be tried as adults. The statistics show that the Attorney General refuses to treat young offenders as adults. In 1997-98, Ontario moved nine youths to adult court, while both Manitoba and Quebec moved 23 youths to adult court.

In 1998-99, the Attorney General once again trailed all other provinces in moving kids to adult court. In that year Ontario moved-well, let's go to Ontario at the end, shall we? Manitoba moved 29 youths to adult court, Quebec moved 23 youths to adult court, Alberta moved 20 youths to adult court, and British Columbia moved 11 youths to adult court.

Interjection: NDP.

Mr Bryant: Under the NDP government out there. And how many youths were moved to adult court in the province of Ontario? Six. So I would say to the member that he ought to talk to the prosecutors in the Ministry of the Attorney General and he ought to talk to the Attorney General. Use the tools that you have to pursue this goal that you pretend is important to you, to have serious crimes committed by youths tried in adult court.

Mr Speaker, I can't say "hypocrisy," but you've heard of a jumbo shrimp. Well, maybe you've heard of a hippo critic. This is nothing less than a hippo critic.

Lastly, this resolution calls for an increase in jail sentences under the federal legislation. Well, what? So the Minister of Corrections can let these youths, who would serve weekends, take the weekends off to watch football games? So the Minister of Corrections can privatize jails, risking the safety of our community? No.

I would say to the member and I would say to all members of this House that we not only need to recommit ourselves to looking at what we're going to do once a crime has taken place-in other words, what we refer to in the political parlance as "crackdowns on crime"-but we also need to focus on preventing crimes, because it's obviously uppermost in the minds of people in the greater Toronto area and, I know, in many parts of this province. It's a serious issue to Ontarians and they don't just want retribution; they don't just want rehabilitation of criminals.

They want the government to start engaging in serious measures, not political posturing, to try and prevent crime. One way we could do that is to try to stop guns getting in the hands of people who should not get guns. That's the point of gun control; that's the point of the phony gun bill that the justice ministers of this government initially rejected but now the government has come around to.

I say to all members of this House and, for that matter I guess, members of the federal House as well, let's stop fighting over the issue of crime and let's start fighting crime and its causes.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today is the last day of this session for the pages we have here. I'm very proud that one of the pages, Amanda McIsaac, is from my riding. With us today are her dad, John, her sisters Samantha and Emma, and her classmates from St Bernard's school in the city of Orillia. Welcome, everyone.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilchrist: In the two minutes left, I'd like to make some closing comments in support of the resolution from our colleague Mr Tilson.

There is no doubt in my mind, the member from St Paul's comments notwithstanding, that there is a very clear difference between the position taken by our government and that by Liberals at both levels in this country, provincially and federally.

Grimm's Fairy Tales would have been a good cover to wrap around the Liberal platform last time. I remember Mr McGuinty saying, in response to our law and order positions, that we were trying to distract voters from truly important issues by reforming things like the Young Offenders Act. Mr McGuinty praised the federal government for its changes to the act, knowing full well nothing has changed. Bill C-3 died on the order paper. They misled the people of this country. They've let all sorts of other pieces of legislation die. The fact of the matter is-

The Acting Speaker: You can't accuse people of misleading people.

Mr Gilchrist: While it doesn't affect anyone in this House, I'm happy to withdraw that reference. Let me say instead that the federal government certainly was not reflecting the facts in suggesting that these changes had taken place.

To the students who are here with us today, let me suggest that the kinds of flip-flops we've seen on crime have done nothing to protect the society they're going to grow up in. In my own community we just saw two youths gunned down, machine-gunned, because you and your colleagues in Ottawa think it's better to make law-abiding people register their guns than to use the Criminal Code provisions that provide for a five-year penalty for the use and the possession of guns. It's never used.

The time has come to get serious about crime, to make sure it's not just words on paper and whether or not you're 16 or 17, you are going to be treated as an adult. We call on whoever wins the next federal election to move expeditiously and once and for all get serious about the Young Offenders Act and the long overdue changes.

We've put 1,000 more police on the street in Ontario. We've gotten serious about the issues under provincial control. The time has come for the federal government to get serious about the making the long, overdue changes to protect people like the students in our gallery here today.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Tilson: I want to thank members from all sides for participating in this debate. I think it's a very important issue with respect to young offenders. I will say, listening specifically to the comments made by the members from the Liberal caucus, that it echoes what their leader has said in the past respecting the amendments put forward by Ms McLellan to the Young Offenders Act, Bill C-3, I think it is called. He has said it's a step in the right direction. Well, it hasn't been a step in the right direction. The member from Niagara Centre has said, "If you read the bill, it's a step backwards. Life is made easier for these young offenders."

You know, life isn't OK with respect to justice in this country as a result of the crimes that have been committed by young offenders. Canadian Centre for Justice statistics have said that the rate of violent crimes committed by young people in 1998 is 77% higher than it was 10 years ago. They say that in cases where a young person was found guilty of a crime in 1998, the youth was a repeat offender 43% of the time. That's completely unsatisfactory. Whoever gets elected-and I hope it's not the Liberals-should change this Young Offenders Act. This resolution is not about one-time offenders of minor crimes.

It's about young offenders who commit serious adult crime only to receive a slap on the wrist. That's got to stop.

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT (MINERS AND FORESTRY WORKERS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE (MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to prohibit Quebec residents from working in certain mining and forestry occupations in Ontario / Projet de loi 21, Loi interdisant aux résidents du Québec d'exercer certaines professions minières et forestières en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mr Ramsay.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): It was over a year ago-actually it was November 24-that I moved first reading of this bill, a bill that while it sounds harsh in its title, basically mimics the Harris government bill that was passed in the spring of 1995, Bill 17, called Fairness is a Two-Way Street. In fact, that is the

short title of my bill also, Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Miners and Forestry Workers).

The reason I felt it was important to bring my bill to the attention of the Ontario Legislature was that in the Harris government's attempt through Bill 17 to bring some fairness in labour mobility between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, it strictly limited those efforts to the construction industry, primarily to address the problem that I believe is still ongoing, as one of my colleagues I know will attest to here today, with the construction industry in the Ottawa-Carleton area whereby very restrictive regulations by the Quebec government make it very difficult for Ontario workers to work in Quebec,

whereas our much freer labour mobility rules, which I agree with because I believe in free labour mobility across this country, really allow the Quebec workers great access to all of our jobs. So it's not fair.

While I don't mind Quebec workers coming into Ontario to work, that's fine as long as Ontario workers have the same access. That should be fair, and that would be what Canada's all about, but unfortunately over the years the Quebec government has seen to it and put up walls that prevent workers from other provinces-and I know they have a similar problem in the New Brunswick area, as they border the other side of the province of Quebec, as we do in Ontario.

For my particular area, which basically almost takes up half of the Ontario-Quebec border, especially most of it in northern Ontario, it's restrictions that the Quebec government has and cultural practices that the companies have that restrict the access for Ontario workers to work in the mines, in forestry work and the log-hauling industry in Quebec while, believe it or not, the vast majority of the workers in northeastern Ontario in those industries do come from Quebec. I'd like to give some specific examples.

For instance, Highway 101 runs basically from Wawa through Timmins to Matheson and then right over to Rouyn-Noranda in Quebec. That highway from Matheson to Quebec runs just north of Kirkland Lake, and along that corridor over the last five years have been developed some new mines, particularly a couple of fairly large gold mines. Noranda Minerals of Quebec owns one of those mines and over half the workers in that Ontario mine owned by Noranda come from Quebec. In fact, they commute on a daily basis from Duparquette, Rouyn-Noranda and other towns on the Quebec side and work in those jobs there.

In Rouyn, there are a couple of Noranda mines and there are no Ontario workers at that mine. It's the same company. Basically, these mines would be about 100 kilometres apart from each other, but one's in Quebec and one's in Ontario. For some reason, the hiring practices of this Quebec-based company are that we have from time to time over half the workers coming from Quebec. I wouldn't mind that if we had that sort of access to their jobs over there. But that's not what happens, and that's not fair.

The reason I have brought this bill forward is to basically put some added pressure on the Minister of Labour and the ministry in their negotiations with the Quebec government to do the same for the workers and the industries I represent that the Harris government did in Bill 17 in regard to the construction industry. Basically, my bill works as an amendment to the government bill. It's written in the same language, using the same title but includes workers in forestry and mining.

Part of the problem is that the major players in the forestry industry in northeastern Ontario are Quebec-based companies, such as Tembec and Abitibi-Consolidated. They have operations throughout my riding and in other parts of Ontario. Because they're Quebec-based, in their Quebec operations they're used to using Quebec contractors to cut the trees and Quebec truckers to haul the wood. This displaces our workers on the Ontario side. In plain language, it's stealing the jobs of the workers I represent.

If there were free access for our workers in Quebec, which there isn't because of the various government and company restrictions, then I wouldn't mind and having this bill raised today would not be necessary. But it is necessary because we have lost hundreds and hundreds of jobs to workers from Quebec in northeastern Ontario. That's why it's necessary for me to bring this bill forward.

I know that the minister and his staff are working with officials in Quebec, but it has now been a year and a half since the government passed its bill in regard to construction workers, and it's been a year since I brought this bill forward, yet I have not heard of progress being made by the Harris government in regard to workers in forestry and mining jobs in northeastern Ontario.

It's time to put some more pressure on the minister and I hope the government members support this bill today and keep it alive to keep pressure on the Ministry of Labour so that we can have successful negotiations with Quebec and free labour mobility across the two provinces.

Much of the area I represent along the Quebec border from just north of North Bay to Cochrane has lost hundreds of jobs to Quebec workers in the forestry and mining industries over the last few years. It is very common to see Quebec residents cutting our trees and hauling our logs to our sawmills and our paper mills, and similarly there are many Quebec residents working in our mines in northeastern Ontario, commuting on a daily basis. Either we have to have free access or this has to stop.

This bill of mine has support from most of the municipalities in northeastern Ontario, and in May of last year the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, at their annual meeting, unanimously voted in support of my bill that would put restrictions on Quebec workers working in Ontario in these forestry and mining industries. They understand. As they see jobs leaving their communities, they see paycheques leaving their communities. Those paycheques go back to the Quebec workers' homes in the province of Quebec. That money is not spent in our communities.

Those workers do not buy pickup trucks from dealers in Ontario. They don't buy their groceries there. They don't shop in our towns. They basically take that money from Ontario back to Quebec. While we want jobs as much as we can in our area, we want our residents to have their fair share of the jobs that are derived from the resources Ontario has been so blessed with.

Members will note that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business-I'm sure most of the government members pay particular attention to this organization-in their latest questionnaire that they put out this year, the question was, "Should the federal and provincial governments remove barriers to free movement of labour between the provinces," and 73% of their members in Ontario said yes.

That's where my bill temporarily will put on a restriction unless Quebec opens up their borders. That is the true meaning of my bill, to open up labour mobility across this country. It's very important. The business community wants that to happen. They say that removing these internal barriers would expose businesses to a larger pool of qualified labour and boost employment through increased trade, and that harmonizing labour standards would allow the set-up of more effective national internship and training programs.

So the business community, the municipalities in northeastern Ontario and certainly the citizens and residents of Timiskaming-Cochrane, which basically makes up most of the Quebec-Ontario border in our province, agree that this bill should pass so that we can put pressure on to have labour mobility between the two provinces.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I would like to offer a brief analysis of this bill, Bill 21,

An Act to prohibit Quebec residents from working in certain mining and forestry occupations in Ontario.

The member from Timiskaming-Cochrane is to be commended for his attention to this difficult issue. The problems of unfree trade, if you want to call it that, between different parts of Canada is old. Indeed, it's a problem that goes back even to the days of Confederation.

I applaud the member for the title of his bill, Fairness is a Two-Way Street. What is good enough for Jack should be good enough for Jacques.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): How about Jill?

Mr Gill: That as well, and Jane and whoever.

Members will note that the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane took this title from a bill passed by the previous Parliament when it became necessary to keep a little control on Quebecers who were doing construction work on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River.

I'm very glad that the honourable member is coming to see things more in accord with the Harris government. I'm sure the members who were here for the passing of Bill 17 in the last Legislature feel his imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. At the same time, I have certain worries and misgivings.

The original Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act only imposed registration requirements on Quebecers in the Ottawa construction industry. This bill seeks to ban them entirely. This aims to escalate the conflict to a higher level and Quebec would be forced to retaliate.

Mr Speaker, I want point out that I will be sharing my time with a few of the honourable members on this side of the House.

By banning Quebec workers, we would be directly responsible for their hardships, when our complaint is not with the workers but with the Quebec government.

With this bill, the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane threatens to create a lot of new regulations and red tape in the mining and wood sectors.

Certainly we can see and we can all agree that it was the province of Quebec that started this conflict. But we on this side of the house and especially my friends on the red tape reduction commission would agree that regulations and laws tend to outlive the incidents and fears that prompt us to create them.

For instance, in our ministry we have begun discussion about finally eliminating the Government Contracts Hours and Wages Act. This act was passed in 1936, but never enabled. The necessary regulations were never created and so it has cluttered up the statute books ever since.

I fear that Bill 21 might do the same. I fear that Bill 21 might end up being the subject of the 57th Red Tape Reduction Act in 2035, during the ninth term of the Mike Harris government.

This House should proceed on simple and fair principles. I believe and we in this party believe in equity, such that the same rules apply to everyone, wherever they live. We also believe in free trade in goods and services, including labour, wherever possible.

Now, even the separatists in Quebec City believe in this. They have repeatedly stated that after they declare independence, they would like to have a free trade agreement with the rest of Canada. The idea of free trade with a sovereign Quebec is very ironic, since we don't even have free trade now.

Our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr Sterling, is making progress in his regular exchanges with the Quebecers. The government has been meeting with Quebecers with the aim of resolving the problems in the mining and forestry sectors. Normally, an impasse or breakdown in talks would justify retaliation and sanctions of this sort. We should encourage the minister to continue his good work. I hope he will demonstrate to the suspicious minds in the National Assembly that federalism really does work.

This bill also fails to take into consideration the number of Ontarians working in these industries in Quebec who could be vulnerable to any retaliation from Quebec. In its current form, this bill fails to recognize that in northern Ontario some forestry operations are accessible from the Quebec side of the border only and that they therefore use Quebec contractors. This bill will be the cause of great pain for the businesses in these communities.

As for this bill, introduced by the honourable member from Timiskaming-Cochrane, Mr Ramsay, I would like again to commend him for what he has done on behalf of his constituents. This bill is a good beginning. It should be reviewed and improved upon.

We recognize that the intent of this bill is well-meaning and we are pleased to support this bill in principle.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): It is unfortunate that once again the Harris government does not think. It is important to stand up for the rights of our Ontario workers. My colleague from Timiskaming-Cochrane, David Ramsay, had no choice but to bring forth Bill 21,

An Act to prohibit Quebec residents from working in certain mining and forestry occupations in Ontario. We don't really want to prohibit our neighbours from working together with us in the mining, forestry and construction industries, but we want the right to work freely in Quebec as they do so freely in Ontario.

I was just listening to the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, who says he believes in free trade. But if we look at this government, on May 4, 1999, they said, "Enough is enough. We want a level playing field." This government has spent over $1 million in billboard, newspaper and radio ads. I've said it before: this government has misled the people of this province.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Just to get votes.

Mr Lalonde: Just to get votes.

The Acting Speaker: You'll have to withdraw that. You can't accuse the government-

Mr Lalonde: I will withdraw these words.

But it is clear that the member doesn't know the content of Bill 17. He doesn't understand the problems we are facing in the construction industry in Ontario. This government said it themselves prior to the last election. During the election Mr Harris, the Premier, came down to my riding twice; Minister Ecker, the Minister of Labour at the time, a lot of ministers ran down to our riding to tell the people, "We have had enough."

But, let me tell you, I was just on a cruise tour in the Trois-Rivières area when I happened to be sitting down with the person from Quebec who wrote the agreement for Quebec. He said, "Jean-Marc, it is very easy to negotiate with Ontario. They accepted everything we said." He said, "I wish I had a chance to go and work for your government in Ontario. I would write a real agreement that would meet the needs of Ontario workers."

The member really doesn't know what we are facing on a daily basis. All we want is a level playing field. It appears that when the time comes to negotiate on labour mobility issues with Quebec, the Harris government does not feel that Ontario labourers are important and lets Quebec do exactly what they wish.

I remember clearly last year, when Minister Stockwell was in negotiations with Quebec on the construction issue, he kept telling me, "Jean-Marc, everything is going well. We are making real progress." For the record, we have made no progress at all. Our construction workers just cannot work in Quebec, while Quebec construction workers are working all over Ontario without having to register with the job protection office, without having to pay anything, and at times not even being charged provincial tax and GST. Our Ontario contractors, logging industry and forestry people have to add up these charges on the bill, so the province of Ontario keeps hiring those people from Quebec.

This is exactly the same situation that my colleague the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane has found in northern Ontario: the jobs that our Ontario mining and forestry workers should have, have been snatched by Quebec mining and forestry workers, while our Ontario workers are unemployed. Our mining and forestry workers are unable to work in Quebec. This is unfair. This is not a level playing field.

I have an example. Loggers from the Hearst-Kapuskasing area have lost several provincial contracts in our own province because Ontario truckers are facing all sorts of problems entering Quebec. They must dump their loads at the Quebec border. They are not allowed to enter Quebec paper and sawmills without being fined, while loggers from Quebec can come into Ontario without any restrictions.

I say to you, when is this government going to get off its butt and help our workers? It is all fine and dandy to say that everything in Ontario is booming, but there are many areas in rural Ontario, such as Mr Ramsay's riding as well as mine, where unemployment is still too high and our mining, forestry and construction workers feel forgotten.

Ontario might be seeing a boom now, but we must look to the future, when jobs might be more scarce. Also, as I said a few weeks ago in this House, our construction workers are still being fined on a regular basis when trying to work in Quebec. Ever since this new agreement was signed on November 12 last year, which is up for renewal, 164 fines were sent to our Ontario constructions workers, our logging industry and our truck drivers.

One full year after the Minister of Labour's great Ontario-Quebec labour mobility agreement, which was supposed to level the playing field, the agreement comes due once again this month. I wonder what kinds of surprises the minister has for us this time. Quebec doesn't have the Hull casino site to flaunt in front of the minister this year. I wonder what kinds of candies they will bring to the table this year to ensure that Quebec workers have full access to our construction sites.

By the way, we did not get even a single contract at the casino in Hull, when the government of Ontario promised that we would have access to this $200-million project. Not a single contract, even though at least once a nationally known contractor with a head office in Ontario was the lowest bidder and could not have access to the Hull casino.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, thinks that all workers should be treated fairly.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Who?

Mr Lalonde: Our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and that's what he says. I wish your leader would have the same position as ours because he understands the situation. He understands that we haven't been treated fairly.

Mr Ramsay thinks that all workers should be treated fairly.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Simcoe North will settle down. Go ahead.

Mr Lalonde: Mr Ramsay thinks all workers should be treated fairly and I think all workers should be treated fairly. It appears the only ones who think Ontario mining, forestry and construction workers do not deserve this treatment are the Harris government-the only ones who don't think that.

You must know forestry and mining is the backbone of manpower in northern Ontario. I say to you, Minister, stand up for Ontario workers in your negotiations with Quebec. Don't let them bully you again. Stand up for your own principles, as my leader Dalton McGuinty does, as my colleague David Ramsay is doing and as I and the Liberal caucus are willing to do.

I support the intent of this bill and I just hope the rest of this chamber will do so.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The bill is regrettable. It's regrettable because it has to deal with and purports to deal with a scenario which is contrary to the interests of those of us, and I believe that's all of us, who believe in a strong Canada and who believe in the guarantee of mobility throughout this country.

I want to indicate some of the history of the relationship, or the lack of relationship, between Ontario and Quebec that the bill appears to want to address.

In the early 1990s, the NDP government, confronted with this issue in the construction trades and focusing primarily in that area, had occasion to pass legislation and it was successful in negotiating a resolution in terms of mobility across the Quebec-Ontario border with the province of Quebec.

A new government in Quebec reneged on the agreement that had been reached. That led this Parliament then to Bill 17, introduced by the Minister of Labour in this government's first term, and again the House, the chamber, supported Bill 17.

It was during the debate on Bill 17, I recall and note, that my colleague Gilles Bisson, from Timmins-James Bay-not the only northern member-raised very specifically that the issue was not one just involving construction trades but also very much involved the forestry and mining industries. When I say "regrettable," it's regrettable because the bill is clearly one designed simply to bring Quebec to the table in terms of negotiating a settlement as the Quebec government of the early 1990s was prepared to do over the issue of construction and building trades.

I want to make it very clear, and I believe other members of the assembly share this perspective and would want to share and basically caveat that our support for the bill in no way should be misconstrued as any sort of Quebec-bashing or in any way condemning the people who live in the province of Quebec, the people who work there. I believe Quebecers have a right to work anywhere in Canada unrestricted, but so do Ontarians. You see, this is the issue. That's the problem.

It's unfortunate and, again, I don't fault the author of the bill, that the bill very specifically talks about prohibiting Quebec workers from coming into Ontario, because that will or could be used by some who want to interpret this unfairly for their own purposes to suggest that somehow Ontarians once again are engaging in Quebec-bashing. So I just want to make it clear, clear, clear that our support for this bill in no way should be interpreted as any sort of animosity or disaffection for Quebec or Quebecers.

I have been blessed to become a little familiar with the scenario that the author of the bill speaks of up in his riding and in the neighbouring riding of Timmins-James Bay, having been a reasonably frequent visitor there, having had a chance to tour a lot of the sites that are the subject matter, the mine sites and the forestry sites. In fact, I know that Len Wood, who is the NDP candidate up there in this federal election and has been campaigning out there, meeting folks across that huge riding for months now, feels very passionately.

Len Wood is a passionate advocate for the mining and forestry industries within his riding of Timmins-James Bay, and when Len Wood is sent to Ottawa by the voters of Timmins-James Bay to become an effective and outspoken and strong voice for the north, and very specifically for the people of Timmins-James Bay, you can bet your boots that Len Wood, like no other member would, will be addressing these concerns in the federal Parliament, just as they have been addressed over the course of this last decade here in the province of Ontario.

Len Wood is incredible, Speaker; he really is. Just in August I was with Len Wood and I visited a number of aboriginal native communities along the James Bay-Hudson's Bay coast. Len Wood had an intimate understanding of those communities, was well received in them. Some of those communities, as you well know and other northern members know, are incredibly isolated and remote. The only access is by plane, and that's not by regular flight.

Len Wood just overwhelmed me with his incredible sensitivity to these communities as well as his familiarity with the mining industry across the north and the forestry industry and what it means to northerners and their economy and to the economies of this province and of this country. I couldn't have been prouder than to have Len Wood as a colleague here in the Legislature, and you will not disagree. You can't. I know you can't.

I defy you to stand up now and disagree with me, Speaker, in my proposition to you that Len Wood was as capable and as competent and as effective a member of this assembly as has sat here certainly in the 12 years that I've been fortunate to be able to serve the folks of Niagara Centre.

I recall the observations of Gilles Bisson, who is Len Wood's provincial counterpart-Gilles Bisson of course represents this new riding of Timmins-James Bay, and again is a fighter for the north, a fighter for the mining industry, an advocate for the forestry industry. He under stands the incredible relevance of those industries. One of the concerns my colleague Gilles Bisson had that he raised back during the debate around Bill 17 was that Bill 17 didn't deal with the mining and forestry industries. He pointed that out to the government. It dealt with the construction industry, the building trades.

He also noted with some desperation that this government, the Harris Tories, have in fact begun to undermine the mining industry, that the support for the mining industry by this government in the province of Ontario has eroded significantly over the course of the last five or six years, in contrast to the enhanced levels of support that the province of Quebec provides to its mining industry.

So you see, the inequities aren't just about the mobility of labour, the ability of Ontario mining workers in all facets, both the miners and the people involved in drilling and exploration and so on, and forestry workers-the issue isn't just the restriction that Quebec imposed upon their access to Quebec work sites; the inequity also goes to one-because that inequity, Quebec's restriction on Ontario workers' access to Quebec work sites in the mining and forestry industry, clearly rests as the responsibility and as a source with the policies of the Bouchard government in Quebec.

But the undermining of the mining industry in terms of the diminished support that it receives rests clearly with the Harris Tories here at Queen's Park. You can't talk about one without talking about the other, can you?

That's why people like Len Wood in Timmins-James Bay are the kind of people who have got to be sent to Ottawa come the federal election at the end of November. Because Ottawa needs, and Timmins-James Bay needs, spokespeople for the north, people who have an intimacy with the economies of the north.

Len's no dilettante who was born with a silver spoon. Len Wood did it the hard way. He worked in the mills. As a matter of fact, up in Kapuskasing-you recall this, Speaker-when that mill was ready to be shut down, where was Len Wood? Len Wood was leading the fight to save that mill, save that community. He led that fight and he won that fight, and Kapuskasing thrives today because of Len Wood and his tenacity, his courage and his strength as a parliamentarian. That's the kind of person Len Wood was at Queen's Park. That's the kind of parliamentarian Len Wood will be in Ottawa, along with other New Democrats led by Alexa McDonough.

That's why I'm proud when I'm in Timmins-James Bay with Len Wood, because I know that he, unlike his opponents-and he has opponents. There are people running against him from any number of parties, none of his opponents and their parties having any sound or strong bases in northern interests. That's why I'm proud when I'm up in Timmins-James Bay and I'm going to be proud to visit Len Wood when he's in Ottawa.

So we support this legislation. We hope that it will be utilized for the purpose clearly expressed, and that is, quite frankly, simply as leverage to get Quebec back to the negotiating table so that the same sort of settlement that the New Democratic Party government was able to obtain with the Quebec government of the day can be obtained now, in this instance with respect to workers in the mining and forestry industries.

Have you ever been with Gilles Bisson in his riding of Timmins-James Bay? There isn't a person there, there isn't a kid there, their parent or their grandparent, who doesn't know him and whom he doesn't know as well. He travels a huge riding-an incredibly huge riding. The riding of the author of the bill is similarly large, and a pleasant one to be in, I've got to tell him. It's a huge riding, a huge number of communities, among them the smallest communities in Ontario and Canada and among them some of the most isolated communities in Ontario and Canada.

As we wrap up-there's so little time and so much to say-in the brief time that I am to participate in this dialogue, I find-and perhaps he's en route-that the absence of the Minister of Mines in the course of this debate to be a little unsettling. I appreciate, to be fair, that he could be doing any number of things this morning. I understand that. I'm not quarrelling with that, but surely a press release, a position clearly identifiably associated with the Minister of Mines demonstrating if there is a commitment-which is what I'm not sure of. I'm not sure the Minister of Mines has any real commitment to the mining industry in northern Ontario.

I don't see the Minister of Mines trying to counter the incredibly enhanced level of support that the province of Quebec provides to its mining industry, which inherently puts our mining industry at a significant and gross disadvantage. It would be interesting to hear the Ministry of Mines taking a clear position on that and understanding the incredible importance of mining to the north, to its economy, and once again to the economies of Ontario and Canada.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to address this matter. I look forward to being able to vote on this 55 seconds earlier than we would have had I not terminated my comments at this point.

Mr Tascona: I am pleased to join the debate on Bill 21. I was very interested in some of the conversations the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has had over the year, and also the member from Welland's renditions of Len Wood. I'm just wondering if Jean-Marc has had conversations with Len Wood that he can bring to this debate. I think the member from Welland, though, hit it on the head when he said, "We're talking about mobility rights." That's what we're talking about: labour mobility.

Bill 21 is

An Act to prohibit Quebec residents from working in certain mining and forestry occupations in Ontario, and the purpose of the bill is to ban all Quebec residents from working in Ontario as miners, woodcutters or wood transporters. There's been mention here today of Bill 17, which is the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), passed in the spring of 1999 by this government. It addressed labour mobility issues and is currently being applied in the Ontario-Hull region in the construction industry.

Bill 17 was the result of many years of discussions and frustrations over this issue. particularly in construction. Quebecers were able to work in Ontario while Ontario workers were barred from work in Quebec. During negotiations with Quebec, the issue of labour mobility in the forestry and mining sectors was raised but not included in that final agreement.

From what I understand, these issues are currently being discussed with Quebec, but more importantly, there's a difference between Bill 21 and Bill 17. Bill 21 imposes prohibition on workers while Bill 17, which is law, applied registration requirements and other restrictions. Such prohibition, which is being imposed here by the member, is obviously subject to challenge under the Charter of Rights, is subject to being challenged under the agreement on internal trade. Bill 21 does not restrict Quebec companies from working in mining and forestry as long as they hire Ontario residents.

Section 3 of the bill defines the penalties but does not describe a mechanism for enforcement. Are there to be inspectors, and what powers would they have? It's very silent on the bureaucracy that you would want to see created in this particular piece of legislation. More correctly, you don't want to see the bureaucracy that's envisioned by the members of the opposition.

Section 5 states that the Lieutenant Governor may suspend the operation of the Act by regulation, but there's no authority to create regulations in the bill. Obviously, it's a very poorly drafted bill.

I think I understand the intent. I think this is obviously politically driven. I'm not aware of any other conversations Jean-Marc has had on this particular issue, so I can't comment any further. But I'll say this: this matter is being taken seriously by our government and I know the Ministry of Labour is very aware of this. I trust this bill will receive due consideration by the House.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak today on Bill 21, the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Miners and Forestry Workers). I would like to thank the members for their valued comments and I'd also like to thank the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane for this bill that addresses a very serious problem. Of course the problem is the issue of fairness between our province and our neighbour to the east, the province of Quebec. The bill is very similar to another bill that came forward in this House, the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act, the bill that restricted labour mobility of Quebec construction workers who wanted to work in Ontario.

I understand from the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that he has some serious concerns with that even today. As most of us know, Bill 17 was passed by this House in 1999, the result of many years of discussion and frustration over this issue, particularly in the construction industry. Quebecers were able to work in Ontario while Ontario workers were barred from working in Quebec. The Mike Harris government saw this unfair treatment our workers were receiving in Quebec and took the necessary action to protect those workers. Of course the action paid off with an agreement between our two provinces.

Like so many times, our government responded to the need to protect the workers in our province.

The creation and protection of jobs in Ontario is a priority, and I can say I was very disappointed when Mr Ramsay mentioned that there was actually a mine in Ontario that was completely filled with Quebec workers. I think that's unacceptable.

As far as the issue of mobility within the forestry and mining sectors is concerned, it is my understanding that during negotiations with Quebec, the issue of labour mobility in the forestry and mining sectors was raised but not included in the final agreement.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made some interesting comments. He talked about partisan advertising to do with that bill. You mentioned $1 million being spent in advertising, that Mike Harris has wasted $1 million on that. I'm very curious wondering why he hasn't talked about his adbuster leader over there who's refusing to make any comments on the partisan advertising that's been going on with the federal government during the pre-writ and the writ period. There's advertising going on today and I don't see the adbuster over there making any comments on that.

It's interesting. It seems to rile them whenever you talk about health care. They mentioned Mike Harris being in collaboration with the separatists. Well, the separatists are the province. Lucien Bouchard is the Premier of a province, and his government has been underfunded by the federal government in health care the same as Ontario's has, so there is a certain collaboration going on there. I would like to make that point very clearly in this House.

We have two minutes and 20 seconds left and I'd really like to have the member from Northumberland put his perspective on this very interesting act.

Mr Galt: Thank you to the member from Simcoe North for leaving me a few minutes. It's a very interesting bill that the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane has brought forward. I can certainly understand where he's coming from, concerned about the people in his riding, concerned about people having jobs there. He's concerned about one aspect of-I know its two or three different occupations but we really need to look at this in the big picture.

I heard the member from Niagara Centre speaking on this, and I have some empathy for some of the comments he was making and where he was coming from with the big picture across Canada. I would not like to see a heavier, stronger border between Ontario and Quebec than we have between our two countries, the US and Canada. I see opening that up more, rather than closing it. We brought in the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act in the spring of 1999 and that accomplished quite a bit.

I recognize there've been several mines closed in the north, and some 990 jobs were lost up there, but we brought in some cuts with our last budget, from 20% to 10% in the mining tax. We brought in Project Treasure Hunt to help with mining exploration. These are the kind of things we're doing. I'd be concerned with this bill going all the way through, the disruption of some of the present working relationships between our two provinces.

Negotiations are probably the right way to go, and there are other businesses that have mutual benefits that work across those borders. I agree with the principle and the direction the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane is coming from, but I think we need to be careful, that we need to look at negotiations to really solve this. I appreciate his concerns, but I wouldn't want to come up with a solution with a sledgehammer when we could win gently with a flyswatter.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'm delighted to add my voice and my support to Bill 21, which has been introduced by my colleague the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane. Even the last speaker from the government side said they agree with the content, but eventually what they are saying is that they can't support it. It makes sense, but they can't support it. They agree with the content of the bill, but they can't support it.

It does make sense. I think the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane is quite right when he says it has got to be a two-way, fair system; otherwise things won't work. When things won't work, especially for our workers, and especially for those workers in northern Ontario, who is there to speak for them? Is it our Premier, Mr Harris, or is it Mr Bouchard? Is it Mr Bouchard, the Premier of Quebec, who will defend the rights of workers in Ontario, especially the ones in our northern communities, or is it our Premier here at Queen's Park, in this chamber, who will speak on their behalf? No way. Nowhere to be found.

We have our leader here, Mr Dalton McGuinty, who on a daily basis keeps on calling on the Premier to do something about it.

It is nice to hear that some members of the government side have mentioned Bill 17, which was introduced into this House because of the efforts of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. It was affecting the workers on both sides but especially the Ontario workers, unfairness which was, and still is, between Quebec and Ontario. Let me tell the members on the government side that Bill 17 is doing absolutely nothing to protect Ontario workers or Ontario businesspeople, especially the small general contractors who have to go and work on the other side in Quebec.

So Bill 21 is very timely, and I think this is due to the intelligence and foresight and knowledge that the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane has when it comes to labour and our workers up in the northern region.

It is not fair that our people up north are continually penalized. At this time the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane is bringing to this House concerns with respect to the mining and forestry workers, who are being invaded, if you will, by workers from the other side of the border. Our member here is saying that fairness indeed stops at the border between Quebec and Ontario.

I urge our Premier and the members on the government side to vote today in support of this bill and offer the protection they need and deserve when it comes to fairness in trade movement between Quebec and Ontario. It is the regulations, it is the laws, it is the licensing, it is the permits, it is the requirements and it is the agreements which are not fair, and Bill 21 calls on our Premier and this government to look at the unfairness that exists when dealing with our cross-border workers and our business community.

It is not only our workers. We also have to deal with the families of those workers. We have to deal with the business community in those remote northern areas, the small business community in those northern areas. I'm sure that if I were to say, yes, I speak as well for the small communities in the north, they need a fully employed force up north to survive and to maintain their families up to standard with the rest of the people of Ontario.

This is not the only area where northern communities suffer and feel neglected by our own provincial government here. In health care, with respect to providing cancer treatment for women up north, they are terribly neglected by this government. With respect to a shortage of doctors in those communities, it is because of the neglect of this government. So there are many areas where we can say fairness is a two-way affair, a two-way street.

In this particular case, Bill 21 makes sense, is timely, and I hope it gets approved in this House today. I compliment the member for Timiskaming-Cochrane for introducing it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Timiskaming-Cochrane has two minutes to respond.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I'd like to thank all the members who contributed to the debate today to my private member's bill. I appreciate your encouragement.

In my final remarks I just want to say that in a world that is rapidly changing, where jobs are rapidly changing into this high-tech world, it's very exciting. The particular part of the province that I represent really hasn't had, for many reasons, the blessings and the benefit of that industrial revolution in the electronic age, and primarily our jobs are resource-based.

Quite frankly, we need every one of those jobs, as many as we can have, and when we see hundreds and hundreds of Quebec workers coming over and basically stealing those jobs from us when we do not have equal access to the same jobs on the Quebec side, it really angers the people I represent.

All we're looking for today here is some fairness, some equal opportunity, a level playing field between our two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, so that our workers can share in the bounty on both sides of the border as we harvest our resources and add value to those resources in some of the new products that are being developed, such as oriented strand board and other products such as that.

It's time that we take a strong stand to defend our workers and to make sure that both the Quebec and Ontario governments understand that there needs to be fairness. I have had deliberations with the Minister of Labour and I know he is talking to his counterparts in the province of Quebec. The purpose of my bill is to keep the pressure on to make sure that Chris Stockwell and the Harris government complete those negotiations and to make sure that workers in northeastern Ontario have free and fair access to jobs right across the region so that all workers in northern Quebec and northern Ontario can work and prosper, raise their families and be successful in the work that they do.

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

YOUNG OFFENDERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): We will deal first with ballot item number 45, standing in the name of Mr Tilson.

Mr Tilson has moved private member's resolution number 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that the resolution carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a vote on this item after the next piece of business is done.

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT (MINERS AND FORESTRY WORKERS), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE (MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): We will now move to ballot item number 46, standing in the name of Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 21. Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

YOUNG OFFENDERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Tilson has moved private member's notice of motion number 25.

All those in favour will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Cleary, John C.

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Johns, Helen

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sergio, Mario

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being completed, I will leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1206 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MPP BACK TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): It has been my great honour and pleasure to participate in the MPP back to school program that was launched on September 14 by Dalton McGuinty and the official opposition education critic, Gerard Kennedy, the purpose of which was to provide something constructive during this time of turmoil in our public schools by calling on all MPPs to go to their local schools and find out the real impact on our schools of provincial policy and funding changes first-hand.

I've been to a number of schools and I'm going to go to a number more, to help me be better prepared to make the helpful decisions we need to make during this time of turmoil. Of course, I've been to schools before the program and I'm going to go to schools well after.

I heard from students about the concern they felt that they were guinea pigs with respect to the curriculum. "Nothing less than a government stunt," one of them said to me. Teachers said the curriculum was throwing 50 years of educational research into the garbage. Fundraising efforts pay for not only arts, music, CDs and trips but also for textbooks. I was most impressed, but also disheartened, by the fact that our teachers in the staff room felt demoralized on the one hand, the subject of attack, advertising and messages from the government, but on the other hand they could put that aside and go into the classroom and be the professionals they are.

I applaud the teachers, the parents, the students and the administration during this time of turmoil. I hope you will persevere. I can assure you that I will continue to fight for public education in this province.

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I once again have very good news from the riding of Durham. Really, I have to thank Elizabeth Witmer, our Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, because through the Alzheimer strategy she made available to my community funds-I think it was in the order of $85,000-and the community decided to use it for the purchase of a minivan, which carries 12 passengers and allows for four wheelchairs. Really, the minivan is used to transport people from all over Durham to a daycare program that's held in the village of Newcastle.

I specifically want to thank Elizabeth Fulford and Sally Barrie, who's the administrator of Clarington's community care and home support program, as well as Joyce Erb, Jennifer Rusaw, who's the program manager at Newcastle adult day program, and Susan Haines, who's the program director for the same organization.

At the celebration, what touched me the most was Mary Kocur of the Newcastle program, who, by the way, was the first person to register for the adult day program, a person who otherwise couldn't get about in their community without the special supports in the community of my riding of Durham.

Out of respect for Elizabeth Witmer and for our community, I'm just here to say thank you for making things work, for giving people programs like the day program in Newcastle. We have to look at the positive things and it's up to us to recognize what's going on in our communities.

MPP BACK TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It's my pleasure to rise and report to the public of Ontario that a majority of the members of this Legislature care enough about education to spend some of their time visiting schools, and I think that's good news. We in fact have been able to get commitments and action from 36 Liberals, 14 Conservatives and three New Democrats. The important thing for the people who are watching us to wonder is, "What about the other 50 MPPs?"

How can we get them to also show their concern for students and go back to school? How can we get them to agree-because I'm sure they do agree that spending a day in school is a higher standard. It is more than calling upon them to cut ribbons and visit schools and so on, and I credit Mr Arnott for having done this already. But I think all MPPs will agree that Ontario students are worth the effort of having that higher standard. I encourage the public to go to the Web site, www.OntarioLiberal.com and look at the grade we've given to their members.

They've got an A, B, C, D or F, depending on whether or not they are putting out the energy and effort to make sure the turmoil taking place in our schools doesn't scare them, that they're not afraid of what's going on in their communities, they want to be part of the solution.

We still have time because next week of course is constituency week and the 50 MPPs who have failing grades will be able to pull those up with some industrious effort. We'd like to believe this isn't a case of being incorrigibly truant; it's just a question of needing some encouragement from their constituents, and I'm sure that will be forthcoming.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Yesterday I asked the Premier in this House to explain to us what he was going to do where the Ontarians with Disabilities Act is concerned, and he blamed the NDP. After six years in government, he continues to blame the NDP when in fact it's the Premier himself who has reneged on his promise to bring in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. He can't pin that blame on us. We've been calling relentlessly for a meaningful ODA to be tabled and passed in this House as soon as possible.

As a government, the NDP brought in a number of initiatives to identify and dismantle barriers for the disabled, including the employment equity bill, which promoted economic self-sufficiency for the disabled, women, racial minorities and aboriginal people, but it was one of the first bills the Harris government revoked.

The Advocacy Act was introduced by the NDP to help vulnerable adults assert their rights and to participate in making decisions about their lives. Again, the Harris government dismantled that piece of legislation.

The NDP government introduced accessible GO Transit rail service at 18 key stations and mandated one car per train to be accessible with up to eight locations for mobility devices.

The NDP government mandated that all transit buses purchased or leased after July 1, 1993, had to be low-floor and fully accessible, and a number of other very progressive programs for the disabled.

We want to warn the Premier right here and now that if he dares to table the draft legislation that was recently leaked, able and disabled Ontarians alike will be howling from the rooftops. This government should realize right here and now that Ontarians deserve a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

WARKWORTH PERFECT PIE CONTEST

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): If you wanted to find the perfect pie, where would you go? Many might say, "Just ask the Prime Minister; the perfect pie seems to know how to find him." But I have a better idea: the annual perfect pie contest this Saturday in Warkworth. At the 21st annual perfect pie contest, it's no problem finding the perfect pecan, apple or chocolate pie. The contest is held at Warkworth's town hall, also known as the centre of provincial pie-making artistry.

While it's the kind of place the Prime Minister likes to avoid, there's no doubt in my mind the town hall will be packed with bakers, tasters and hungry people like myself, as previous winners and new contestants vie for the prestigious honour of baking the perfect pie.

Since the Prime Minister won't be there, I can assure you it's safe for CBC reporters too: no danger of a Shawinigan handshake or a pepper spray there.

The best part, as always, is eating the pies when the winning entries are auctioned off, and still more pies are served to the public.

The entire event is sponsored by the Warkworth Order of the Eastern Star,

chapter 279, and proceeds go to Garratt's Island farm retreat and Camp Trillium, a support centre for children and teens who suffer with cancer.

I commend the organizers for all their efforts and I encourage everyone who doesn't have plans on Saturday to join with me and my constituents at Warkworth's perfect pie contest.

TAMIL COMMUNITY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On Saturday night, the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre, CANTYD, will be having their second annual Awards of Excellence banquet. I was there last year, as well as the Honourable Hilary Weston, our Lieutenant Governor. This was a group of totally outstanding Tamil students and some Tamil community leaders. On Saturday there will be another excellent group of leaders from the Tamil community.

Last Friday I was fortunate to be at a graduation at L'Amoreaux Collegiate, a school in the area I represent. The top two students were students whose background is Tamil. They came to Canada from a background of Tamil. Tamil student after Tamil student is now at university becoming a doctor or lawyer or another profession. The valedictorian was from the Tamil community.

The reason I mention that is we read about Tamil gangs today. According to the police there are perhaps 200 Tamils in these gangs. There are 200,000 Tamils here, so one out of 1,000 is in the gangs; I just want to remind all of us that 999 of them are not in gangs. They are decent, hard-working people. They are community leaders. As I said, at the collegiate I was at, the two very top students were from the Tamil community, the valedictorian, and many of those going on in university.

Today, while we read about the gangs, I want to remember the other 999 out of 1,000 who are decent, hard-working people here in Ontario.

NEWMARKET BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to speak about an exciting event that I attended in my riding of York North on October 25: the Newmarket Business Excellence Awards hosted by the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, an organization that has deep roots in the town of Newmarket.

The chamber's five award winners are: for building an enterprise that has brought renown to Newmarket, Pickering College; for developing international trade, Burnside International Ltd; for extraordinary business achievements, Time+Plus Electronic Timekeeping; for community relations and support, the Era Banner; the posthumous award was given in memory of Donald Sutherland.

Donald Sutherland was a Scottish miller who recognized Newmarket's business potential as a railway town. After the railway arrived in 1853, Sutherland purchased the mill pond and river flats, and in 1856 erected the largest flour mill in the area, capable of grinding 100,000 bushels of wheat per year.

Sutherland was always active in community affairs. He was a justice of the peace, a school trustee and a member of the board of licence commissioners. He was elected the first reeve of Newmarket in 1858 and was a councilor until 1874. He was also the founding president of the Newmarket Board of Trade, forerunner of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, in 1857.

Congratulations to the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce and the award winners for an excellent event and for 140 years of service.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Over the last few weeks, I have delivered thousands of letters from the students in my riding pleading with the Minister of Education to take steps to end the current crisis in secondary school education. Today, I have another 1,500 letters that come from Frontenac Secondary School, making that over 5,000 individual letters I have now delivered to her.

High school students in the Kingston area and elsewhere in Ontario have not only been denied the educational benefits of extracurricular activities but are now losing the benefits of additional academic help from their teachers as well. There is no denying that our students are being hurt tremendously in this labour dispute.

With only six weeks left before final exams, this may put some students at risk of losing their year.

Minister, you, the teachers' federations and the boards of education must all collectively realize the tremendously damaging and perhaps lasting effects of the decisions you have taken on the students and their future in Ontario.

Minister, this not about you or me, the teachers' federations or the boards of education. It is about the future of our students. You took the unilateral action that precipitated the current crisis in secondary education. As so aptly stated in a Whig-Standard editorial on October 31, you have "the ultimate responsibility to students, teachers and the people of Ontario for the public educa tion system." You "should accept full responsibility for the provincial government's dictatorial role in education and bargain with the teachers" so our children can get the full and proper education they need and deserve.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): The creation of new jobs ensures a good-news story. A recent announcement in my riding of Peterborough involves jobs, approximately 500 of them.

AmeriCredit Corp of Fort Worth, Texas, has recognized that we are open for business in this province. They have chosen to relocate their service centre to Peterborough in a competition with over 60 communities in the United States and Canada. An investment of approximately $50 million will be a boost to Peterborough's economy.

As well as the Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corp, the city and the county of Peterborough, and especially our Ontario government under the direction of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, the Honourable Al Palladini, were very involved in attracting this company to our province.

AmeriCredit is one of the leading consumer finance companies in the world. Its growth projections are to $15 billion over the next 18 months. This is truly an opportunity for the citizens of Peterborough for gainful employment with a successful company. It means jobs for our young people.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to congratulate AmeriCredit Corp on their choice of location in my riding and in this province. I personally welcome them to the city of Peterborough.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, I would like to remind all the members this is the last day for our pages, and I was wondering if our members could thank our pages for the wonderful job they have done. They did a fine job, and I'm sure their families are all very proud of the work they've done.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION SIGNS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES PANNEAUX ÉLECTORAUX

Mr Galt moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 136,

An Act in respect of election Signs / Projet de loi 136, Loi concernant les panneaux électoraux.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This bill, if passed, will prohibit the display of election signs until 25 days before a municipal election. Further, it prohibits the display of provincial election signs until the writ for the election or by-election is issued.

ROAD USER CUSTOMER SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

Mr Turnbull moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 137,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver program services with respect to road user safety to persons in the private sector / Projet de loi 137, Loi permettant au ministre des Transports de déléguer à des personnes du secteur privé des pouvoirs, des fonctions et des responsabilités pour fournir des services liés à des programmes en matière de sécurité des usagers de la route.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to have the minister give a ministerial statement to more fully explain the bill and allow the opposition a chance to respond.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

The Minister of Transportation for a short statement.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think if you asked again-I don't think I did hear a no, actually.

The Speaker: I was just checking with the table to make sure my hearing was OK, and I confirmed there were some noes. Just so we know, we can ask one more time, though. Just before the member does his point of order, could we also clarify the timing, that if it is a yes, it will be during ministerial statements.

Mr Duncan: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to ask the minister to deliver a ministerial statement during ministerial statements that will also allow the official opposition and the third party to respond to the minister's statement.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Now, the Minister of Transportation for a short statement.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation) : To meet the challenges of improving customer service, I am pleased to introduce the Road User Customer Service Improvement Act. The bill, if passed, will allow the ministry to examine alternative service delivery of selected ministry services, including driver examination services.

This bill reflects our government's intention to focus our efforts on setting and enforcing standards, developing policy and managing services. We believe this initiative will lead to better customer service for Ontarians.

FAIR PARENTAL LEAVE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE CONGÉ PARENTAL ÉQUITABLE

Ms Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 138,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to parental leave / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi à l'égard du congé parental.

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

The member for a short statement.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Today I'm pleased to introduce the NDP's Fair Parental Leave Act. Our bill amends

section 40 of the Employment Standards Act to increase the number of weeks of parental leave from 18 to 35. This is in addition to the 17 weeks of maternity leave guaranteed to the birth mother.

The Employment Standards Act establishes the right to take parental leave with job protection for most workers. The bill is necessary to guarantee Ontario's parental leave provisions are in line with the new federal government's parental benefits, which go into effect December 31. The bill protects Ontario families from losing their jobs if they decide to take the full-year leave.

This is a fair, just and practical way for MPPs to support Ontario's working families, and I encourage the support of all members.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Stockwell moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail.

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

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

All those opposed will be 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 1352 to 1357.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The Minister of Labour for a short statement.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I'll be making a statement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): There are over eight million drivers in Ontario today-more than there have ever been at any other time in our history. With record numbers of drivers, my ministry faces a significant challenge to meet the demand for services.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I hear one of the opposition chirping away about-

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise with respect to standing order 33(c), which states, "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the critics of the recognized opposition parties. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts" should be appended to it. None of those things have been appended to this compendium, Mr Speaker, and I would ask you to review this at the appropriate time.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't understand the other House leader. A compendium has been delivered; he has the bill. We're in complete accordance with the rules, as I understand it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll check it out further. In the meantime, the Minister of Transportation. Sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Turnbull: The ministry will meet this challenge through the legislation I have introduced today. The road user customer service improvement bill will allow the ministry to examine alternative service delivery options for selected ministry services.

In 1999, our government made the Blueprint commitment to use alternative service delivery to provide equal or better service to the public where it is safe, practical and cost-efficient. The bill I am introducing today reflects our government's intention to focus our efforts on setting and enforcing standards, developing policy and managing services.

This proposed legislation supports the ministry's intention to seek an alternative service delivery agent to provide driver examination services. Today, we're sending a message that our government and the Ministry of Transportation take customer service very seriously.

Road safety remains my ministry's number one priority. For that reason, we will continue to establish and enforce high standards. We will continue to monitor and ensure compliance with the existing legislation. And we will audit the performance of any new service provider to ensure that driver examinations are delivered efficiently, effectively, fairly and consistently.

I believe this initiative will lead to better customer service for Ontarians.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I am pleased to have introduced legislation earlier today which would strengthen workpla