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

October 25, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2001-Oct-25 (PDF)

L057 - Thu 25 Oct 2001 / Jeu 25 oct 2001

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 25 October 2001 Jeudi 25 octobre 2001

Private Members’ Public Business

Preventing Partisan Advertising Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 visant à empêcher la publicité à caractère politique

Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 prévoyant une enquête sur les enquêtes policières RELATIVES AUX plaintes de mauvais traitements d’ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall

Preventing Partisan Advertising Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 visant à empêcher la publicité à caractère politique

Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 prévoyant une enquête sur les enquêtes policières RELATIVES AUX plaintes de mauvais traitements d’ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall

Preventing Partisan Advertising Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 visant à empêcher la publicité à caractère politique

Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 prévoyant une enquête sur les enquêtes policières RELATIVES AUX plaintes de mauvais traitements d’ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall

Members’ Statements

Visudyne

Hall of Distinction business excellence awards

Epidermolysis bullosa

Bill Finley

Home care

Education funding

Halton economy

Federal funds

Safety first program

Oral Questions

Community care access centres

Doctor shortage

Provincial sales tax

Ministry of Health and long-term care staff

Dispatch services

Ontarians with disabilities legislation

Education funding

Court services in Quinte West

Lindsay-Ops landfill site

Health care funding

Take our kids to work day

Ontarians with disabilities legislation

Endangered species

Contamination in Port Colborne

Member for Scarborough-Rouge River

Business of the House

Petitions

Cruelty to animals

Municipal restructuring

Highway 407

London Health Sciences Centre

Education tax credit

Emery adult learning centre

Lord’s Prayer

Cruelty to animals

OHIP services

Poverty

Orders of the Day

Quality in the Classroom Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 sur la qualité dans les salles de classe

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

Private Members’ Public Business

Preventing Partisan Advertising Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 visant à empêcher la publicité à caractère politique

Mr McGuinty moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 107,

An Act to end government spending on partisan advertising / Projet de loi 107, Loi mettant fin aux dépenses du gouvernement en matière de publicité à caractère politique.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The government has asked the working families of Ontario to make do with less education, to make do with less health care, to make do with less environmental protection, but the government has done nothing to curb its own voracious appetite for spending millions of tax dollars on self-serving, partisan advertising.

Clearly, the government has broken faith with the hard-working families of Ontario, and it has broken its own advertising rules. I direct your attention to a

section of a document titled Advertising and Creative Services Directive, dated July 1998, and published by this government’s Management Board. This document specifically forbids naming ministers, including the first minister, the Premier, in government advertising of any kind.

The government breaks its own rules and it does so with continuing impunity. Who hasn’t seen the dozens of blue and white signs along Ontario highways on which the Premier takes credit for highway construction? These signs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But there’s more, much more. Millions of dollars have been spent to mail colour brochures with the Premier’s name and picture to the homes of Ontario’s hard-working families. Millions of dollars have been spent on television ads that play on the airwaves of this province and do nothing but attempt to convince working families, with their own money. Maybe this has got to be the ultimate insult to our families’ intelligence. This government is trying to spin them with their own money, trying to convince people that they’re doing a good job.

It seems to me that good policy speak for itself. You don’t need to spin people and tell them you’re doing good work for them. Let the policy speaks for itself.

I have raised this issue time and time again in this Legislature, as have many of my colleagues, but the government continues to waste millions of dollars on blatant partisan advertising. We have been tracking the millions that have been poured down the drain on partisan advertising. Using the freedom of information act, we have uncovered what the government does not want our working families here in Ontario to know.

From the time it came to office until April 2000—we haven’t been able to collect figures since then, but from 1995 until April 2000, this government has spent $234.8 million of tax money on partisan advertising. Again, I find that very insulting to the intelligence of our families, trying to spin them with their very own money. Once again in this matter, as in many others, this government is making the wrong choices for working families. Ontario’s working families know that $235 million could have been used for much better purposes.

Part of that $235 million could have been used to rehire the nurses this government fired. We’ve got the fewest nurses per capita in the country right here in Ontario. Part of that $235 million could have been used to reopen hospital beds that are in short supply today, allowing us to have the beds available that we will need to properly deal with an emergency. When it comes to hospital beds per capita here in the country, we come next to last. We’re just one step ahead of Yukon.

Hospital occupancy rates stand at 93% across the province and 97% right here in the greater Toronto area. The government has closed so many beds that we barely have the capacity to deal with a bus crash, let alone a real emergency. Part of that $235 million could be used to reopen some of those beds so that they’re available when we need them.

Part of that $235 million could have been used to reopen vital health services, such as the pediatric burn unit at the London Health Sciences Centre and maybe the pediatric cardiac unit at the same hospital. Those are being closed in London because this government says it doesn’t have enough money to keep them open, forcing the children of southwestern Ontario’s working families to travel elsewhere for treatment.

Part of that $235 million could have been put into home care. That’s where the waiting lists are on the rise, and these are our parents and our grandparents. These are people who are going without care in their homes, the kind of care we would argue in our party that we owe our parents and our grandparents.

Part of that $235 million could have been used to boost our security in the wake of the terrible events of September 11. We could use part of that money to make sure our communities have emergency plans in place, to make sure we have enough firefighters and to make sure we have enough police. I think our families would believe that would be a good use of that money.

Part of that $235 million could be used to rehire the five biohazard scientists who were fired by the Minister of Health, scientists who, together, had 150 years of expertise among them. These people were experts in bioterrorism and the West Nile virus. One of those scientists actually developed a test that was used in connection with the particular form of E coli that caused the tragedy in Walkerton. That’s how valuable these people are to us. It seems to me we need these people now more than ever.

Part of that $235 million could be used to improve our education system. Kids are going without textbooks. Class sizes are too big. The government complains our kids are not meeting the literacy standards. How about investing in books for our libraries? It seems to me that our families would embrace that kind of investment, as opposed to this waste of money that they’ve been putting this money into.

Part of that $235 million could be used to rehire the environmental officers this government fired. That would help us ensure that no family in Ontario loses a son or a daughter, a mother or a father, a grandfather or a grandmother, the way seven families in Walkerton did simply by drinking the water that came from their taps.

This government is addicted to partisan advertising. We believe on this side of the House that it’s time for an intervention, and we’re here to help the government because it seems to be incapable of helping itself. That’s why I’ve introduced this bill.

My bill would make it the law of the land that the government can use advertising to inform the public about public services such as immunization programs. They could also use advertising to discourage the public from certain forms of social behaviour, like drinking and driving. But it would make it illegal for the government to inflict blatantly partisan advertising on the working families of Ontario.

It would make it illegal to use government advertising to try to create a positive impression of the government. It would make it illegal for this government to use tax dollars collected from Ontario’s working families and use their own money against them, to try to convince them the government is doing a good job.

Again, I say good policy speaks for itself. You don’t have to spin people and try to convince them the government is doing a good job. People know whether or not a government is doing a good job.

My bill would make it illegal to use advertising to try to create a negative impression of people or groups that are critical of the government.

My bill would make it illegal to promote the image of the Premier or a cabinet minister. That means no more road signs, no more brochures, no more newspaper ads and no more television spots with the name or the smiling face of the Premier of the day beaming down from on high on all of us.

My bill would make it the responsibility of the Provincial Auditor to decide whether ads not yet made public meet the legal standard, and he would also have the responsibility to review complaints made about ads already made public and, if necessary, to hold an inquiry.

An important feature of my bill would make it the law that each and every government ad must include a prominent notice reminding taxpayers who paid for the ads. That means every ad would have to state clearly and state plainly “paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario.”

My bill spells out what every government should know. Every government should know that it must not abuse the public trust and use hundreds of millions of tax dollars to convince the working families of Ontario that it’s doing a good job.

Sadly, this government has abused that trust time and time again. This government has broken its own guidelines time and time again. Now I want to make it the law. I want to make it the law of the land that government spending on partisan advertising is forbidden.

My bill would make it the law of the land that partisan advertising, bought by the government and paid for with tax dollars, is never again inflicted on the working families of Ontario.

Partisan government advertising is a disease, and I have the cure. My bill is the cure.

I urge all members of this House to support my bill, but I particularly urge those who see themselves as would-be premiers. I think the public will be looking to them when it comes to this very important matter as to where their values lie, where their priorities lie, as to whether they’re on the side of government advertising or on the side of working families.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It’s a pleasure to speak this morning on behalf of our caucus.

Interjection.

Mr Dunlop: I tried to be polite and listen to Mr McGuinty’s remarks and I wish you’d do the same, member from South Park.

The Liberals have not done their homework on this bill. Obviously, they haven’t. They have no interest in implementing measures which truly hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario. I would have thought that if they had started anywhere, they would have looked at partisan advertising from their colleagues in Ottawa.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sarnia-Lambton, come to order.

Mr Dunlop: It’s very interesting to watch this. I’ve watched: even after the writ was dropped in the federal election last year, partisan advertising continued in the federal government.

Compare this to a government that has implemented the sunshine bill, the Taxpayer Protection Act and the Balanced Budget Act. I think the contrast is striking. Actions do speak louder than words.

This bill is unnecessary. According to the text of the bill, the Provincial Auditor would be responsible to judge whether or not the government has violated the criteria set out in the bill, preventing partisan political advertising. To begin with, there is a problem with the lack of definition over what constitutes advertising. This is a huge problem. I would assume this would cover TV spots and newspaper spreads. Might it also include direct mailings to people across Ontario, to constituents? What about Web sites, letterhead and business cards?

Interjection.

Mr Dunlop: What about it? You’re right.

If the Liberals are so interested in eliminating taxpayer dollars being spent on partisan political ads, why don’t they stand up and tell us about what they’re doing in their own party? All members will know that they are allocated a global budget and they can use that budget to publish householders for their constituents. These are legitimate publications; we all print them. They are a valuable way for us to communicate with people in our ridings. But there is no real oversight on how money is spent in terms of content.

It can contain names of members, certainly faces, and it can support initiatives by the government or it can slam the government, and that’s obviously done in some of your householders.

Would the Liberals be willing to have some sort of oversight body to verify these publications to ensure that they are spending taxpayer dollars in a non-partisan manner? Would that be included in the bill?

This might seem to be taking it to extremes, but without a clear definition it makes it impossible for the auditor, as in this case it may be, to tell what the Legislature meant with the bill. If passed, this would do no more than to muddy the waters surrounding the issue.

In addition, the bill would place an inappropriate burden on the office of the auditor. The auditor has no traditional experience in this area. Auditors typically have experience in tracing dollars and cents and, in the end, determining whether or not the people of Ontario have received value for their dollar. They also have a wide range of skills in looking at business plans and business cases to see if ministries and agencies did their homework in looking forward and doing the best with their resources.

What auditors do not have experience in is detailed analysis of marketing and communication plans and whether one can reasonably be expected to get the intended result with an initiative. This could have a serious impact on decisions that would come from the auditor’s office.

We all have a vested interest in ensuring that decisions that flow from whatever oversight body controls ads are made in a consistent manner.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I can’t maintain order in this House without gypping the speaker of his time. If you would like a last warning, consider that given now.

Mr Dunlop: It does no good for decisions, and hence policy, to meander and weave along without some coherent structure for analysis. We are then left with a piece of the puzzle that has no logical fit with the rest of the organization. This means more inflated bureaucracies and new red tape, and of course our government is trying to eliminate red tape. Compare this to the Advertising Review Board, which has real experience and expertise in the advertising and marketing field.

It has the traditional ability to evaluate all facets of an advertising plan, and analyze and make recommendations and decisions as to appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of an advertisement. If the Liberals like this approach so much, why didn’t they pass such a bill when they were in power?

Typically, the parties across the way tell you that we spend millions in advertising. Not surprisingly, they fail to tell you how much they spent on advertising when they were in government. So let’s do some of the numbers. If you adjust for inflation, the Liberals spent $355 million and the NDP $350 million in the Peterson and Rae jurisdictions. Why doesn’t Mr McGuinty stand in his place and tell us what he thinks the David Peterson government should have done with the hundreds of millions that it spent on advertising? Maybe balance the budget? Maybe avoid higher taxes and a mountain of debt that threatened to cripple the economy and a monstrous drag on the economy of this province?

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me this time this morning.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I’m very happy to address this bill from my leader, Dalton McGuinty, who for a long time now has advanced the notion that government partisan advertising has no place in the Ontario government. We’ve watched this government since 1995 cut services that we feel are paramount to the civil service and what the general public expects, while at the same time spending foolishly in areas that they can’t even defend.

The other day a friend of mine who is a regular hunter called up and left me a voice mail saying, “Can you believe that even in the hunters’ magazine Mike Harris has got to splat his picture all over the place?”

After many of the MPPs who have apartments here in the Toronto area have been away over the weekend, they come back to find the pile-up of mail through the door, and you just wade through all the garbage sent by the government of Ontario.

If, at minimum, it was useful information, that would be one thing, but it is Janet Ecker, the Minister of Education, and the Premier of Ontario talking to parents about the fact that—I don’t see it mentioned anywhere that they don’t have textbooks if they’re a grade 11 student; I don’t see any mention of the fact that classrooms are still much larger than the parents ever expected. Yet the only thing you will find is what they are trumpeting that they have done for the public education system since they’ve taken over the government.

Truthfully, parents are not stupid. Parents look at this and say, “How much did this thing cost? It’s got glossy pages, all fancy. I thought you guys were the tax-cutting guys. I thought you were the wise spenders.” Well, that bloom was off that rose a long time ago because the reality is that you have spent money lavishly praising yourselves. I think you’re having a hard time finding anyone else out there who’s going to praise the work of this Ontario government, because everything, and in particular in the area of health care, that you have done has been done with the biggest mismanagement of all time.

My community is the best example of that. When we hear Dalton McGuinty talk about over $200 million being spent on partisan advertising, I know in my home community the operating deficit this year alone of Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital is $17 million. I spent this past season, just before the House resumed, meeting constituents who told me stories about their family member in a hospital bed. Their dinner plate came and went from the hospital room and the patient didn’t eat because their teeth were in a glass and there was no one to check that that patient ate. That’s what I listened to in my home constituency office.

I listened to them about the adults who’ve been diapered in their hospital bed because there aren’t the nurses to get them to the bathroom in time. So that they don’t mess the bed, they diaper these people, who are fully capable of going to the bathroom independently.

Those are the stories I listen to in my constituency office while Dalton McGuinty tells the world that you spent over $235 million on partisan advertising so that you can tell the hunters of the world what a fabulous job the Premier is doing.

We speak to parents all the time. Just before the House resumed I met with parents who know they don’t have the aides their children require to be in the classroom. I’ve talked to teachers who know they’re not able to cope with the numbers of kids in their classroom, who don’t have the supports for that teacher to teach properly all the kids in that classroom. Those are the stories I listened to before we got back here when the House resumed at the end of September, and yet I continue to receive through the mailbox slot brochure after brochure with glossy pages of a smiling Mike Harris.

I think all of us recall when they started putting up those big blue signs by the highway, and how many of my Liberal caucus colleagues just about ran off the road to knock those signs into the ditch. I can tell you I came close on several occasions. Instead, what I did in my community was make my own big blue sign and put it by the side of the road. It said, “Here’s the Mike Harris government. Hospital cutbacks: we’ve gone from four to two. Emergency rooms in my community: we’ve gone from four to two.” Now we have people waiting in an emergency room.

I remember sitting in this House and sending a sheet of paper around to all the MPPs: “Eighteen days to go.” Then the next day it said, “Seventeen days to go.” Do you know what that was for? That was to warn the Conservative MPPs of how many days to go before we lost yet another emergency room, before we had ambulances literally rolling patients in the gurney down the ramp to get into the emergency room because the remaining hospitals didn’t have the ambulance bays to pull the truck into—all of it entirely predictable. And all the while, that brochure keeps coming through the slot of that door, the fancy colour brochure with a smiling Premier.

I drive on the highway every week more than once and see those ridiculous big blue signs that say, “Your tax dollars at work,” and I remember the meeting that I just left in my constituency office about adults being diapered in a hospital because we don’t have nursing staff. That is what happens in my community. That is the juxtaposition between people who need good government service and the dignity of good health care and then these signs by the side of the road that they dare spend money on, signed by Premier Mike Harris, to tell me that that’s the road.

Is that because there are so few roads left not downloaded by this government, and the rest are all the responsibility of the municipality? That’s what we’ve had to watch in my community.

You can imagine how galling it is for parents to get that education brochure when their kids come home, knowing they’ve got to share a textbook because they don’t have enough textbooks for the new curriculum imposed by this government. That’s the juxtaposition in my community.

Every time we see these ads—God, we’ve just had the most dramatic event on September 11 that I have seen in my lifetime, and even still, with this world event that shattered the innocence of our country, we have to look at every major newspaper in the nation—at minimum in Ontario—and I’ve got to turn it open to see that Mike Harris takes out a full-page ad to say what? What kind of action has this government taken?

Have they taken action to assist us in Windsor, whose entire community, practically, is bound up by what happens on the trade corridor at Windsor-Detroit, at the Ambassador Bridge or the Windsor tunnel? Instead, I saw hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a newspaper ad, instead of reviewing what our community really needs: assistance in securing the bridge, assistance in securing the tunnel. You know, they shut down GM world headquarters on September 11, which is right across the river, a mile away, in downtown Detroit. That had a huge impact on Windsor.

They shut down the bridge and tunnel immediately, and when things like that happen to Windsor, things stop cold. All of our tourism industry still is staggering under the weight of the September 11 attacks. And what do I see instead? Full-page ads by this government. It is unacceptable, and under a Dalton McGuinty government it will stop.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I allowed myself the opportunity of passing, because I wanted to hear what the Conservatives had to say on this bill. I’m going to stand here to tell you that the NDP will be supporting the bill put forward by the Liberals. It is an idea whose time has come.

I have listened to the speakers, the two from the Liberals and the one from the Conservatives, and both of them are right in what they say and both of them are wrong in what they say.

Can the Conservatives deny the orgy of spending that has taken place by them over the last number of years?

We’ve done a little research and, just as an example, since June 2000—I’m not going back before that—there was an attack on teachers which cost $200,000; in July 2000 there was a welfare pamphlet that cost $782,000; in August 2000 there were Living Legacy TV and newspaper ads, $1.3 million; in August 2000, a radio ad, “Ottawa Can Afford to Loosen Its Purse Strings,” $300,000; spring of 2000, anti-federal-Liberal health care TV ads, $5 million; September 2000, an education pamphlet, $2 million; November 2000, an Economist “Chairman Mike” ad promoting the Premier, $60,000; December 2000, high school scholarships, $127,000;

December 2000-January 2001, health care ads for a booklet not yet produced, $740,000; January 2001, On report, $1.12 million; January 2001, one-week newspaper campaign to tout Conservative aid to Toronto, $200,000; January 2001, a leaked submission to cabinet reveals that the Conservatives plan a multi-million-dollar ad campaign promoting provincial parks to counter public concern about lack of protection of the environment; spring 2001, On report, $1.15 million; March 22, 2001, Telehealth TV ad, nearly $1 million; August 2001, teacher testing and literacy education ads, $6 million; October 11, 2001, full-page advertisements in newspapers across Ontario to assure readers of the actions the provincial government is taking, $1 million.

No one can deny that this money is being spent and how it is being spent. They’re spending it. Can the Liberals deny—and I heard what the Conservatives had to say—that the federal Liberals in Ottawa are doing exactly the same thing? Can they even deny that when they were in government they did similar—

Interjection.

Mr Prue: Please. Can they deny that when they were in government, they did similar things? Can even the NDP deny that when they were in government, they spent money this way? I am not going to stand here and defend any government in the last 20 years, be it Conservative, Liberal or NDP, for the money they spent in promoting their own causes.

What I am standing here to tell you is that this is an idea whose time has come. The time has come for all of us, from all parties in this House, to say we can no longer waste the money that the taxpayers put forward on partisan political ads. The reality is that it produces cynicism; it produces, out there in the public, people who think the government is wasting their money. They believe it is being wasted because they no longer believe the advertisements.

All of us, if you look at the billboards, if you look at the TV, if you look in the media, are bombarded every day with advertisements. Most of us tune them out. Most of us do not believe them. When we do believe them, we laugh about them, we do so only as a joke—I guess something in our subconscious mind. But when you see something that angers you, when you see an ad like the provincial Tories are doing now and which undoubtedly other parties will do in the future if we don’t stop it, it produces that cynicism.

You can look in today’s paper. There are two telling points on this very topic. One is that the polls the Toronto Board of Education has done show that the public is not fooled by the education ads. They have not been fooled even one iota. Most people do not believe the ads that say everything is wonderful in the schools. In fact, the majority of people know that it is not true.

The second one is an

article by Mr Coyle in the Toronto Star in which he outlines, I think really quite well, his distaste and disgust for the money that was spent on educational ads, particularly the little book On, and how that money has failed to do what was necessary to produce the appropriate educational results or the public’s acceptance of those results.

The money is being wasted. It can be used to far better purpose. The NDP—and Peter Kormos is here now—has a bill which we think is superior to that which is being put forward by the Liberals. It is far stronger. But in the spirit of co-operation and in the spirit to let everyone know that this needs to be done, we are going to support the Liberals’ bill, even though we think ours is better.

We are going to ask that it go to committee, and we are going to make the necessary adjustments to the bill in committee to make sure that the strongest possible message is sent to the people of Ontario, the strongest possible message that we must curtail the wasteful spending on partisan ads. We must put the money instead into those places that need it: into the schools, into the hospitals, into the environment, into the thousand things that this government should be doing.

In the meantime, we are asking that the members on the opposite side, on the government side of the House, take to heart that this is something that has to be done. No one is blaming you. I do not blame you any more than I blame the previous NDP or Liberal governments. It is a disease that we have all succumbed to, it is something that we must put an end to, and the end must be brought now.

Mr Kormos, I hope, will be speaking later. Yes? Is it appropriate, Mr Speaker, for me to relinquish the rest of the time?

Interjection.

Mr Prue: Then I think I would do that for him now. He can explain in more detail what his bill would say.

We would ask all members of the House to stop once and for all, to put an end to this partisan bickering and an ongoing problem of government advertising.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I’m very pleased to rise and join the debate on this bill.

In a democracy, a government has an obligation to not only put forward solid public policy but to effectively communicate with the people of Ontario, in whose name we act. I would say a case in point with respect to the information—they call it advertising—we communicate to the public, for example, is getting a free flu shot, providing information to the public in terms of what the program is about and how to get that flu shot. Certainly that’s something the public should know. Also, dealing with Telehealth Ontario, information with respect to providing that program to the public has to be communicated.

When you deal with that type of information to the public, they need to know that and they have a right to know it.

Dealing with this bill, the bill is really not an alternative. It’s very vague and lacking in detail. You go through the bill and in one

part it says “advertising standards,” very objective in terms of what they’re trying to accomplish here but with no

definitions in terms of what they’re trying to accomplish.

It says, ”The advertising must not have as a significant objective,

“i. fostering in the public a positive impression of the government, or

“ii. fostering in the public a negative impression of a person or entity that is critical of the government.”

Then the process that is set out is through the auditor. The auditor becomes an adjudicative body to deal with advertising. What are we trying to accomplish here? I think the bottom line is that when you’re dealing with a bill like this, which is terribly weak—obviously the name of it speaks to the reason it’s coming forth, partisan in nature—you have to know what you’re talking about before you can have a reasonable discourse. This bill fails to define a single word in the title, which is a good indication that it is going to be a weak bill in terms of what we have here.

It talks about “partisan” and just leaves it at that. It says, “The advertising must not be partisan.” That’s one of the other standards among the six standards they have there.

I think what they’re trying to do is to deprive the public of their right to know. This is the process they want to put in place to make sure everything is vetted as to what the public has a right to know. Certainly, looking at their track record and the federal government’s track record with respect to communicating with the public, about a year ago the federal Liberal government in Ottawa commissioned a study that showed only 14% of the people found that they received enough information from their government.

That’s like saying that out of the population of Ontario, all 12 million of us, only 1.7 million people felt they were well informed, roughly the population of the city of Toronto, minus North York and a bit of Scarborough. That’s just not acceptable.

I think this is cheap political game. The bottom line is that the information the public has a right to know is being given to them. The public want to know what the government is doing in terms of programs that will benefit them. They don’t want to be straitjacketed by a process of standards that the auditor, whose main focus is to deal with financial matters, not to be an advertising censor, would be dealing with.

I’m going to close. Basically the opposition side should be looking at what they’ve done in the past and at what they’ve said. I think the member for Waterloo will deal with that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I’m not surprised by the speeches I’ve heard from the government side, but I am saddened by them, because I think the Thursday morning exercise at private members’ public business is one where we, as independent members, can make a judgment and make some changes. All we’re getting is a defence of something that is, frankly, indefensible. Regardless of which government you’re talking about or what political party, I think you have to put an end to this kind of what I would call partisan advertising, whether it’s federal, provincial or municipal.

The Conservative Party has a lot of money to spend, if it wants to, on advertising. It’s the richest political party in Canada at the present time. It has been well rewarded by its corporate and wealthy and powerful friends for bringing in policies that benefit them. The Conservative Party has enough, and if they wish to spend that money on advertising, I cannot complain.

We judge governments and people based on what they do when no one is looking or when they can get away with it. Clearly there is a reason you get away with it. The people who own the news media outlets make money from your advertising. When you had the full-page ad in any of the newspapers—this is the Toronto Sun but it was in all the newspapers—they benefit immensely from that. They’re struggling, as other people are, in terms of advertising revenue.

So television stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines are not going to devote the attention to this issue that I believe they should, and are not going to be as critical as they should, because it is their bottom line, because they benefit from it.

We’ve had full-page newspaper ads, we’ve had ads in magazines, we’ve had the glossy brochures that show up at our house, the On magazine that from time to time shows up at our house, all with the Premier’s picture in it, all with the message from the Premier, and all paid for by the taxpayers of this province. We even had ads that attacked members of the teaching profession when Bill 60 was at issue. If the Conservative Party wanted to spend money on that, that’s quite legitimate. I don’t think it’s appropriate to use taxpayers’ dollars to do so.

Peter Desbarats, who is a professor of journalism, I think a highly respected person, at the University of Western Ontario, wrote a good

article on this. He said it’s not even so much the amount of money; it’s the nature of the advertising we’re seeing. Whether it’s the federal government or this provincial government or any other jurisdiction, what we’re seeing is governments illegitimately using advertising dollars for the purpose of promoting their programs.

Does the Premier have the right to speak in this House? He certainly does. Should he call press conferences and have gatherings of the news media to listen to what he has? Most certainly. Can the government put out press releases? Yes, they can. Can the government put out backgrounders for everybody? Yes, they can. That’s quite legitimate; that’s how we should communicate. But what we’re seeing is an awful abuse of public office. I think we have to see it stopped and this legislation certainly points in that direction.

I’ve also had a beef with the government over advertising during by-election campaigns. During every one of the by-elections, this government has had a government advertising campaign going. The fear is they would do that even during a general election campaign, again using taxpayers’ dollars to promote Conservative Party policies and programs.

The British have a board that is set up to review advertising. I was watching a program called Undercurrents with Wendy Mesley, and it was on government advertising from various jurisdictions. It mentioned that in Britain there was a board that looked at it. I think the rule was, if I’m not mistaken, that if the board said the government was advertising in a partisan nature, then that political party had to pay for those ads instead of the government. They showed this individual, who’s quite objective, a person who’s not in a particular political party, the Ontario government ads and said, “Would these pass as a non-partisan ad?” He laughed at the ads and said no way, of course, would they.

To me, this government advertising is first of all wasteful of taxpayers’ dollars; second, it’s unfair because it gives the government an unfair advantage over an opposition. Each member of the Legislature has an opportunity to put out a report to constituents. I haven’t done so for a large number of years, but other members have, and that’s fine. Both sides of the House have that opportunity. But what we have here is the government stacking the deck in its favour. So it is wasteful, in my view, an abuse of public office and just not right to have this happening.

We as individual members of the Legislature have a chance to put a stop to it. You have an opposition party leader, Dalton McGuinty, putting this matter forward today. If you pass this bill, then it is incumbent upon any subsequent government, be it Conservative, Liberal, NDP or some other party, to live with that legislation. So we have a good opportunity to do it today.

I hope we don’t just have the regular government speeches given to members to read into the House, but that members look independently, as individuals, at a real problem that has permeated so many governments over the years, and today right across this nation other places. We have a chance to end this abuse by passing this legislation, and I appeal to members to do so.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Right off the bat, New Democrats support this legislation. We support it enthusiastically. In fact, our enthusiasm is demonstrated by our bill from before, though subsequent to the Liberal bill, which addresses the same issue in a modestly different way, but that’s not a matter for debate right here and now.

Look, I’m dismayed by the comments coming from the government benches. They clearly don’t understand what has gone on and what’s going on. The litany of references to previous governments and to current governments is not an argument against the bill; it’s an argument for the legislation. They indicate how important it is for legislators, who are members of this Assembly, to seize this moment and create some guidelines and standards for government advertising and the use of taxpayers’ dollars.

Let’s understand the genesis of this whole process. It came from the Provincial Auditor. It’s the Provincial Auditor who called upon this government in 1999 by virtue of the recommendation in his annual report. It’s the Provincial Auditor who said that guidelines are needed. This does not abolish government advertising. As a matter of fact, it in no way restricts the capacity of this government or any subsequent government to use advertising, to use any medium available to it; it doesn’t restrict any government in any way from using those media to convey information that it deems appropriate to the public.

It merely establishes guidelines to ensure that once this legislation is passed, this government cannot, nor can any subsequent government, ever abuse the taxpayer funds it has access to in the course of advertising; and it ensures that that advertising will indeed be for the purpose of communicating important information to the public and not for advancing partisan interests.

What’s interesting is that the concerns of the auditor were communicated to the Secretary of Cabinet way back in 1998. The Secretary of Cabinet in 1999 expressed appreciation to the Provincial Auditor for his observations about the need for guidelines. But, alas, we’ve seen nothing from this government, nor from any of its backbenchers. Everybody should be concerned about the use of public funds to advance partisan interests.

Mr Bradley made reference to the capacity of members to publish what we call “householders,” pamphlets that are distributed, newsletters, newspaper advertising, whichever format you want to use. Some members use full-page ads in their local newspaper to replace what would have been historically the door-to-door distribution of these householders. All of us already live under some pretty clear guidelines about what we can and can’t include those householders.

And there are more than a few members of this Assembly who’ve not only been chastised but been forced to look to some other sources to subsidize maybe just a portion of that newsletter when that newsletter has crossed the line into partisanship.

It’s a simple process. It’s one that we all accepted. It isn’t onerous in terms of the amount of resources required to screen these newsletters. In fact, as we all know, non-partisan staff from the broader bureaucracy are available to us to vet newsletters or portions of newsletters, or communiqués by individual members that are paid for from that member’s budget. Staff are available to quickly vet any material and advise us as to whether it crosses the line into partisanship. That’s only fair. I accept those guidelines and accept those standards. I advocate those guidelines and standards.

I ask government backbenchers today to approve those similar standards because it effects the guideline approach. It’s nothing more, nothing less than that.

We in the New Democratic Party indeed have proposed in our bill some guidelines in addition to those contained in the opposition bill. One example, very briefly, is the fact that the government advertising that’s paid for with taxpayers’ dollars should relate only to matters for which the government of Ontario has direct responsibility. You’ll recall the ad in which the province of Ontario took credit for federal funding.

We would propose that that guideline be added to legislation which establishes guidelines for government advertising, because quite frankly, that type of advertising, at the very least, is dishonest. Why would any member of this assembly, government or opposition member, want to lend their name or support, even implicitly, to dishonest advertising by the government or by anybody else?

I also ask government backbenchers to consider this. It’s regrettable but it’s true. This type of legislation is unlikely to come from a government that’s in full flight, or in full retreat. This type of legislation is more likely to come from opposition members or opposition parties. That’s the nature of the beast. Let’s understand this: governments of all levels, of all stripes have become as addicted to government advertising for partisan purposes as they have to the revenues from casinos and other forms of gambling. That observation doesn’t make either of them right.

This assembly today has a chance to approve in principle the need for guidelines for the government utilization of taxpayer dollars in the course of engaging in government advertising. I ask this assembly to send this bill to committee. I will be asking the opposition to accept as amendments the additional guidelines contained in the New Democrats’ Bill 115.

Let’s put this matter to committee. Let’s put this matter to the public. There’s but an hour available to us today. Have the courage to put this matter to the public and then determine whether or not you let this bill enter the House for yet a third time.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Listening to the debate today lends a whole new meaning to saying one thing and doing another. I can’t help but be very little impressed by the arguments on the other side.

I’d like to point out that the Liberals had a directive that disallowed the use of ministers’ names and faces in advertising, but they ignored that directive. When they were in government, in spite of the directive that they had, a number of their ministers and their Premier put out advertising in contravention of their own directive.

The first one I have here is from the member from St Catharines, Jim Bradley, when he was minister. I have one here from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Gerry Phillips, when he was minister. I have another one here from the member from Thunder Bay, Lyn McLeod, when she was minister. I have another one here from the Honourable Alvin Curling, when he was Minister of Housing. And here’s another one from David Peterson, when he was the Premier. I have sent copies of these over to Dalton McGuinty—in contravention of their own directive.

The NDP also, very conveniently, repealed a cabinet directive so that they wouldn’t be found in contravention of their own directive. Then, after they were done with the advertising, just before they came back to power in 1994, they put it back in. The ones that I have from the NDP are from Howard Hampton, Shelley Martel and Frances Lankin; and I’ve also provided the NDP with those.

Constantly people in Canada are saying that they do not get enough information from their governments. In fact, recently 14% in Canada indicated that they receive enough information.

Interjections.

Mr Wettlaufer: I was very quiet when the Liberals were making their arguments, but they won’t shut up over there right now. They don’t like hearing facts. They like to obfuscate things.

Interjections.

Mr Wettlaufer: You may have trouble with that word, do you? It’s confusion. I realize that you may not be able to understand some of those words, but most of the people over here do.

I do want to point out that in this bill put forward by the Liberal leader there is no definition of “advertisement.” There is also no definition of what would constitute partisan advertising. But there is all kinds of room in this bill to provide for regulations. The Liberal leader knows full well that they would be the ones, that cabinet would be the ones who would regulate, and based on their experience, I can tell you that is not the way we would want it done.

Let’s take a look at the Liberal experience. First of all, I would say that what they’re trying to paint is less than accurate. Did you know that, adjusting for inflation, the Liberals spent an average of 22% more per year on advertising than this government? The NDP spent 20% more.

The Provincial Auditor, in 1988, criticized the Liberals. He said, “Excessive costs were incurred and taxpayers often did not get proper value for money.” The auditor further said the Liberals “wasted” $30 million worth of taxpayers’ money.

Recently, John Downing of the Toronto Sun reminded the Liberals of their lack of credibility when he said, “Provincial Liberals would be more believable if they hadn’t done the same when they ruled.”

I wonder if the Liberals watch their own federal cousins, who launched a $90-million public relations fund to get their message heard in non-Liberal areas. I had to laugh when I read that John Downing also said that the federal government “is right up there with the soap giants and auto manufacturers in pitching product.” That’s federal Liberals too.

I’d like to say what Murray Elston said, “From time to time there is a need to make information available to the public”—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I’m afraid the member’s time is up.

The leader of the official opposition has two minutes.

Mr McGuinty: I want to begin by thanking my colleagues in the NDP for their supportive comments. I appreciate those. As for the members opposite, I really felt for them, because they’ve been sent out here with very specific marching orders. They’ve been asked to defend the indefensible. It is an impossible task and it was embarrassing for me to have to see them do that.

I know that had they had the opportunity to express that which was in their hearts, had they had the opportunity to go out and make this argument in a crowded, heated room inside their constituency, something tells me that they would not be particularly well received in making the argument that investing $235 million in partisan advertising is somehow in the greater public interest.

The members opposite have made reference to the fact that previous governments of all political stripes have advertised in an inappropriate way. You know what? I agree. But it was wrong then and it’s wrong now, and we have an opportunity to stop it once and for all. It’s as simple as that. That’s the crux of the matter. It was wrong then, it’s wrong now, and we have before us the opportunity to fix it. If they feel that there are some problems connected with some of the details in the bill, then I would be delighted to move this on to committee and receive friendly amendments so that together we might improve this to the benefit of our working families. That’s what it’s all about.

The principle here is very, very simple: is it appropriate? We have a very knowledgeable citizenry. We live in the information age. There are 50 million Web sites and 500 TV channels. Is it really appropriate today to invest taxpayer dollars of any amount in partisan political advertising? In no matter what quarter you might happen to visit this question, whether you’re talking about business, labour, government or our single most important constituency, our working families, I think the answer will be a resounding, “No. It is an inappropriate way to spend money. Instead, fix my health care, fix my education, make sure the kids can trust the water and make sure the air is safe.”

The Speaker: The time for this ballot item has expired. I will put the question at 12 o’clock

Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 prévoyant une enquête sur les enquêtes policières RELATIVES AUX plaintes de mauvais traitements d’ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall

Mr Guzzo moved second reading of Bill 48,

An Act to establish a commission of inquiry to inquire into the investigations by police forces into sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall area / Projet de loi 48, Loi visant à créer une commission chargée d’enquêter sur les enquêtes menées par des corps de police sur les plaintes de mauvais traitements d’ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): This bill basically parallels Bill 103, which was debated in this House a little over a year ago, on October 12, 2000. I have burdened the members of this House with documentation and reports, and I’m at the point now where I almost want to apologize for it. But the background and the history is most important and, notwithstanding the fact that I went through it a year ago, I think it’s essential that I repeat and take the first few minutes to go through the history of what has happened and what we’re talking about here.

Contrary to what you may have read in a couple of publications, this is not a vendetta, this not an effort to get at anybody. This is a matter of police investigations. There have been two or three police investigations to date. The first one took place in the early 1990s by the Cornwall police department. They did a review of their own procedure and found that there was nothing amiss, notwithstanding the fact that there were no charges laid. They could find no evidence to lay any charges with regard to the sexual abuse of minors in the 25 years preceding that investigation.

When the public refused to accept that opinion, the Ontario Provincial Police were called in and they did a review. In between that time, the Ottawa police force was asked to look at the situation, and it agreed to take a six-month period to investigate. After six days, notwithstanding that they had assigned two officers, they withdrew. The OPP investigation was concluded in late 1994, and on Christmas Eve of 1994, of all days, a press release was issued indicating that there was nothing amiss and no charges were to be laid. A most interesting day to choose to issue a press release—Christmas Eve.

The citizens’ group in Cornwall was not satisfied. They took it upon themselves, using their own money, to do an investigation of their own, and they did a thorough investigation and must be commended.

As a result of that and the evidence they found, evidence was served upon the Attorney General and the Solicitor General of this province on April 8, 1997—affidavits, statements, documentation, registration slips from a fleabag motel on a pedophile strip in Fort Lauderdale—that confirmed the presence of people who were alleging that they had been abused and had been taken down there to be abused in the company of some very significant people in the Cornwall area. The registration slips confirmed that and were served on the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

As a result of that, Project Truth was then set up.

Miraculously, Project Truth has laid approximately 117 charges against 16 or 17 individuals, all of which charges took place long before 1992 and 1993 and were completely missed by the Cornwall police in their first investigation, completely overlooked when they did a review of their own investigation and completely missed by the OPP in their investigation. Miraculously, when the citizens’ group does the work and produces the evidence, 115 charges.

There are some people, myself included, who think there should be another 115 charges against another 15 or 20 people. There’s reluctance to proceed on those. We’ll deal with that later. The reluctance there is no greater than the reluctance to deal with the first 115 charges.

As a result of Project Truth, we’ve had some startling evidence. In August of this year it was reported for the fifth time that Project Truth would be wound up. At that time, it was stated there was no evidence of a pedophile ring. I don’t know how you define a pedophile ring. But in trials this fall, one individual charged, a Father Lapierre, who was not believed by the court—Mr Justice Lalonde made it very clear: “I don’t accept your evidence. I believe the alleged victim but I can’t convict because I’m not convinced beyond a shadow of truth.”

Father Lapierre said, “I did not abuse any children, let alone this accused. But I was here in the 1960s. I knew it was going on. I heard other priests talking about it.” He fingered his own brother, Father Hollis Lapierre; he’s dead now. He fingered Father Martin, who was coming up for trial the following week. “But not me.” The first time we’d ever had an admission.

The OPP can’t find any evidence, no evidence. They didn’t say not sufficient evidence, they said there’s no evidence. Six judges heard different preliminary hearings and trials and they have all found the evidence of the accused having been passed from probation officer to crown attorney to coroner to priests to judges very credible, but that’s not a ring. I don’t know how you define a ring.

But that’s what Father Lapierre said under oath. The crown attorney said to him, “Did you report it to your bishop? Did you report it to the police?” “No, I didn’t do that. That’s not my job. I’m a priest.”

Father Martin, the next person charged under Project Truth, coming to trial in Cornwall this fall, admitted getting into bed with the accuser. The accuser said he kissed him and fondled him. He said, “No, it’s 2 in the morning, the night before a ski trip. I got into bed to comfort him because his grandfather had died five months before.” The judge has reserved on that case. We don’t know the decision.

But we do know this, that Mr Lawrence, the piano player at the Parkway Inn, testified that Father Lapierre and another priest delivered the accuser—who is now a lawyer in Quebec City, I might add, a very credible individual—14 years of age, to the bar for his last show. They provided liquor to the 14-year-old. That is not denied. And they sent him home with Mr Lawrence. The boy said he serviced Mr Lawrence for three and a half years almost on a weekly basis. Mr Lawrence says, “That’s not true.

I only had two sexual encounters with him: one at the boathouse that night and another I don’t recall when.” But he admits to two. He was delivered to the bar at 12:30 in the morning. He had been turned over to Father Lapierre by the coroner and introduced to the coroner by the crown attorney, but there’s no ring.

We have the Storr report, which we won’t produce. Mr Storr was a senior probation officer in the Cornwall area at the time leading up to this. He was asked to investigate three of his probation officers, which he did and made a report, and the government didn’t act on it for some reason. When the probation officers were charged, two of them committed suicide. Both of them left notes.

We have, as I’ve outlined to you, some other disturbing situations. Sixty-seven weeks after the documentation was served on two government departments, in August 1995, the lead investigator on the streets of Cornwall for Project Truth signed a letter from the citizens’ committee when they served him with the documentation they had served on the AG. He took over two hours in front of five witnesses and said, “I’ve never seen this documentation before. I wasn’t aware of it. I didn’t know about this witness and that witness.” It never got from Orillia down to the streets of Cornwall.

Sixty-seven weeks later and he signed the paper, and that letter—I’ve photocopied it and sent it to you—was published in the Ottawa Sun on St Patrick’s Day 1999.

In April 1999, when it was shown to the Premier after he said, “All the evidence is in and no politician, let alone this House”—and you got that message yesterday, I guess—“should be involved in any investigation.” They said, “Look, a 33-year veteran of the OPP has signed this letter.” His answer, according to the press release in the Sun of April 1—he just turned and walked away.

In addition to this, we have the illegal seizure of the homemade and professional films depicting some of these poor victims being abused by these people. They were seized illegally and destroyed. They were not returned, as they should be by law, and were destroyed. When you asked the question, as I did of the Attorney General in June, you heard his answer. If you’re satisfied with it, I’m wasting my time here.

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I wish I didn’t have to rise today to speak on this bill. I wish we lived in a perfect world where this type of abuse never happened. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that kind of world, and that’s why I want to support Mr Guzzo’s bill today.

I have heard from many of my constituents. The presenter first tried to spearhead a public inquiry into the police investigations surrounding allegations of child abuse. Many in the community feel very strongly that the passage of the bill would bring the truth to light and finally allow the community to heal.

The bill is to establish a commission of inquiry into the investigations undertaken by police forces into allegations of sexual abuse against minors in our area. This bill only concerns itself with the police investigations into the claims of sexual abuse. The inquiry would not determine whether individuals are innocent or guilty of perpetrating sexual abuse against children. Innocence or guilt are matters that must be dealt with before the courts.

I have heard from many retired police officers and members of police commissions on this issue. Last year, I presented a petition in this legislature signed by over 12,000 people who supported the previous bill, Bill 103, in an attempt to get the government to establish an inquiry. The people who signed the petition want the air cleared on the issue. It has been hanging over the community for many years, and it’s time that the facts and evidence were laid on the table. Conversely, those on the other side of the issue were not able to even muster 100 signatures on their petition asking that the bill not be passed.

Certainly there is evidence that perhaps there was a pedophile ring operating in our area. In the recent Project Truth trial, the defendant admitted that while he had never abused, he knew a ring was operating in eastern Ontario. A public inquiry would serve to find out why, if this ring was operating in the community, the police were not able to find the evidence until Project Truth was launched in the late 1990s.

In the early 1990s an investigation into the sexual abuse of minors began in our area after the police services board received a series of complaints. Local police took the complaints but failed to find any evidence to support the claims and promptly closed the case. In 1994 the provincial police came in to review the investigation the local police had undertaken into the allegations of sexual abuse. That December they announced they had found no evidence. Between December 1994 and 1997 local citizens got involved. As a result of Project Truth, 117 charges have been laid against 15 individuals. One hundred and nine of these charges were alleged to have happened before 1994.

In my 30 years as an elected representative for our part of Ontario, I have never seen an issue that has divided the community as much as this has. This is not going to die. I know that until it’s dealt with, it will not die. I can’t even begin to think how heartbreaking it is to see people—victims and their families—in my constituency office and listen to the horror stories of how it has changed their lives. If you heard what I have heard over the years, there is no question that you would support this bill.

I hope you will all support this bill. It is time that the community is given the facts and begins to heal old wounds and look to the future. The issue has indeed divided the community. But I know that all the citizens of our community want the same thing. We want justice done.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I will be very brief on this point. We agree with and will be supporting Mr Guzzo in his call for a public inquiry.

The sexual abuse of children is a problem that is so endemic in this society. It is so long-standing, and it is very hard to root out. We know of other instances where it takes years and years for the truth to finally out, and it appears that this is exactly what is happening in Cornwall.

I was privileged to be on the child abuse committee for Toronto for some three years while I was a municipal councillor. The stories and the tragedies of the families and the victims—and even the tragedies of the perpetrators—should be well known to people. They should find out about what that causes, not only to the victim but to the people who do the abuse and the help they need. We all remember the tragic case of Martin Kruze in Toronto and how that plays itself out even to this day, with his unfortunate suicide and what is happening on the viaduct and what the city of Toronto is attempting to do with that bridge magnet.

Quite frankly, I don’t know why anyone would not support the call for a public inquiry. The public needs to be informed. The public needs, through that information, not only to send people who are guilty to jail but to make sure it does not happen again, to educate itself, to educate children and to move forward as a society. I ask everyone to support Mr Guzzo in his attempt, and will be voting so at 12 o’clock.

Mr Guzzo: My friend from Cornwall has lived through this and has recounted the historical background, which has been most helpful. I want to deal further with the situation for only a moment.

In forwarding the documentation, I included therein a letter that I sent on April 3, 1999, to the then chief of staff of the Premier, Mr McLaughlin, and I outlined there discussions that I had had with the assistant deputy minister of the Attorney General’s department, who called me at my home in Florida—I’ll make it clear: I did not call him; he called me—and Mr Frechette, who was an acting commissioner of the OPP in charge of criminal investigations. I commend those to you. This is the second time that I’ve published that letter and those descriptions.

When the then Attorney General, Mr Flaherty, spoke to this issue at the October 12, 2000 debate, he acknowledged my documentation and at no time denied the accuracy of my recollections, and indeed transcripts of those discussions with those two individuals.

I also refer you to page 6 of that letter, the problems faced by Cornwall police officer Perry Dunlop. I think there’s a tendency to look upon Mr Dunlop as the only honest cop in Cornwall, and that’s a very, very misleading picture. For example, you may not know Mr Cleary was a police officer on the Cornwall force for a period of time. There are numerous and many people who have come forward from that force with assistance and documentation to help this situation. They haven’t been, as Mr Dunlop was, prepared to sacrifice their families and their lives, but notwithstanding that, they have attempted to do a very fair and honest job.

In that documentation I referred you to, when they’re preparing the case for the police services commission against Mr Dunlop, which was turned down, read what Deputy Chief St Denis has to say about the circumstances, and Sergeant Lortie, the investigating officer—I’ve outlined their comments; it’s from their notes which were filed before the tribunal—and the concerns expressed by Sergeant Brunet. Just one glimpse at the file.

Nobody questions the fact, nobody denies the fact, that $32,000 was paid over to an individual who was suing on the basis that he would drop his claim of an allegation of criminal conduct against the individual. As a result of that, which is an illegal process, I might add—four lawyers involved, and they’re circulating letters amongst themselves and copying our crown attorney and copying the police chief at Cornwall—the $32,000 is paid over and the criminal charge is dropped.

When it becomes apparent what has happened, because Mr Dunlop takes it, as he must, as he should, to the children’s aid society, and the children’s aid society have the file and are doing an investigation of the priest who was the individual alleged to have committed the offence, it’s apparent that there is another victim. The CAS goes to the Cornwall police and says, “Give us the name of the other victim so we can do a police investigation,” and that Cornwall police department and the board of commissioners of the Cornwall police said, “You can’t have the other name. We’re not going to help you.” Just think about that.

As a result, a criminal charge of obstructing justice was laid against one of the four lawyers. The Law Society of Upper Canada laid a complaint against one of the four lawyers—nothing to the other three lawyers; nothing to our crown attorney, who was obviously aware of this breach of the Criminal Code; and nothing to the police chief. Lack of cooperation.

I want to deal with something I didn’t do last time. I want to talk to you a bit about some of the victims, because I have interviewed approximately 65 or 70 victims, and I don’t believe them all. I think there are a few here who think there might be some money at the end of this and I’ve been very, very cautious in cross-examining them. The OPP said that they had interviewed almost 1,000 alleged victims under Project Truth, and they might have, because in that file that was left open at the Leduc hearing, one person, 1,000 pages of evidence, another, 600 pages, against people who have not been charged.

I want to tell you about a 250-pound municipal police officer from north of here who came into my office last spring to talk to me in his tunic. My assistant ushered him in, thinking it was another one of those parking tickets that you forget to pay, you know? The guy wanted to talk to me about Cornwall. He grew up in Cornwall. He broke down and started to cry. The disruption was such that my assistant came in, concerned something was amiss. I don’t what she was going to do; she weighed about 98 pounds. I don’t know how she was going to help me if I was in any difficulty.

I’ll never forget; I’ll never erase that picture of that officer, the tears streaming down his tunic as he recounted. He has never told his wife and family. I advised him he shouldn’t. There’s no need.

There are two or three other people, a professional man in this city, not far from here today; same circumstances. There is absolutely no need. There is more than enough evidence if anybody wants to believe it. There’s no corroborating evidence. That’s difficult, especially a 30-year-old trial, because the corroborating evidence that would link to people, those films illegally seized, never used at trial, should be returned to their rightful owner, were not returned to their rightful owner. They were destroyed. Has anybody charged the police officers with destroying that evidence? No, we don’t get around to that.

We’re too busy with squeegee kids. But I’ll tell you that if we had those, it would be a different situation. It is difficult. For people to ruin their lives and ruin their families is not reasonable in light of the people who have come forward.

I want to tell you about one particular person: never told his parents; nice family today; I sat in his living room and I heard his story. On Friday afternoons he was obliged to service one of these people with oral sex. He used to go home and brush his teeth so hard his gums would bleed. He never told his parents, but he told his dentist. The dentist is now dead. But the dentist’s widow is alive and she has his file. The dentist wrote to the police chief, wrote to the mayor of Cornwall, wrote to the chair of the Cornwall Police Service; not even an acknowledgement.

He wrote to the Attorney General of this province. The response that he got from that Attorney General 27 years ago was, in my opinion, the lowest level to which I have ever seen the administration of justice reduced. It’s an embarrassment. Well, maybe up till yesterday. We maybe lowered the barrier another notch yesterday.

Many of these victims have come forward. They were rebuked by the police department. Some very well-meaning cops said, “Go directly to the crown attorney’s office; bypass the police. There’s obviously a bottleneck here.” Nothing happened. The crown attorney ends up being charged with 24 counts; surprise that nothing happened. The coroner, our coroner, charged with 16 counts. The lawyer who acted on the $32,000 payment for the Archdiocese of Alexandria ends up charged with 16 counts. His explanation at the press conference he held with his client: “I had my client sign the paper.

I took the $32,000 and paid it to the lawyer for the victim, but I never read the document and I didn’t know that it was in contravention of the Criminal Code. If I had read it I’d have known, but I didn’t read it. I paid over $32,000 of my client’s money and I didn’t read it.”

There are a lot of things that are very hard to accept and very hard to swallow on this particular matter. Attempting to get to the bottom of it has not been an easy situation. It has not been pleasant for anybody, particularly the member from the area. I commend him for his work.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul’s): I want to speak first to the obvious. Because this is a private member’s bill, because this is no longer a resolution that arguably would have compelled the Speaker, we are in a situation where, in the event the bill passes, it will be up to the government to decide whether it proceeds to the next step. We know that’s the case with every private member’s bill, but because of the state of private members’ business today in the province of Ontario, the rules under which we operate, we know very well that private members’ bills get buried. We know that.

That’s not to suggest for a moment that private members’ business and private members’ hours aren’t extremely important. Of course they are. There is enormous democratic value that comes out of this debate, and of course people will have to stand up and take a position. We look forward to seeing the position the government takes. We look forward to the position the executive council takes. Obviously the official opposition is supporting this bill, but we know the government is going to try and bury this bill. We know that.

The Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the House leader are going to have to answer the question: are you going to bring this bill forward? Are we going to shed light on what happened in Cornwall? Are we going to end the continued impugning of the administration of justice in Cornwall, or are we going to continue to bury this horrible

chapter in Ontario’s history?

The Attorney General rose yesterday to make arguments against the resolution. That was a point of order and I don’t want to appeal the point of order in any way. I accept the Speaker’s decision and I said that with respect to the propriety of the commission of inquiry. That was not something I spoke to yesterday; it was rather whether the point of order was premature.

That ruling has been made. But it’s remarkable that the Attorney General would rise and make arguments with respect to judicial independence prejudiced to defendants, past and present, to strike down and knock out, using a procedural ambush resolution that has been on notice before this House since June 6, an Attorney General who would not rise in his place and speak to the judge-bashing bills that have been brought forward by the government caucus. Why?

Because, we’re told, it’s private members’ business and that private members’ business should not be in any way subjected to any vetting by the Attorney General of the day. Yet he stands up and vets this one and we have to ask ourselves, why? I think the answer has to be that the Attorney General, and anyone who is suggesting that we not shed light on this is wrong.

The Attorney General has research, he says, extensive research he cites supporting the position that a commission of inquiry would prejudice defendants or potential defendants. I’m not asking the Attorney General to share the opinion of the crown with us, but it would be appropriate, I think, to share that research with members of this House. Perhaps upon reviewing that we would be able to say, “You know what? Having reviewed this, having seen what the Attorney General has seen—at least what he’s able to share with the public—we agree that in fact a commission of inquiry would be out of order.”

But I find it hard to believe that would be the case. I find it hard to believe that from time to time a province or the federal government cannot take a close look at the administration of justice to see whether there has been a

chapter that needs to be corrected. There obviously have been some famous royal commissions in the past that have done so, the Marshall commission being the most recent and most famous.

We’re not here to second-guess the OPP or the crown and Project Truth, but the reality is that the Cornwall Police Service has been impugned. The investigation has been impugned and you cannot tell me that from time to time the province of Ontario cannot look at that, clear its name, shed light on what happened so that we can say, and so that another generation of Ontarians can say, that from east to west and north to south in Ontario, justice is done. We support this inquiry so that justice will be done.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The walls of this building are lined with the portraits of former members, dating back not just decades but beyond that. They’re anonymous now to most observers, perhaps in their obscurity still familiar to a family member, a grandson or a granddaughter. The fact is what while all of us do our best to represent constituents, to perform here as members of the assembly in the way we see fit, there are rare occasions, I put to you, when members of an elected assembly can achieve a standard that is inaccessible to most members because the opportunity never presents itself to them.

I’m saying this obviously to my colleagues on the government backbenches. It’s clear the opposition parties support this bill. This member, Mr Guzzo, has with persistence and consistency pursued justice for the victims of sexual abuse in Cornwall and the Cornwall area. There is no denial, there is simply no refutation to the proposition that there are victims and that the victims have survived but through the grace of God and through no contribution or participation by leaders in this province, be they elected leaders or be they persons in positions of authority who call upon us for respect for them.

The member, Mr Guzzo, spoke in this House some time ago now about his recollections as a youngster growing up in the Glebe and his recollections of the contacts he had with young people who had emerged from any number of provincial institutions of the day, training schools.

I spoke to him about that because I responded very viscerally and intimately with that. I too recall, as a youngster, young people in my community, down in Crowland in the south end of Welland, coming back home from St John’s, from Uxbridge, from Grandview, who only in the briefest and most intimate moments would dare relate what had happened to them in those institutions, and could only begin to communicate the incredible pain and scarring damage that flowed from the sexual abuse and assaults upon them when they were with persons whom their parents and whom any number of judges and any number of other people in authority thought they should and would be safe with.

The problem is that back then we had nobody to tell. You couldn’t tell the police, because quite frankly some the allegations about the sexual violence against these young people involved allegations of violence against, perhaps not police but people in corrections, people in those positions of authority who had a natural affinity with the criminal justice system and were held in, oh, such high regard. There was nobody to go to.

We like to think that times have changed. The victims of the sexual violence, of the rapes of youngsters in Cornwall by people in positions of authority and, oh, such high regard, clearly felt that by the time 1990 had come along there were people you could tell—30 years later. These same victims knew it was important to tell what had happened. It was important to them because they were still incredibly damaged and the only way some of that damage—some of the damage—could be undone would be for the perpetrators, the violators, the criminals, the offenders, to be brought to some justice.

We know the facts, the irrefutable facts. One police investigation, two police investigations; then only after a privately funded and private investigation did we see charges laid on the basis of, yes, reasonable and probable cause, which means more than mere suspicion, which means more than mere rumour, which means more than mere gossip.

The inquiry being called for by this member is to investigate in an effort to understand how police authorities could have failed, if indeed they did fail. And the inquiry being proposed is an incredibly cautious one. It’s an incredibly carefully worded guideline. But it’s an effort, should it occur, to guarantee that it never happens again.

This is as much about rescuing children 10 years down the road as it is about trying to create some justice for those children of 30 and 40 years ago.

I say to members of the Conservative bench, your colleague Mr Guzzo, who has been a faithful member of his caucus, who has been faithful to his colleagues in that caucus, who has supported you and your leadership, even from time to time when there may well—I’m merely speculating—have been occasions where he, like maybe some of you, had some doubt about the appropriateness of that support at that point in time, this member is calling out to his caucus colleagues to demonstrate to him some of the same support he’s demonstrated for them.

And it is as well an opportunity, one of the rare opportunities that happen here, where one can leave Queen’s Park at the end of one’s political career, be it by choice or as a result of the choice of the electorate, and be it two years from now or five or 10 or 15 years from now, and reflect on an occasion where one vote truly made a significant difference, not just to the future of a government, not just to the impact of government policy, but to the lives and families of real people, real members of our provincial community who have no place else to go. You see, they’ve already gone to the police.

They went to the police once, they went to the police twice. They’ve gone to Attorneys General. They’ve gone to the newspapers. They’ve gone to the editorial writers. This is their court of last resort.

If you’ve never felt a responsibility to remove yourself from the fold and the fulfillment of your obligations, not just as an MPP but, please, Speaker, as a human being, as somebody who cares, as somebody who cares about other people, and most poignantly and significantly in this case, as somebody who cares about kids who are buggered and raped and sodomized and have to live with that the rest of their lives—and I put to members that if we don’t rise to their defence today, then we will have to live with that for the rest of our lives.

It will be one of those occasions where it won’t do any good five or 10 years from now to reflect on it and say, “By God, I should have.” It doesn’t count five and 10 years from now. Now is the time, right now, within the next 30 minutes.

There may well have been some persuasive arguments from the points of view of some of the members of the government backbenches about the propriety or the legality of the inquiry being proposed by Mr Guzzo. I say to you this: let the courts determine, because I have no doubt—I’m not about to suspect that nobody will challenge this inquiry were this Legislature to call for it. I have no doubt there will be people, individuals, persons in authority, there could well be an Attorney General who seeks to quash this inquiry for reasons which will be more apparent to some than to others.

But please, do the right thing in your own capacity and let the courts assess the arguments that may well be made subsequent to what happens here at Queen’s Park today.

I can live with the court’s adjudication on the appropriateness of this inquiry. I tell you that I am confident—as a result of being here now, I don’t know, 13 years and witnessing a succession of inquiries and debates about inquiries, going through a succession of governments and all of the arguments made to try to derail inquiries—that, at the end of the day, the courts have inevitably ruled that inquiries are permissible, legitimate and legal, subject to certain constraints, and those constraints already written into the terms of inquiry of this bill.

Furthermore, this bill can go to committee where the Attorney General or any other number of persons, institutions or bodies can make arguments for amendment to the terms of inquiry contained in this bill, if indeed they have objections to it.

People have a chance here and now to stand up and make their mark. People have the chance here and now to recognize the courage of one of their colleagues who has, with zeal and passion, and—let’s look it squarely in the face—who, at some significant risk to his political career, has pursued justice for the people of Cornwall. He was criticized when he attempted, quite frankly in my view, to strong-arm the government into calling an inquiring by threatening to name names. He was criticized for that, and rightly so, because that wasn’t the place where names should be revealed.

But the fact is that in Cornwall there are names being hurled about all over the place, and the innocent names have a right to be cleared as much as the names of the guilty have an obligation to be prosecuted. That’s what this inquiry is meant to do. We are compelled to pass this legislation today.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this bill today. I think that the inquiry it proposes is fair and necessary for the victims, the investigators and the public. I would, however, like to make reference to the fact that this is proceeding as a bill on second reading, rather than as an order of this House for an inquiry.

I think the ruling that you, sir, made yesterday reveals a serious deficiency in our standing orders. This House, by resolution, should be able to order an inquiry, and I invite the support of all members of this House to change the standing orders so that that is possible. Resolutions passed in this House should have more than merely advisory force. I would respectfully suggest to you, sir, and to the House as a whole, that our MPPs cannot do the job and the people can’t assess the job they’re doing unless we have the ability as a House, without the government’s permission, to make inquiries and find facts.

I would suggest, sir, that that is fundamental to the function of our democracy, and I invite all members of this House to support a change in the standing orders so that will be possible in the future.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): As a 25-year CAS board member, as a foster parent, as a human, I have followed the media reports on these incidents with some interest. The incidents, as described by Mr Guzzo and by the media, are absolutely unbelievable, but that doesn’t mean they’re not true. I have learned, as most of us have, the hard way that truth is often stranger than fiction. September 11 demonstrated that. There is an equal probability in my mind that it happened or it did not happen.

We have had through the media some inference and some allegations made against some extremely reputable people, and they have not had an opportunity to clear their names. The best thing we can do for those who are accused, those who are victims of a whisper campaign, is hold an inquiry and give them a legal, public opportunity to vindicate themselves if in fact they are not guilty.

On the other hand, for the victims—we’re using the word “victims” but no one has declared that they are victims—if they are really, truly victims they have been provided with no opportunity for compensation, they have been provided with no opportunity for counselling, because almost no one has believed in effect that it has happened. We owe it to the victims as much as we owe it to those who have been accused to examine the issue and to determine whether it happened. I cannot picture in my mind any reason whatsoever why we would not hold it.

I am familiar in my own riding with accusations that have been made against people in every part of the spectrum of society. And whether they’re the most wealthy person or whether they have nothing, the characteristic of abuse is not tied to an economic group, is not tied to an ethnic group, is not tied to a gender. Any human, unfortunately, sometimes has the capability of doing that abuse. Yet we are wanting to hide our heads in the sand and ignore it.

One piece of knowledge that I am convinced of from my experience with children’s aid societies is that there is a greater than average possibility that a victim ultimately becomes an offender without support from society. We’re denying it because we don’t want to acknowledge that it happened.

Mr Guzzo is obviously convinced of this. He would not be taking the stand he’s taking without the utmost sincerity and at some risk to himself in a career viewpoint. He’s not asking for convictions, he’s not asking for penalties—he’s asking for justice. One cannot mount a campaign on why we should not have justice. I am absolutely embarrassed that in this province we would not be prepared to either vindicate the accused or provide support to the victims.

Unfortunately, an example that I’m all too familiar with is the abuse that has taken place at the provincial schools, schools for the deaf. The reaction of this government to that is, “We don’t want to talk about it. We don’t want to reopen it. We don’t want to revisit it. We spent $8 million; the issue should go away now.”

There is too much evidence—which may be rumour, may be innuendo—for us to turn our back to this. There are people walking these streets right now who could re-offend. Statistics indicate that people who abuse, even after going through a program, have approximately a 2% success rate. If indeed there are guilty parties, we owe it to the children, we owe it to the young people of this province, we owe it to the accused, we owe it to the victims. I defy you to find a reason to not support Mr Guzzo’s motion.

The Speaker: I believe the time has expired. Sorry, there is some time. The member for Etobicoke North.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I want to commend the member for Ottawa West-Nepean for bringing this matter to light, for shedding some light on a whole series of fundamental questions, many of which, from what I have read—and I have read the material many times over—keep it in darkness. This Legislature, the members of this Legislature, must be accountable to the people of the province, and if there was ever a moment in the time I’ve been elected since 1995, today is that time. As the member for Niagara South has mentioned, people are looking for accountability—not just the general public but the people involved from the city of Cornwall.

I shall support fully a public inquiry into this matter, because the history shows, if you look at it, that there is no dispute in our history that there have been public inquiries in the past simultaneously while there were court trials going on of a criminal nature. The argument being made by critics of any party regarding this issue, that you can’t separate the two, is purely a myth. It ignores historical reality, particularly in the last 15 years in Ontario and within Nova Scotia within the last seven. So that is not an argument here.

Finally, I want to make a brief remark. As the member for London West has noted, I think yesterday, despite the Speaker’s ruling, was a sad day for the life and reality of democracy in this province. I want to put on record my sense of what happened yesterday in the light of what the Speaker’s ruling is. It certainly points up the deficiencies that we as members have in this House as they become more limited over the days and years.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I want to rise and put on record my support for Bill 48. I remember the church native schools. I remember Grandview. I remember St John’s School in a personal way. I used to visit a hardware store just down the road in Uxbridge almost monthly. I used to think those were bad kids that came down the railway tracks from St John’s School to the hardware store, broke in, got some different clothes and made off. And I guess they were bad kids, but they weren’t as bad as I thought because they were running away from something much worse.

I believe we risk in this bill condemning those victims, that their court cases may not proceed, for whatever reason. But I think we risk something greater, and that is not making sure there is some justice for those that perpetrated this. I just wanted to put my thoughts on record.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa West-Nepean has two minutes to reply.

Mr Guzzo: I’d like to thank the members of the House for their comments and participating in the debate.

I’d like to just deal with two items, if I might, the first one being the purpose and what is to be accomplished from something like this. I said in the debate last year, and I’ll say it again: if it’s happening in Cornwall, if police investigations can fail to uncover any charges and then as a result of the citizens’ work have this happen, uncover this number of charges, it can happen anywhere. It can happen in your riding. It can happen with any police force.

Indeed afterward, when I was asking questions this spring in the House, I mentioned a number of times that I had opened nine new files, some of them frivolous, some of them not so frivolous. One of the ones I opened and referred to the people in this government that I should refer it to, I must say, was the Sikura file, which is now becoming a very, very serious one. Note the parallel in the Sikura matter: nothing found by the local force, rash judgment, rush to judgment, OPP is called in as a result of some complaints, they can find nothing, individual cop goes and does some homework, now they reopen it.

But who do they call in to investigate? The OPP, to investigate themselves, just as we found here. And eyewitnesses there still had not been contacted by either the local police or by the OPP.

The other point I want to make is, three years after the citizens group went to Florida and got copies of the registration slips, the OPP finally went down there. But some VIPs in Cornwall said, “Hey, they might be forgeries.” The citizens’ group went back with pictures of the individuals. Not only are they good forgeries, but the people who are alleged to do the forgery look remarkably similar to the individuals named. It’s a miracle.

Preventing Partisan Advertising Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 visant à empêcher la publicité à caractère politique

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We will deal with ballot item 27 standing in the name of Mr McGuinty.

Mr McGuinty has moved second reading of Bill 107. 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.

We will call in the members after I put the question on the next ballot item.

Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 prévoyant une enquête sur les enquêtes policières RELATIVES AUX plaintes de mauvais traitements d’ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Guzzo has moved second reading of Bill 48.

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?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

Preventing Partisan Advertising Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 visant à empêcher la publicité à caractère politique

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O’Toole, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 37; the nays are 40.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost. We will leave 30 seconds for the doors to be open.

Inquiry into Police Investigations of Sexual Abuse Against Minors in the Cornwall Area Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 prévoyant une enquête sur les enquêtes policières RELATIVES AUX plaintes de mauvais traitements d’ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Johnson, Bert

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Murdoch, Bill

O’Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Baird, John R.

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Gill, Raminder

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 20.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order—

Mr Guzzo: I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government? Agreed. It is so ordered.

It now being after 12 o’clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1215 to 1330.

Members’ Statements

Visudyne

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): Wet macular degeneration occurs most often in people over 60 years of age. It is the result of newly forming blood vessels leaking into the eye’s retina. This in turn causes reduction or total loss of central vision. The only known treatment is Visudyne.

Ontario seniors who cannot afford to pay for this treatment are faced with the prospect of permanently losing much, if not all, of their eyesight. Health Canada approved Visudyne for treatment on May 31, 2000. The provincial government has yet to approve Visudyne, although the Ministry of Health said its review would be completed eight months ago.

Minister Tony Clement, in his response to my colleague yesterday, said: “The honourable member knows very well what the process is.... We on this side of the House follow the process.... From our perspective, we are doing everything as it should be done, according to the book.

Yesterday Tony Clement announced that the anthrax drug Cipro will be available on the provincial drug plan for seniors and welfare recipients. Health Canada has yet to approve Cipro for the treatment of anthrax. Tony Clement is quoted as saying: “I think we can take as evidence from Health Canada that they deem Cipro to be safe to be ingested by Ontarians and Canadians by the very fact that they are ordering a million pills. They’re signalling to us that it does pass their safety requirements, and that was the only thing that was preventing us from dealing with it on the formulary.”

Minister, although, without question, we must be prudent and prepare for any potential bioterrorist attack, there is not one confirmed case of anthrax in Canada. You found it expedient to totally bypass the process, and in fact you didn’t even open the book. Surely, when we have a treatment such as Visudyne, you could exercise the same expedience in ensuring that not one senior in Ontario loses their eyesight due to your inaction.

Hall of Distinction business excellence awards

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Last Thursday evening I had the pleasure of speaking to the annual Hall of Distinction Business Excellence Awards, hosted by the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce.

There are four categories. The first award, for extraordinary business achievements, recognizes excellence. It relates to achievement within our community in any of a number of areas: research and development growth, and new market development. This award was given to Microcel Technical Services.

The Bell Canada Technology Award is awarded to a Newmarket business that has demonstrated innovation in the use of technology in the ever-changing communications area. Southlake Regional Health Centre was the recipient of this award.

The award for developing international trade recognizes outstanding achievement in the development of export markets, the acquisition of subsidiary companies in other provinces or nations and the building of working agreements with companies in other nations. Exco Engineering won this award.

The New Business award recognizes a successful and innovative new entrepreneur. The nominee must be at least one year old and cannot have been in existence more than five years. The award was given to Pack Age Inc.

The Founders Award, to honour a lifetime of achievement in Newmarket, was awarded to Slessor Motors.

Congratulations to all those who were nominated and to those businesses that received awards. Small business is the backbone of the Ontario economy.

Epidermolysis bullosa

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise in the House today to help create awareness of something that I think most people here aren’t knowledgeable of but need to know about.

Epidermolysis bullosa, or EB, is a group of rare and debilitating genetic skin diseases in which the skin and mucous membranes are so sensitive that the slightest touch can cause painful blistering. EB is a lifelong disease that is often present at birth and can cause severe physical, emotional and financial hardships for the affected persons and families. There is no cure for EB and many, if not most, Canadians are unaware the disease exists, since those who suffer from it must avoid the heat of the sun and must seek the comfort of shade.

There is almost a total lack of service and support for those who have to live with this disease every day. People seeking a miracle go to the States or abroad, where governments have started to invest in research into this illness and have attempted to treat its symptoms with procedures such as Apligraf. The parents of these infants often receive very little information, if any, at birth.

Today, I’d like to recognize in the members’ gallery one of my constituents, Kevin Campbell, who inherited this disease at birth. Kevin has brought together many Canadians afflicted with EB across Ontario so that they might help each other through their suffering and teach us all about a disease that is too hidden from public view. Kevin is the acting president of EB Canada and the EB Society of the Greater Toronto Area.

I’m proud that EB awareness week is being launched this Saturday, October 27, at an event in my riding of Parkdale-High Park, which members on all sides of the House are invited to attend. I invite you to learn about the disease over the course of this next week, so that the knowledge we have can work toward improving medical and social services for these people and, through research, find a cure.

Bill Finley

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This weekend, the county of Northumberland will honour Warden Bill Finley. This banquet is the culmination of a long political career.

In the past year, the warden has spearheaded a number of important initiatives. First and foremost, he has worked closely with my office and the local federal member to promote the need for a county-wide economic development strategy. We have appreciated his support.

Another notable accomplishment under his stewardship is the waste management department’s new agreement with CCI Newmarket to compost wet household garbage waste. This initiative has resulted in a Gold Award for the county from the Recycling Council of Ontario.

Even before the tragedy of September 11, the county had been busy updating and modernizing its emergency response plan. It has also committed to be the lead agency for the Connect Ontario project in our region.

The success of these initiatives is largely due to the leadership of Warden Finley. He is a warm and caring individual who reflects the spirit of Northumberland residents in a very positive way.

Although this list is by no means exhaustive, it is some indication of the commitment Warden Finley has for the betterment of Northumberland county. I ask the members of this House to join with me in recognizing Warden Bill Finley.

Home care

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): This government refuses to acknowledge that we have a home care crisis in Ontario. CCACs across Ontario face a shortfall of $175 million. We now have a situation in Ontario where 70-year-olds are forced to look after their elderly parents in their 90s. It’s completely unacceptable that this should be the case.

Budgets have been frozen at year 2000 levels. Last week I spoke of the case of Mr Derango, himself a cancer patient, who is now forced to look after his 90-year-old mother. Can you imagine how bad the situation is for these people? I try to impress this upon this government. There are others like the Oddi family. The daughter-in-law has a heart condition and is required to look after an elderly father who is an Alzheimer patient.

This situation is completely unacceptable, and it comes as a direct result of this government’s refusal to acknowledge that we are facing a crisis when it comes to home care across Ontario. North York CCAC is facing a $10-million shortfall, and that immediately impacts on the people I’m referring to.

When is this government going to acknowledge we are facing a crisis and fund CCACs properly?

Education funding

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise to bring again to the attention of the government the damage being caused in our communities—particularly as it relates to inner-city schools—by their underfunding of education.

For a number of years now, we’ve seen turmoil on the public school side as the local school board agonized over trying to meet your restrictive funding formulas in terms of closing inner-city schools. Allenby is an excellent example of a major loss for our community. Now we’re seeing it on the Catholic board side of things. One of the schools in my riding, Christ The King school, is now on the chopping block directly as a result of your underfunding. I want to remind this government of the importance of inner-city schools. They’re not just education centres. They’re often social centres.

It’s a place for the kids to go after school. It’s a place for adults to go and take continuing education. Many times it’s the only green space in an inner-city area. When you close the school, you lose the social centre of that neighbourhood.

I want to read from a letter I received from a constituent, in the seconds that I have. “I had been involved in the parents’ council for many years while my children attended the school. It is a school with not only high standards of education, but a school with a soul. The children at Christ The King are a very unique and special group of children.”

It’s wrong that our trustees have to worry about whether they can keep this school open. I urge the government: restore proper funding to the education system and stop this turmoil in communities like Hamilton.

Halton economy

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): The people of Halton are going to be opting out of the economic slowdown in the coming quarter. Auto parts manufacturer Magna International has recently chosen Halton as the site of its newest subsidiary, a hydroforming plant that will be located in Milton. The hydroforming plant is one that uses high-pressure water to form steel and tubular steel to produce a very high quality truck frame.

Six hundred new jobs that come with this plant will help Halton to maintain its phenomenal economic growth and add to the prosperity enjoyed by those people who already call Halton their home.

There are several companies currently planning new facilities in Halton, and I am confident there will be more announcements like Magna’s in the coming months. Many thousands of people are coming to Halton each year. Business is booming. These people have the confidence and faith that accompany any new job or new home. That booming economy has been generated by lower taxes, fair and reasonable labour laws and an emphasis on making Ontario the best jurisdiction in North America to live, work and raise a family.

Of course, these jobs will generate new taxes. In turn, those taxes will help finance health care, build new schools, maintain communities, improve environmental safety and generally improve the quality of life in Halton and across Ontario.

Given the advantages that Halton offers to businesses looking for a place to build or expand, I’m quite confident that Halton and Ontario will continue to attract more business and those people who seek that opportunity.

Federal funds

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Once again we hear Mike Harris and his Conservative cohorts whining for more federal money. The real question that has to be asked of the Premier is one that so far, for some unknown reason, he has escaped: Premier Harris, what do you really want the federal money for? The answer is clear: to fund his ill-conceived tax cuts for the rich and, in particular, for his corporate friends and financial supporters. Not a single new penny of expenditure for health care this year is from provincial coffers. In fact, the Harris government has pocketed an extra $100 million in federal funds for its tax cuts.

When the federal government awarded $3,000 a year in millennium scholarship money for 35,000 Ontario students, the Harris government cut financial assistance to those students and grabbed $87.5 million in federal funds.

When the federal government handed over an additional $15 million this year for early childhood development, the province withdrew its $15 million and gave it away in tax cuts.

When the feds provided $150 million more for social assistance, the provincial Conservatives snatched the lion’s share for their tax cuts for the wealthy.

When Mike Harris wants to use the level of federal transfers of funds as an excuse to implement two-tiered health care—one for the rich who can afford to pay and one for the rest—ask him why he wants those federal funds. The answer is simple: to pay for his $2.2-billion tax gift for the corporations.

Use that money, Mike, for health care in Ontario.

Safety first program

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Last Monday, I was honoured to participate in the official launch of the Ontario Provincial Police central region’s “safety first” program held at Norwood District High School. I was pleased to be included with Chief Superintendent Dave Wall, along with officials of the OPP and Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board.

The “safety first” program is about teaching senior elementary students all about Internet safety, and includes 11 key points, which I would like to read into the record:

“

(1) Computers should be kept in an area of the house where everyone can use them and be seen.

“

(2) Ask for an adult’s permission to use the Internet.

“

(3) Explore the Internet with your parents. Don’t be afraid to share with them what you know.

“

(4) Blocking programs can be used to increase the safe use of Internet for your child, but these programs should be treated only as part your overall Internet safety program.

“

(5) Remember, individuals who you meet on the Internet should be treated as strangers and potentially dangerous until proven differently.

“

(6) Tell an adult right away if you find something that makes you uncomfortable or scared.

“

(7) Remember, people do not normally give away anything for free. Never agree to meet someone to get something.

“

(8) Never arrange to meet someone you met on the Internet.

“

(9) Never respond to messages or bulletin items that are rude, obscene, threatening, frighten you or make you feel uncomfortable.

“

(10) Never give out personal information such as your name, address, phone numbers or financial information over the Internet.

“

(11) Remember, threatening to cause harm to anyone over the Internet is a crime!”

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to introduce a motion to direct the standing committee on general government to consider Mr Guzzo’s bill beginning today in committee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I’m afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe you’re coming to oral questions, and the ministers whom we have questions for and we were told would be here are not here.

The Speaker: It’s not really an excuse, but we did finish early, although I hope all members would try to get here early. Some days, as you know, question period can start at a quarter to two, some days it can start later. I’m looking for some guidance from the government members. Government House leader?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): My apologies to the honourable members. There are ministers who will be here. You’re quite right, you did start question period a little early, so I do beg the indulgence of the House.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If it would make the House leader’s job any easier, the associate Minister of Health is the minister we’re looking for, and I see her coming in now.

The Speaker: Hopefully, all members will watch the TV, and as they see us moving down quickly, they will try and get in as quickly as possible.

Oral Questions

Community care access centres

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are all for the associate minister of health. There’s an

article in one of today’s papers that tells us that Ontario’s CCACs are under tremendous pressure as a result of the fact that you have placed a freeze on their funding, and at a time when demand is skyrocketing for their services they feel they have no choice but to make families pay user fees. Madam Minister, do you support user fees for home care?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I thank the member opposite for the question. He would know, like I know, that I support the highest quality of care that can happen in Ontario.

This government is looking at its community care access centres because we believe there need to be changes to the management of community care access centres. We believe that there need to be changes because there are people in the province who are not receiving the services they want.

We have gone into Hamilton because we found there were concerns there. When we did an analysis of Hamilton, we found out that there were a number of issues we should all be concerned about as legislators in Ontario and we have entered into a review to ensure that the people of Ontario are receiving the services they need and deserve.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, all I needed was a yes or a no. You didn’t answer the question, and that tells me you are afraid to admit that your government is in fact very much supportive of user fees when it comes to home care.

You believe that our parents and our grandparents should be paying user fees for home care. Remember now, if you don’t feel a sense of obligation to our parents and grandparents, these are the people who raised their families, played by the rules, paid their taxes, and now I feel a sense of responsibility and obligation toward them. If you don’t feel that, then maybe you should consider the economic argument as well.

There was a study done by Health Canada. They looked at cuts to homemaking services very specifically. Do you know what they found? They found that when you deprive seniors of homemaking services, seniors are more likely to get sick, they are much more likely to die. The cost to the health care system, on average, was $4,000 more when we didn’t deliver homemaking services to parents and grandparents.

If you don’t understand the sense of moral responsibility we have to help our parents and grandparents live out their lives in independence in their home, you should understand the economic argument is also there. So I ask you again, Madam Minister, why do you support user fees?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me be very clear that the only people who