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

January 16, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L146 - Thu 16 Jan 1997 / Jeu 16 Jan 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PETER ENNIS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PATHFINDERS AND GIRL GUIDES

SENIOR CITIZENS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NURSING STAFF

SENIOR CITIZENS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FINANCING

SCHOOL BOARDS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

WRITTEN QUESTIONS QUESTIONS ÉCRITES

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

POWERS OF TRUSTEES

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

LE RÉGLEMENT STANDING ORDERS

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

SPEAKER'S RULING

POINTS OF ORDER

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997/ LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Cordiano moved private member's notice of motion number 34:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has caused considerable concern and anxiety among the residents of Metropolitan Toronto over the issue of municipal amalgamation; and since enhanced public participation in the decision-making process should be a requirement; the government of Ontario should stop its proposed municipal amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto until the residents have had an opportunity to participate in a referendum on this issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ed Doyle): The member for Lawrence may proceed.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I am delighted to have put forward this resolution before this House to be debated today. I think it is incumbent upon this Legislative Assembly and all members of this House to recognize that the most meaningful thing we can be engaged in is the democratic principles we all uphold. For me, this resolution stands as a tribute to democracy because it asks this government to recognize the rights and the direct say of citizens about how they will be governed.

This resolution is not opposition for opposition's sake. What I am hoping we will do this morning and beyond is have meaningful debate. This is also not an effort to maintain the status quo, as has been suggested by some, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We recognize, and I think most people recognize, that the status quo is not acceptable, nor will it do. But I say to the members opposite, people right across Metro Toronto want to have a say. They want to have meaningful input into how they will be governed. There's a growing chorus of people who are coming out to public meetings, who are insisting that they be given a say.

I would also add, to the members of the government who are assembled here this morning, that you did not have a mandate to put this before the people of Toronto, to totally ignore their wishes. You did not discuss before the last election campaign as part of your platform that you were going to abolish the lower-tier governments of Metropolitan Toronto, that you were going to do away with local representation and you were going to do away with local governance. That wasn't something you discussed in the last election campaign.

I say to you it is your duty and your obligation to allow the citizens of this great city to have their say. That's why this resolution is being put before you today. People feel disenfranchised, people feel that they haven't been given an opportunity to engage their governments in proper debate and proper analysis and proper discourse. In fact your own discussion paper said as much: "Many people...feel disenfranchised by the process of modern government.

Many don't believe government can work for them." Your discussion paper goes on to talk about how "Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province, rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does." That's what you said in your discussion paper. That's what your government believes in.

I say to you that the idea and the use of referenda is not something that should be foreign to you; it's not something you should be opposed to. That's something you fundamentally believe in. You're basing this on your own principles.

You go on to say in this paper: "Our concept of governing arises from a strong belief in individual choice, collective stewardship and distributed responsibility for the future. In other words, we believe that individuals should decide their futures. In turn, the function of government should be to serve and facilitate those aspirations, not to rule or constrain them."

You're contradicting yourselves, because you refuse to acknowledge that there will be referenda taking place in Metro Toronto, duly established and created under the auspices of Bill 86. The form the referenda will take is not so important as long as it complies with the legislation that has been approved by your government. Every municipality across Metropolitan Toronto is doing that. They're using different methods to conduct their referenda, but they're all within acceptable limits. They're all within the acceptable parameters of the legislation that you put forward, Bill 86.

It is hypocrisy for the minister to suggest he'll completely ignore the results of the referenda when they believe in referenda. It is your government, it is your party that talked about them in principle. How can you refuse the people of this city their say and then talk about the use of referenda and make it meaningful? You can't do that.

I call on the backbenchers of this government in particular to deal with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the rest of the cabinet ministers. Make them understand that what they're doing is wrong, that it is fundamentally unprincipled.

Furthermore, I don't believe it's acceptable that this government use time allocation in committee with respect to hearings. There are some 500 groups or individuals that want to be heard on this matter right across Metropolitan Toronto, and it's obvious you're not going to accommodate all of them. This government is trying to ram this legislation through without proper debate, without proper consideration for what the citizens of this province have to say to the government of this province, so I think it's important that the members of this government, the backbenchers, implore their cabinet ministers to listen to the wishes of the citizens of this great city.

Finally, I will talk about the alternative, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is fond of getting up and saying: "Well, referenda won't work, because there is no alternative. What you want is the status quo." That's not the case. I think, as I said in my opening remarks earlier, that the status quo is not acceptable.

How did this government come to the option that it's chosen? They've refused to listen to advice from experts. The Golden report, a lengthy document which fully studied the question of what is to happen to greater Toronto, recommended against the abolition of lower-tier government. In fact the option contained within the Golden report is the alternative: Move to having a GTA council with local-tier governments still involved in what decisions are being made. So local governance was not something that Golden recommended doing away with.

In fact neither did the Crombie report and neither did the Trimmer report, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs was part of. He's completely rejecting what was said then and he was a part of that report, so he's contradicting himself.

The government has also refused to look at the experiences of other amalgamations in cities such as New York, Halifax and London. In fact this megacity proposal is one of the least-studied options. As is well documented now, this option will not cost less to run. Wendell Cox, who did a study, said, "The theoretical savings will never be achieved," the theoretical savings that are to come from the megacity.

I ask this government, where did this option come from? We'll have a decrease in accountability. This will lead to greater taxes, as has been demonstrated this week and noted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I quote from their press release: "A single Metro Toronto government will be more costly, leading to higher taxes. It will result in lower service" and make Metro "less competitive and...stifle innovation."

I say to the government members, the backbenchers, where did this option come from? It doesn't add up. It's not the preferred option of all the sound studies that have been done. The Golden report, the Crombie commission, the Trimmer report, all of the various studies have shown you not to do this. In fact when you dumped welfare costs on to municipalities, Crombie said, "Don't do it," and you did it.

The option is to give the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto their say. That's what we're asking for today in this resolution.

I'd like to conclude by saying that the strength of any democracy is measured by a government's willingness to allow dissenting voices their fullest expression. This government has a moral obligation to ensure that the citizens of Metro Toronto have their say. I implore this government, I implore the backbenchers to go to the cabinet and suggest to them that they not move ahead with their legislation to amalgamate Metro Toronto until the referenda have been held in Metropolitan Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to be able to rise today and speak in support of Mr Cordiano's resolution, and I want to say to you very clearly that all of our caucus, whether we're members from Metropolitan Toronto or throughout the province, are in support of this resolution and are in support of stopping what Mike Harris and Al Leach are doing in imposing the megacity plan in Metropolitan Toronto. We are absolutely clear about the need to do that, as citizen after citizen, individual and group have outlined the problems that are going to come about as a result of the imposition of this megacity.

We'll have a chance, as we go through the debate of the bill, to amplify those views, but I'm only going to speak for a couple of minutes this morning because I know some of my colleagues also want to have a chance to speak to this. I just want to point out that aside from how ridiculous this whole approach of the Tories is, what we have is a complete affront by Mike Harris and Al Leach towards any semblance of the democratic process in this province.

We see Mike Harris heralding himself as the person who maintains his promises, as the person who keeps his promises. We know that on this issue there has been a significant flip-flop, that there has been a significant turnaround in the position they are taking now from the position they took prior to the last election. That's a phrase that I wasn't the one to use. That comes from the co-chair of the same report from the task force on the governance of Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA that Al Leach and Joyce Trimmer and Derwyn Shea and Morley Kells and, according to Joyce Trimmer herself, with the support of one Dave Johnson, all coauthored prior to the last election.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): What did they promise people?

Mr Silipo: What they promised people in 1995, before the last election, was that they would not touch the local municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto because they believed in local government, they believed in the effectiveness of local government. Yes, they wanted to make changes, and yes, people believe we need to make changes. I haven't heard anybody in this debate really seriously defend the status quo. We certainly don't defend the status quo. We certainly are not saying, "Don't make any changes."

But the way in which these changes are being made, first and foremost, particularly because the result we are seeing is an imposition of a decision against any process whatsoever in Metropolitan Toronto, contrasts very clearly with what this government is prepared to do in the surrounding 905 area, where it's prepared to have a process in place, as it should. We are saying that it's important, it's crucial indeed, that this process also apply to Metropolitan Toronto.

We know there is a referendum on the way, and it's interesting. Just the other day the Minister of Municipal Affairs was mocking the fact that the referendum in Metropolitan Toronto is taking place in a variety of ways, through mail-in ballots in some places, through the traditional way in other places, through a phone-in ballot process perhaps in North York. He was mocking that, and yet it was only weeks ago when he brought in Bill 86, which outlines all those possibilities as alternatives to the traditional way of voting.

Then he was praising them; now that people have taken advantage of them as a way to curtail the cost of a referendum, he's against them. Well, he knows that the referendum process is taking hold.

We saw a great indication just the other evening when Mel Lastman, the greatest reader of political winds I've seen at the political level in many years, has finally come back on board in support of the referendum. That tells me that people are beginning to understand what's going on here, and Al Leach has got to be shaking in his boots.

You know what I think is going to happen? We will know this only minutes from now, because later this morning there is an important meeting of our House leaders. We will see there what the plan of this government is, whether it is going to be arrogant enough to actually try and ram through this bill before the referendum process takes place. Let me say to you that if that's the intention, then what you've seen so far is nothing compared to the kind of opposition and the kind of battle you're in for across this great metropolis, because yes, at the end of the day, you have the right to make the decisions that you have, but you do not have the right to trample upon the democratic process.

You cannot in one place be praising the virtue of referenda, wanting to get on with establishing a law on referenda, and here, where it counts the most, where there's an immediate need, where there's an immediate use of referenda that would be appropriate and necessary, say: "Don't bother doing it. It's not going to make any difference. We don't care. We've already made up our minds." That's not the way in which good government works, and it will come back to haunt you if you continue to stay on that.

That's why I as an individual and we as the NDP caucus will be supporting this resolution presented today by Mr Cordiano, because it expresses very clearly the need to oppose what this government is doing.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): It's my pleasure to speak to the motion as presented by the member for Lawrence. Let me just say that this side of the House is in favour of real democracy through real, binding referendums. We fully intend, given the acceptance of the opposition parties, to move forthrightly and quickly to have real, direct democracy in Ontario, perhaps for the first time in its history.

I'd love to support the honourable member's resolution in its entirety, except for the events that have occurred over the last few weeks in Metropolitan Toronto, which have made a mockery of real democracy, of the need for binding citizens' initiatives in referendums.

The honourable member raised what he thought were some points of hypocrisy. As a member of the legislative committee that was reviewing binding referendums and other tools of direct democracy, my head was spinning, because it was like being in an alternative universe. Coming into the House, I'd hear the member for Lawrence and the member for Oakwood and others demanding real referendums for the people of Toronto, and then I'd walk across the hallway, into another chamber of this august building, and I'd hear Liberal members denouncing the government's plans, denouncing real, binding referendums.

I know that's shocking for you, but I actually have the Hansard. Let me quote from the honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich, Sandra Pupatello:

"The issue of referenda is simply an opportunity for the majority government to move the decision-making and the difficult part of governance on to a very simply asked question through the process of referenda, and that is something the Liberal Party cannot support."

She said that. I know this is shocking, but I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the folks back home watching.

She went on to say: "People will not take the time to see all the implications when they vote yes or no on a given proposal. They'll simply look at the most simplistic one because that is what's being made available to them."

We believe in the right to choose by the people of Ontario. We are quite convinced that they can make rational decisions if we have a real referendum process.

The choice for us and the choice for the people of Toronto is between real democracy, which we are pursuing as a government, and the unfortunate circumstances that are occurring within Metropolitan Toronto right now. Let me give you a couple of examples.

We would like to see true citizens' initiatives where the citizens demand a referendum on a particular issue, a binding referendum. What do we have happening in the six municipalities? We have six mayors sitting in a room deciding that they want to have a referendum on behalf of the people, they say, although the people haven't spoken on this through a petition, deciding what the question is, deciding how it's going to be funded, deciding how to count the ballots and deciding what positions they're going to take.

We have proposed, through the Legislative Assembly committee, a separate, independent commission that will ensure that the question is fair and neutral.

Mr Bisson: You know the Premier shouldn't make those decisions either. How dare the cabinet get together and make those decisions. Terrible.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order.

Mr Clement: They are deciding what the question is. We have suggested that an independent commission should fairly administer the referendum. They want to administer the referendum themselves. We have suggested that there should be a fair discussion of the issues through an independent commission. They are not only setting the question; they are funding one side; they are on one side of the issue.

"Where did this happen before?" you may ask. This happened before, in 1994, within the city of Toronto, where the city of Toronto wanted to place a question on the referendum ballot on market value assessment. Not only did they want the question on market value assessment; they also wanted to pay the cost of the side opposed to that particular issue. Let me quote from the city solicitor at the time, Mr Perlin, who said that this suggestion by Toronto city council "goes much too far for what a council can do directly.

It is not presenting the electorate with an informed choice." His view was: "It would be illegal" -- not my words, his words -- "for the city to engage in such a lopsided presentation of the issue. Council should not be telling the electorate what the answer should be."

Mr Silipo: What has that got to do with whether you are in favour or opposed to this? Come on Tony, get off it.

Mr Clement: He said that. This seems to be a recurring theme within the city of Toronto, a theme that we cannot accept because we believe in real democracy, direct democracy. That is the future of Ontario; it is the future of public choices.

Mr Silipo: "We believe in real democracy, but not today." Come on, Tony.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please come to order.

Mr Clement: The future of democracy in our province is to have these choices, the choices that matter to the people of Ontario, being decided directly by the people of Ontario if either the government or citizens through a petition think it's appropriate. The future of democracy in our province is not Toronto spending $1.6 million, Etobicoke $250,000, Scarborough $75,000, East York $90,000 and York $200,000 to present one side of the issue and to determine the question on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent. We favour real democracy for Ontario, not the pathetic sham that the member for Lawrence is suggesting is the future.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I find this astonishing. Here's Mr Referendum from Brampton South opposing a fundamental exercise of a democratic right in Metropolitan Toronto. This is what the two and a half million people, the citizens and taxpayers of Metro, are most afraid of. They know this government is denying them the right to have a say in the future of their community, of their cities.

This is a government that before the election said, "We are going to sponsor more referenda." But you can see what the plan is here: When it suits them, they'll support a referendum. In this case it doesn't suit them because this government is systematically trying to deny duly elected councillors and the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto the right to have a say in their future. If anything more fundamentally undemocratic has ever happened before in this city, show me. This is what it's all about.

The government belittles referenda. Minister Leach and Premier Harris said, "In this case we won't even listen to the referendum." They claim the referendum is too expensive, too complex for the citizens. What an insult to the intelligence of the voters of Toronto, saying it is too complex to vote on it. They say it is too expensive, yet this is the same government that is spending eight million taxpayer dollars on propaganda, trying to ram their megacity down the throats of the citizens of Metro. What hypocrisy.

They say it's too expensive to give people a vote, yet they'll spend $8 million trying to brainwash people into believing that this eradication of democracy in Metro is justified. If there is anything that should be upsetting to everybody across Ontario, it's this denial of democracy here in Toronto. That is what is most upsetting.

I say to people, look beyond what this government is trying to do. Don't be intimidated by them. Don't be intimidated by the mega-press either. I encourage you to support the brave people who are fighting this tyranny. That's what it is. I would ask you to support people like Mayor Lastman, who finally said: "Enough is enough. I'm going to stand up to this government." I say to people, support anyone who will have the guts to tell Mike Harris and Minister Leach that they're wrong. Support people who will stand up for the principles this country is founded on.

You may agree or disagree with the megacity, but no one in this chamber should disagree with giving someone the right to have a say on it. This is not about boundaries, this is not about politicians; this is about whether the citizens of this city have the right to have a say in their future. Those of you who don't care about Toronto, who don't care about boundaries, who don't care about the mayors or the bureaucrats, care about that. If this tyrannical denial of the right to have a say succeeds here, where will it stop? It's as simple as that, and that's the fundamental thing we're trying to say.

The members on the other side say, "This member said this and so-and-so said that." That is just camouflage, because their own party went door to door saying, "We're going to support referenda." Their own party went door to door saying they were going to support local government. They've made a complete reversal and are denying people the right to say that. That's what's a referendum is supposed to be all about: when a government changes course from what its intended position was.

They have the gall to say that in this case they won't support it. I'll tell you why they won't support it. They're afraid of giving people the right to have a say because with the referendum there will be a debate and the facts will come out and people will see that this megacity madness will dump hundreds of millions of dollars in social services on Metro. It will destroy the city that the people of Toronto and East York and Etobicoke, North York and York and Scarborough made one of the greatest cities in the world.

I tell you out there, join the fight to give people a right to be heard all across Metro. This Monday night, join the growing number of citizens who are rising up against this government. There will be a couple of thousand people at the Metropolitan United Church Monday at 7 o'clock. I urge you to go and support people who are fighting for democracy and stop this government from ramming through this legislation which denies essential democratic rights and principles of participation in their cities. Rise up against the tyranny this government is imposing on two and a half million people. Don't allow it.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm very pleased to be able to join in this discussion and speak in favour of the resolution presented by the member for Lawrence. I recall a couple of weeks ago when we were discussing this very matter that I was saying we should be opposing the demagoguery of this government against Metropolitan Toronto because it speaks to some of the fundamental principles people are raising in Metropolitan Toronto. We've got demagoguery in Metro and we've got democracy in the 905 region.

The reason we've got democracy in the 905 region is because this government has a great deal of public support there. They don't feel they have the same support in the 416 area, so they're creating a situation where they're going to dump, harass, intimidate and hurt all the people of Metropolitan Toronto. We've got omnipotence for the 416 area and we've got discussion and facilitation of democracy in the 905 area. They are forcing amalgamation in Metropolitan Toronto but in the 905 area this government says: "We're not going to do that to you.

We're going to hire a facilitator to assist you in the democratic process to amalgamate." We've got two sets of processes and democracies going on, and they're not fair for us in Metro as they are for the people in the 905 area.

Moving on to the issue of referendums, this government, this Tory-Reform government, loves referendums. We know that. Yet when it comes to dealing with the issue we have in front of us, they say, as M. Leach said just a couple of weeks ago: "Oh no, this is too complicated an issue to have a referendum on. We can't have a referendum on this issue where it's a simple yes or a no. It's too complicated," he says. M. Clement from Brampton South, giving another reason altogether, says, "Oh no, this is not a real referendum, and therefore we oppose it."

What you'll find from this government is that from one day to the next, they provide different rationales for why they can't support it. It's a shifting amoeba we've got on the other of this chamber. They will invent all sorts of different reasons to oppose this. We're saying to M. Bennett from Brampton South, if you really want this real referendum to happen, give people a chance. Give us the six months you are talking about and give people in the Metro community the opportunity to have that real referendum, Mr Bennett. Give it to them. Don't stop it.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Mr Bennett?

Mr Marchese: Mr Clement. I apologize.

Mr Bisson: He thinks of the bad old days under Bennett.

Mr Marchese: A real connection indeed, but I apologize.

So, Mr Clement, member for Brampton South, if you want a real referendum, give them the opportunity. Don't present this bill in a way that prevents those people from having that very real opportunity you want to give them. Stop it. Give them the six months.

What we have here in Metropolitan Toronto is a groundswell of democracy. We have never seen week after week where you have 300, 400, 600 people going to meetings. A growing democracy is what you are witnessing here, Mr Clement, and it's a groundswell. The numbers are numerous. You cannot deny that. You can't hide that. These people are fighting for democracy. These people are worried about losing that opportunity to participate once you amalgamate, as you have said you will do. You have said you're going to disregard that referendum once it is held.

In my view, in whatever form it is being held, it is important for you to listen to it. For you in advance to say you're going to disregard that referendum is a shameful act of demagoguery and not democracy in this place.

The people of Metropolitan Toronto, not just Toronto, fear they're going to lose their voice in a government of 2.3 million people. They're going to lose that democratic possibility that they've been able to nurture in places like Toronto. They're going to lose that possibility to participate in shaping what a city should look like. Because once you have this great metropolis of 2.3 million people -- it is huge -- you're going to have a mayor with tremendous power governing a budget of $10 billion: huge.

It won't be easy for the little people in East York and the other people in North York and Etobicoke to say, "We'll trek down to Toronto," if this is where that new seat is going to be. It won't be easy. Access will be difficult, democracy will be difficult, and participation will be limited. The people who are going to these meetings know that. That's why this democracy is growing, and you're witnessing it every Monday.

When you see the people in the next meeting at the Metropolitan United Church, you will not see 600; you will see those numbers grow. They're afraid of this lunatic ideology of this government. They're afraid of your lunacy. You've just announced in this past week the taking out of $5.4 billion out of the property taxes for education, and you didn't provide relief for people. What have you done? You substituted that cost by dumping a whole lot of other services on municipalities: day care, long-term care, welfare, ambulance. You've dumped libraries now; you won't share that cost with them. Transportation.

You've dumped all of these things on municipalities, and Metropolitan Toronto is going to be hurt by that.

You've passed areas of responsibility that are properly contained and should be properly managed by the province, not the municipality through the property tax. You are forcing people to pay for essential services out of the property taxes. We have an ability by the province to raise money to pay for those essential services, and what you've just done is you've shifted an incredible responsibility of essential services on to municipalities to raise from property taxes.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Marchese: This is lunacy. These members here are lunatics. That is why these people are coming to these meetings in great numbers, because they see that what we've got here is symbolic of everything that is evil in this province. That's why they're coming to the meetings, because they're afraid of what's going to happen to our province and to our municipalities.

As some members here have said, we urge the people of Ontario to be as loud as the members from the government are now in their reaction to my responses. You need to be as loud as you can for your voices to be heard now, not once this thing has passed. Once they amalgamate, the game is over and you won't be able to come back and say: "When did these lunatics do this? We didn't know." This is the time for you to write to the Premier on a note, a letter, "Private and Confidential," so it gets to his little fingers, "Private and Confidential," so they see it. Write a letter to Minister Leach, "Private and Confidential."

Come to this House next Monday where we're going to have an opposition day on this very matter to deal with this very issue. Come and show yourselves and raise your voices against this evil and the lunacy of this reform-minded government.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): If there's any lunacy, I think it was the years from 1990 to 1995 when we saw massive deficits in this province by the NDP.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today as the member for Scarborough Centre to debate ballot item 55, a resolution by Mr Cordiano, the member for Lawrence, calling for a referendum on the issue of the creation of the new city of Toronto.

A single city, a unified city of Toronto, will save money, will remove barriers to growth and investment and will help create jobs within the entire GTA region. Residents, taxpayers and businesses will all benefit from one Toronto. It will reduce duplication and overlap. Local government will become streamlined, more accountable and more efficient.

A recent study by the KPMG accounting firm shows savings of up to $865 million over the first three years and an additional $300 million each year thereafter. Now, $300 million is approximately the annual operating budgets of Scarborough and East York combined. Already within Metropolitan Toronto today, 72% of all municipal spending goes towards services that are delivered across Metro through the regional government. In other words, of all the budgets of Scarborough, Toronto, North York, East York, York and Etobicoke, 72% of all spending is for amalgamated services. So we're not going from zero to 100; we're already at a starting point of 72.

Within Metropolitan Toronto and the six member municipalities, there are almost 180,000 bylaws on the books, differing bylaws from municipality to municipality. One bylaw in particular in my riding that has come up recently is the fact that fur trapping is allowed within the city of Scarborough.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Fur trapping?

Mr Newman: Fur trapping. The city of Toronto says, "No, you cannot fur trap in the city of Toronto." Scarborough is now going to be passing a bylaw that outlaws fur trapping within its boundaries. I think a single government within the new city of Toronto will make it easier for all citizens to know what the bylaws are.

Services can be delivered at less cost and improved at the same time. For example, North York is the only municipality within Metro that still offers twice-weekly garbage pickup. It also delivers this service at the lowest cost per household of any of the local municipalities. A unified city will take the best practices from Metro and from around the world and use them to deliver good local services for the best price.

There are various ways of gauging the views of your constituents on any issue, and this issue is no different. We can look at the number of letters that we receive, the number of phone calls, the discussions that we have with our constituents not only in our offices but within the community, including town hall meetings. More people have contacted my office this year regarding the fur trapper than regarding amalgamation of the city of Toronto.

With respect to the referendum, what will the question be? Will it be the same question across all six municipalities? How will the vote be conducted? Today, as I start my day every day by reading the Toronto Star to see what I'm up against, it says on the editorial page, page A20, that in Toronto the voters will get a ballot they can mail back. The cost is $1.62 million, comprised of $955,000 to conduct the vote, $450,000 for publicity against the megacity, $200,000 of intervenor funding to be disbursed by councillors in their wards for campaigns, and $20,000 to a group already opposing the merger.

But nowhere does it say here that there's any money for groups that are in favour of a merger. No money. So it appears to me that the city of Toronto wants to skew the results of its referendum.

In Etobicoke they're having a plebiscite over three days, with a limited number of polling stations -- cost, $250,000; in the city of Scarborough, where I'm from, a mass mailing of ballots anyone can cast at selected locations or return by mail, or vote by fax or e-mail -- cost, $90,000, and it goes on and on.

Will a decision be considered if it's a 50% majority or a 60% majority or is it 66 2/3%? Will it require a certain percentage of eligible voters to vote? Will it be decisive if only 10% of the voters even bother to vote? I mentioned that the city of Scarborough has voted to have a mail-in referendum. How are the abuses, such as multiple voting, going to be controlled? It's been suggested by some that the ballots will be signed and checked against the voters list. What happened to the idea of democracy by secret ballot? How would you ensure those are the only ones who are allowed to vote?

I know the member for Lawrence now says he feels strongly about this issue, but I ask him how he voted in 1992 for Mr Turnbull's private member's bill entitled the Provincial Public Consultation Act which called for referendums across Ontario. If the member for Lawrence believes so strongly in referendums, why didn't he stand up and demand a referendum on the 65 tax hikes that Ontarians had forced upon them from 1985 to 1995? Why didn't he stand up to demand a referendum on whether Ontarians wanted the massive deficits of the previous NDP government? Our government supports referendums. We are the government that will finally bring forward referendum legislation in Ontario.

Much has been said about a single unified city of Toronto. I'm going to finish my presentation with one last quote, that of Frank Jones from the Toronto Star of January 6: "I won't be wasting my time voting in the March 3 referendum on amalgamation -- if the vote ever comes to pass. It is a scandalous waste of millions of dollars and a fraud besides, perpetrated by politicians desperate to hang on to their perks and power." Quite frankly, that's how many people feel about this issue.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution. The bottom line is that the resolution is saying, "We want the people to have a say"; what this government is saying is, "We don't want the people to have a say." The resolution is pretty plain and very clear.

If these government people are going back in history, I think it was in 1918 that women got the right to have a say and blacks had the right to a say somewhere around the same time. Today we are asking for the people to have a say. Isn't it rather regressive that we've gone back to disallowing people to participate in democracy? This government is making sure it doesn't happen. As a matter of fact, we've gone back to surrogate times when we could appoint somebody outside the 2.3 million people. The Brampton South member will now speak on behalf of the people of greater Toronto. What a shame.

Today, with one of the most important resolutions coming through here, out of about 14 Conservative members who represent greater Toronto, we only have about three sitting in here. One had the opportunity to speak and the others will be shut up because they've been told by the surrogate father from Brampton South what to do: "There'll be no referendum." We will be looking.

I would have loved to see the members from greater Toronto speaking on behalf of their people so they could have a right to speak, to have a say. That's what democracy is about. Give the people a chance. Oh no, this bully government, with the dictatorial way it conducted itself with Bill 26, is going to ram it through. Mike Harris said openly, "I am going to ram this thing through, because I have my way or no way."

Let me tell you and let the people here know they have a right to stop this kind of bullying, this kind of dictatorship. They can call all their members in the greater Toronto area and ask them, "Why is it you're not giving us a right to a say about our lives, about our children, about our seniors?" Why are you not doing this? If you are so proud about your bill, if you're so proud about your democracy, allow them to do that. You're so proud that you're spending almost $9 million to tell the people, "My way." They're saying: "Just open up a bit. Let us tell you about our way."

It could be that their way will be your way, but you're scared, you're scared stiff. You're going to ram everything through within the time you have and to hell with the people. Let me tell you that the people will not stand for this. You can run, Mr Harris, but you can't hide. Many of you in Metro Toronto, you can run, but you won't hide because the people will speak very loudly and they will get you and I'm urging them all to call --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): They did last year.

Mr Curling: Of course they did last year, as you said, and they may be saying, "We have made a mistake." The newspapers are saying, "My golly, I thought they were on the right track. Dumping on the people like this." Mel Lastman thought it was right, then he said, "Oh my golly," when he started adding up how you have dumped. Give the people the chance to say because that's what democracy is all about, so that the people --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): What about a referendum on tax increases?

Mr Curling: Of course, if they have no other way in which to express themselves through public hearings, then maybe we should have a referendum, because that's the last resort for this kind of dictatorship that goes on. Then let's have a referendum. I believe much more in fuller participation than a referendum, but if that's the only avenue, then we should go that way. I support this resolution right forward and I hope you all in greater Toronto support that.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Indeed, I think the rhetoric has reached a new high or a new low, depending on your perspective, in the chamber here today. The member who spoke most recently, the member for Scarborough North, has said it's important for people to have a say, and yet he himself knows that within Scarborough there have already been two comprehensive surveys, one done by the chamber of commerce sent out to every member of the chamber of commerce and 74% of the business people in Scarborough have said move to one city.

But better than that, Metro councillor Ken Morrish has sent out a survey to 30,000 households, by far the largest and most representative sampling of any of the so-called surveys we've heard of so far in the press. So far, as the member opposite knows, within Scarborough 88% of the respondents have said: "Go to one city. We want efficiency. We want lower taxes. We want to end the confusion." That's what the people of Scarborough have said and that's why we're reflecting that with this legislation.

The fact of the matter is that if you want to talk about the real hypocrisy, the bulk of the time spent by the Liberal Party here today defending the resolution of the member for Lawrence was from the member for Oakwood. Mr Colle said in 1982, "I think the borough should be disbanded" -- he was referring to East York -- "because we find our taxes are the highest in Metro and our services, if not the worst, are among the worst in Metro." He went on to say, "The boroughs of York and East York should be amalgamated, along with portions of North York and north Toronto, to form a new Metro borough called Greater York. We need some sort of amalgamation," Mike Colle, October 18, 1983.

Then: "York council turned thumbs down last night on joining Scarborough and North York to become an amalgamated supercity. A motion by ward 2 alderman Mike Colle was roundly defeated on a vote of 9 to 1 after a two-hour debate."

The hypocrisy and the insult to this chamber. There is a process. The people of this province can go to their MPP, they can come to public hearings and I challenge the members opposite to hold town hall meetings to find out exactly what the people think at no cost to the taxpayers.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm delighted to speak on the issue brought by the member for Lawrence. While I would support it myself, I urge the members to support it as well.

I will speak directly to the issue for the few minutes I have allotted to myself. It says that the "government of Ontario should stop its proposed municipal amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto until the residents have had an opportunity to participate in a referendum on this issue." That is very straightforward, very clear, and I don't there think should be any problem.

I won't repeat what has already been said, but I'm going to read some quotes from a document prepared for and on behalf of our Premier, Mr Harris. It is a document that I'm sure the members of the government side, especially the member for Brampton South, would like us to forget, as they have already forgotten it themselves. Let me read you what it says on behalf of the members of the House and the people of Ontario who are watching this debate. By the way, the document is entitled Your Ontario, Your Choice.

This is the document the Premier of Ontario has presented to this House on behalf of the people of Ontario. It says, I repeat, Your Ontario, Your Choice. Let's see what the Premier says to the people of Ontario about wanting them to have a choice:

"`We're looking at the possibility of government-initiated, opposition-initiated and citizen-initiated referendums.... We also feel -- unlike other politicians -- that referendums are a good idea and do not limit the ability to manage a government. We don't think it's unreasonable for people to have those alternatives.'"

That was Mike Harris in the Financial Post of February 4, 1995.

"Since taking office, Premier Mike Harris and the Ontario government have moved quickly to improve government accountability and increase public participation in the decision-making process. However, this is only the beginning.

"Among other reforms, the government believes that increased use of the referendum can serve the objectives both of greater accountability and of better public participation.

"This paper is merely the first step in an extensive public dialogue on the best way to incorporate the referendum -- direct democracy -- into our decision-making process."

It continues, and I would reserve my comments on the megacity for another time; this is too important today and I wish to address my comments directly to the issue.

"Mike Harris and the Ontario government believe that this must change. Government accountability to all taxpayers must increase. Public participation in government is both desirable and intrinsically preferable to `capture' of the policy-making apparatus by special interest groups. Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province, rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does." Isn't that wonderful?

"For many years, Mike Harris has made clear his support for direct democracy. He was one of the first Canadian political leaders of this era to argue forcefully that the referendum must play a greater and more significant role in our decision-making process."

This was Mike Harris. What happened today? We hear that the true people are the ones to decide. To my colleagues on the other side, to the member for Brampton South who says who the true people to speak on behalf of having a referendum are, are we saying that the mayor of North York, the people of North York, the people of the city of Toronto and the various mayors are not real people, are not true people?

My time is up. I hope the government will support the bill as presented by the member for Lawrence.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Lawrence has two minutes.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I want to thank the people in the gallery who have attended this morning from far and wide to hear this debate, the city councillors and others.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, you can't address the gallery; you can address the members in the House.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, I thought you were being attentive; I was addressing you. I comment on that because I think it's important to recognize city councillors who have come here today and I'd like to thank them.

Let me just conclude, as my time is running out, that what I've heard in terms of the responses from the government side confirms for me that there is ever so slightly a bit of contradiction going on here. The member for Brampton South is contradicting the member for Scarborough Centre in terms of the use of referenda.

It was also indicated that the chamber of commerce was consulted. Does that surprise us? That's exactly the point we're making. Consult the average citizen, is what we're saying. We know you have the ability to talk to the chambers of commerce across this province. That's not good enough. The citizen in this Metropolitan Toronto area wants to have a say. That's all we're asking.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs says: "Forget the referendum. It's irrelevant. I'm moving ahead no matter what. It doesn't matter what the result will be." That is making a mockery not only of the use of referenda but of democracy itself. When you have that kind of disdain for democracy, it concerns me. I plead with the backbenchers to implore your cabinet once again to allow for this resolution to take hold. Do it for your constituents' sake.

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

Mr Jim Brown moved second reading of Bill 80,

An Act to curtail Repeat Offences by Juvenile Delinquents / Projet de loi 80, Loi visant à inciter les jeunes délinquants à ne pas récidiver.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): According to the standing orders, you have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): One of the greatest areas of current public concern is rising youth crime, and in particular violent youth crime. Each year, nearly one out of every 10 youths comes into contact with the police for a youth crime. The increased crime rates for the young have been much higher than they have for adults.

The Acting Speaker: Excuse me. Would you have those two rows cleared, please. There are no demonstrations, silent or otherwise. Please clear those first two rows of the gallery.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member from Scarborough.

Mr Jim Brown: Mr Speaker, that demonstration blew a minute and a half of my time. I'd like to have that restored.

The Acting Speaker: I'll have to address that at the end.

Mr Jim Brown: Mr Speaker, I'm supposed to have 10 minutes. Can I seek unanimous consent to restore the time?

Interjections: Agreed.

Interjections: No.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. I'll ask you to proceed.

Mr Jim Brown: Just as with the first reading of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the NDP voted against it, which must mean they support youth crime. They're now denying me my full time allotment. They're soft on crime; that's quite obvious.

There are lots of numbers for youth crime. Youth crime is four times the ratio of adult crime.

Last June, I returned from the third homicide scene in three weeks. It was 12:30 am. A young man, 17-year-old Michael Amann- Ewaschuk, had been stabbed to death and died at the Main Street subway station. It was traumatic for all of Michael's friends and relatives.

That same night, when I returned home, I had my own experience with youth violence. I thought my street was different; I thought it was safe. I called the Toronto Sun to discuss youth crime and the safety of our subway stations. While I was on the phone I heard smashing noises. My dog barked and I went to the window. There were several youths smashing my van. They were trashing my vehicles. Youth violence was at my front door. I yelled at them to stop and they shouted back profanity and threatened me. I called the police. In the meantime, I took my wife's car to go to the corner and see which way the gang went.

I shouldn't have done that, as they surrounded my wife's car, punched the car and tried to get in. They took running jumps at both doors and kicked with both feet. They tried to smash the windows and they attempted to get me out of the car.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Because they know who you are.

Mr Jim Brown: They didn't know who I was.

Never have I seen such violence, such hatred and such uncivilized behaviour. Those kids were out of control. It was mob rule. They were in a frenzy. Each was trying to outdo the other in violence. The police finally arrived and the kids ran off. This swarming occurred within two blocks of my house and the house of former NDP cabinet minister Anne Swarbrick. Our safe neighbourhood is a fallacy.

But my problems are nothing compared to the grief and agony of Mr Tom Ambas. Tom's younger brother Louis was stabbed to death in May 1995. Louis was stabbed dozens of times, but the police stopped counting at 52. He is survived by his wife, Carol, and two young children, Megan and Guy. Louis's mom, 69 years old, could only ask, "Did Louis suffer?" Tom began the Kid Brother campaign. He obtained nearly one million signatures. His attempts to get federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to change the Young Offenders Act were rebuked. He supports Bill 80. How can any one of the honourable members ignore Tom Ambas, his message and the horror inflicted upon his family?

Then we have Michael Amann-Ewaschuk, a 17-year-old with so much promise, a good-looking, all-Canadian guy. Have you, as members, been to a funeral for a youth? Have you been to a funeral for a young person who was recklessly murdered? I have, and it was heartrending. The murder was over a baseball cap. The kids sang a song for Michael at his funeral, Eric Clapton's Would You Know My Name If I Saw You In Heaven?, a song Clapton wrote for the tragic accidental death of his own son. I cried. Every time I hear that song I think of Michael.

Michael is one of the catalysts for Bill 80 -- tragedy, sadness, overwhelming sorrow. Classmates sobbed, not understanding death; but death was real, not a movie. I remain, today, saddened by the experience and I'll never forget it. Would You Know My Name If I Saw You in Heaven?

Willy and Patty Ewaschuk and Michael's girlfriend's mother, Joanne Stanton, are in the members' gallery today. I thank them for being here. Willy started the Stop the Madness campaign to reduce youth crime. Willy, Patty and Joanne are courageous, and we as members must remember that it is our duty to set laws and regulations that keep our streets and neighbourhoods a safe haven. It is up to us to try to prevent tragedies like the Ambases' and the Ewaschuks' from recurring.

That's why I introduced my bill,

An Act to curtail Repeat Offences by Juvenile Delinquents. This bill is within provincial competence. The pith and substance of my bill has to do with maintaining safe streets and neighbourhoods. Property rights and civil rights are in the provincial domain. My bill is similar to the Highway Traffic Act, which tries to maintain safe streets for vehicular traffic. The Highway Traffic Act certainly falls under provincial jurisdiction. My bill, like the Highway Traffic Act, deals with safe streets as well, only without a motor vehicle.

My bill establishes provincial offences for minor infractions such as loitering, graffiti, petty trespass, vandalism and swarming, to name a few. Violation of such a provincial offence will result in a curfew from 10 pm to sunrise every day and from 9 am to 2 pm on school days for violators of a provincial offence. Each violation means a six-month curfew. Each violation also involves a fine, payable before the youth gets his driver's licence. Three strikes and you're out. Yes, three violations and the youth is denied provincial privileges for three years after they would normally be eligible.

Provincial privileges such as obtaining a driver's licence, purchasing or consuming alcohol, gambling or buying a lottery ticket would be postponed for three years. If a youth is acting immaturely, they are obviously not ready to assume the responsibility for these provincial privileges.

Bill 80 does not impose a general curfew but just a specific curfew for the offender, not for all kids.

The exemptions to the curfew include youth who are travelling to or from work, accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, or for a medical emergency. Curfews from midnight to sunrise already exist for all Ontario youth under 16 under Ontario's Child and Family Services Act, 1990, totally constitutional. In the US, bylaws exist for a total youth curfew in 150 of the 200 largest cities: Phoenix, Dallas, Chicago, Denver, LA. In the United Kingdom, selective youth curfews have worked dramatically in reducing youth crime.

Youth crime is indeed a large problem in Ontario and our constituents know it. The Young Offenders Act has been ineffectual. Justice Minister Allan Rock wrote to me on December 4 claiming that any legislation changes by the federal government will not reduce youth crime. Yet statistics indicate that arrest rates of 14- to 17-year-olds for homicides have tripled over the last three years; 65% of young offenders have been convicted before. Youth crime starts with simple, minor crimes like graffiti or loitering in a mall. Left unpunished, they graduate to vandalism, assault, break-and-enter and then to violence and even murder.

One youth in my riding was convicted of 20 break-ins and received five days' community work. That's not fair to the taxpayer, who foots the cost of the justice system, the cost of social workers who work with the youth, the cost of policing and the cost of legal aid. It's not fair to the youth either; letting them go unpunished for minor crime leads them on to more serious crime, all the while believing they'll go unpunished.

Bill 80 is an attempt to punish minor crime, to send a message to kids and to ultimately stop violent crime. The mayor of New York City has demonstrated that the attack on minor crime dramatically decreases serious violent crime. In 1982 an

article in the Atlantic Monthly titled "Police and Neighbourhood Safety" postulated the "broken window" theory. That theory says that if a simple thing like a broken window isn't fixed, it's a sign no one cares. If minor crime is unaddressed and unpunished, it's a message that no one cares and that it's going to lead to more serious crime. New York City decided to attack the broken windows, or minor crime, and it's working. They've restored safety to their parks and subways, and a sense of security has returned.

Please support my bill so that Louis Ambas, Michael Amman-Ewaschuk, Ishmail Spence and far too many other kids will not have died in vain.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to rise in my place today to address this bill, and I'd like to start off by saying to the member for Scarborough West that I certainly have a lot of sympathy with what had happened to him and his family and the other victims of crimes that he has enunciated in this House here today. But I'd like to also say to him that quite frankly I'm surprised by the applause he received from the government members here, because I in my very best judgement, looking at this bill, thought he'd only get maybe five or six government members to support this. I'm really rather surprised that there is as much support for this as there is.

I would like to remind the member that in this country we have a criminal justice system, and while the member says that from time to time -- and I agree -- it is not working, our job here is to improve it by working with the system and working -- an advantage that you would have over me -- with our Attorney General and our Solicitor General to make sure that we do make it better. There are, I believe, some very positive things we could be doing to crack down on youth crime.

You could be reversing some of the things your government is doing, because you've mentioned rightly what New York City is doing. Cracking down hard on minor crime sends a signal to major crime, and you tend to pick up people maybe on the way to some major crime because the car wasn't in good shape, they had a driver's licence that wasn't timely etc. They are finding that they are reducing crime. That is one of the answers, to be increasing community policing, getting more of the men and women who are in our police forces in our communities on the streets, back in the neighbourhood. That's what they did in New York City and they had a tremendous decrease in criminal activity; up to 50%.

What saddens me about this is that because the member himself has been a victim of youth crime, he is using his position in the House here in what I think is a very vindictive way. I will say to the member how serious I think these freedoms that he's impinging upon are. You have to remember, when you start to look at these in total, that hundreds of thousands of men and women in this country laid down their lives in two world wars to protect this country from this sort of fascist legislation you're bringing forward here today. What you're doing is denying the freedoms of our --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I don't think that the term "fascist" is parliamentary and I would ask you to consider your use of it. I don't think it's in order.

Mr Ramsay: Mr Speaker, if you think it's out of order -- I was referring to the tenor of the legislation, but I'll withdraw that if you think that's too much and say that I think it's totalitarian in its tenor, that it is denying people their freedoms and that we already have punished these people. In a criminal justice system we have punished these people; they have served their time.

To go back for something a youth did between the ages of 14 and 18 and say, "Now, up to 22 years of age you cannot drink or purchase a lottery ticket or play on a video lottery machine," I mean, what we're doing is saying, "Because you've made" -- and I'm not saying that there are not young offenders out there who deserve to punished and deserve to be punished harder and that our system is not working.

But we need to work together and make sure that the laws are there and that the punishments are there and that the rehabilitation is there that is not there in the system as this government starts to cut down on those sorts of services in the jails. To go back and say, "You can't drink, you can't buy a lottery ticket," what kind of a country, a state, are we creating here because we feel at this time that youth are not being punished hard enough for the crimes they perpetrate?

We want to make sure that youth, if they got off on the wrong track, at least have the tools, such as a driver's licence, that might enable them to get employment, take them out of isolation and get to visit family. To deny the privilege, as it is, because of something you did as a youth, so that you cannot drive a car until you're 19 years of age in this case, is extremely punitive and vindictive.

This is a very regressive piece of legislation. I cannot believe that the government members would be supporting this piece of legislation. I cannot believe that this type of legislation would pass in this House and I would hope that the Attorney General would also be talking to the government members of this House to say, "This is not the way to go about correcting a situation that certainly needs to be worked on." There's no doubt about that. I would no doubt say to this member that there is a problem here and what I think we should be doing is working on this.

This is probably one of these ideal areas where you could strike an all-party committee, because there's no politics in this stuff, I'll tell you. Everybody has the same concerns as you do. This is something we could work together on.

But putting something forward like this, I just can't believe that this House would pass this this morning. I would say to the government members, please read this over very carefully. While there is a problem and we all want to fix the problem, I don't believe Bill 80 is the way to go about it.

Mr Bisson: On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I'd like to make some comments with regard to the bill being introduced by the member for Scarborough West. I want to say first off that I think the member brings to this Legislature an issue that is real, an issue that affects many people, especially in urban communities -- not specifically urban communities, but we do know that in some communities there has been an increase in violent crime. I would propose that it is not only youth in our society perpetrating violent crime, doing the actions that lead to violent crime, but it is also an increase across our general society.

I can tell you that in my community, the city of Timmins, we've seen acts of crime that have led to deaths on the part of many people above the ages of 18, 19 and 20, and in many cases those people taking

part in those actions are 30, 40, 50 years of age.

The point I'm trying to make here, first of all, is that although I agree with the member for Scarborough West that there is a problem, I agree that government, both provincially and federally, should try to take some responsibility for the problem by trying to find solutions through a legislative process of trying to find ways to deal with reducing the number of crimes in our society, and I support generally what the member is trying to do. However, I guess what I want to say is that I very much want to support it, but as I read through the bill and took a look at it, and I'll listen to the debate further --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You can make amendments after.

Mr Bisson: Maybe members can make comments after and clarify a couple of points, and maybe we'll be able to do that.

But when I look at the bill, I see there are humongous problems on how you would ever make this work. I would really have appreciated it if the government could have had the Attorney General here today to speak specifically on these issues, because I wonder as a member how you would be able to enforce the provisions that you put into this bill.

Although you want to do something that I think is in the right direction -- you're trying to respond to an issue that is real, you're trying to do something to represent your constituents, and I respect what you're trying to do -- I look at it, and just to use as an example, it says, "A person who, based on conduct while under 18 years of age, has been convicted of two offences under the Criminal Code (Canada) or three offences found in the Criminal Code (Canada) or a provincial act is not entitled to consume or purchase liquor or to play games of chance in a casino operated by the Ontario Casino Corporation until attaining the age of 22 years." I just wonder, how would you enforce that?

How do you enforce something like that? How does the casino operator or the employee at the LCBO determine who has been convicted of such

an act and is subject to this particular legislation?

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Like any other legislation.

Mr Bisson: Just permit me. I'm not demeaning what the member is trying to do; I'm trying to be helpful. You need to explain to me and to other members of this Legislature how this would work, because I wonder --

Mr Murdoch: Compliance.

Mr Bisson: Compliance, but how do you make it work? Just give me a moment to explain, and then if you guys can explain and tell me clearly how this works, maybe you've got something here.

For example, you convict somebody and somebody then has those particular privileges in our society removed. A young offender is convicted, is subject to this particular bill, and he or she has not the ability to go out and buy alcohol or to participate in games of chance until the age of 22. What do you do? Do you give them a piece of paper that they've got to carry around in their wallet when they walk into a gaming casino so that the people at the gaming casino or the LCBO say, "Can I see the card or whatever piece of paper proves that you've been subject to

an act?" Do you do a registry where everybody in the province who works at the liquor control board or at the gaming commission plunks the person's name or social insurance number into a computer to have their name pop up so that they're not able to buy the booze or not able to participate in a game of chance? There are a lot of problems with that, as you can well imagine. The whole question of confidentiality and the whole idea of cost, of how you would set that up, is something I would like to hear the members opposite in the government benches respond to.

I don't mean to be provocative here, but do you brand these people? Do you say, "You've been convicted, so therefore we're going to brand you and now we're going to be able to tell who it is that walks into a liquor store who has been" --

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): How do you enforce a driver's licence suspension?

Mr Bisson: The driver's licence suspension is not a problem, and I'm going to speak to that in a second. But on the issues of gaming and liquor, how are you going to be able to tell the difference as an employee when that person walks through the door, that they have had their privileges suspended because they have been involved in criminal actions? How can you tell?

On the question of the driver's licence, it's a lot easier to do. On the driver's licence, you can order a suspension just as we do now if you're caught drinking and driving or if you've had too many convictions against your driving record. That's fairly easy to do. I don't argue that one, and I can understand some logic, because as a young person of 16 or 17 years of age, driving is a very big privilege. I can remember as a young man growing up, as most young men and women at age 15, looking forward to the day of getting a driver's licence. I understand that as being a deterrent, and I don't argue with that.

I understand it, and I'll tell you, if I was a 15-year-old and I was staring in the eyes about to get my driver's licence and I knew there was a chance I could not get a driver's licence until the age of 18 or 19, as in this bill, if I participated in acts of crime, that very well may be a deterrent to my being involved in a criminal action. I haven't got a problem with that particular part of the bill, and I want to say that.

But on the other actions, which are two thirds of what this bill is all about, on the question of participating in gaming and participating in the legal activity, after the age of 19, of buying alcohol, having those privileges suspended till age 22 will be very difficult, I think, for the government to enforce. I say to the member for Scarborough West, I don't think your Attorney General is going to support this legislation. I very much doubt, if this House this morning votes in favour of this bill, that the government, meaning the cabinet, is going to support your bill.

That troubles me, because it's an issue where private members come to this House on Thursday morning to try to represent their constituents and there is a problem in trying to get private members' bills adopted, period, in this House.

Second, I don't think with the way this bill is worded around the question of the drinking and the question of gambling that you can get cabinet support. I would urge the member, and I'd be prepared to assist him in that, to try to work with members of his cabinet, particularly the Attorney General and the Premier, to find ways of maybe amending this legislation in some way that can be supported by the cabinet and by members of this assembly. I for one don't believe suspending somebody's privilege of drinking is going to be enforceable and is going to be able to be done in any kind of way that can make it stick.

It is going to be very costly, and how do I justify to my constituents in Cochrane South and your constituents, I would put it, when we're cutting money in health care and education and other services, having to spend money to set up a registry to prevent young people from drinking because they've participated in a violent crime? I'd have a problem trying to square that with my constituents.

But there are other things we can do. I think the driver's licence one is not a bad idea. There are some problems with that, but I think we can get into a discussion to figure out how that works. The other thing that possibly we're able to do is to take a look at where we have jurisdiction as a province, and look at putting in place programs of restitution. When a young offender or a person of my age -- of medium age, of course; I'm not a very old person --

Mr Preston: Oh, yeah.

Mr Bisson: Some people have told me I don't look too old for my age -- that I be made to pay back the damages to the people I have committed an offence against. The member for Scarborough West talked about where young people came and smashed into his car and kicked the doors and pounded on the windows. Those kids should be made to pay for the damages. Why should your insurance dollars and my insurance dollars have to pay for that? In the end, it means we all pay as a society.

I would say to the member opposite that it's something I think would be a good deterrent, to say we will put in place in Ontario, where we have jurisdiction, a program of restitution to the victims of crime. The government has moved somewhat in that direction in another area, but what I'm talking about specifically is the young kid or the 30-year-old who goes out and does damage, steals a skidoo and busts it, $5,000 worth of damage -- or a snow machine; I shouldn't use the brand name here.

As it works now, the person will either get a conviction, for which they may have to serve probation if there's no previous offence, and guess who ends up paying the $5,000? It's you and I, through our insurance premiums. It's costly to us as citizens and it lets the person get off virtually scot-free. Why don't we look at getting into a system that says: "You did the damage; you take the responsibility; you pay it back"? Yes, the insurances pays back the individual immediately, because I want my snow machine back if it's been busted, but have that individual pay back the insurance company the money that it cost.

I think that would be a good deterrent.

I've always found as an individual raising my children -- I've got a young woman of 19, my eldest daughter, and I've got a young girl of 14. I've found, as you, the most effective thing to do is to give them responsibility and to say: "Okay, you're big enough. You think you can take decisions for yourself. You think you know better than Mom and Dad and Grandma and Grandpa. Well, you make the decision. You're going to have to pay the consequences." Like you, my kids have turned out to be fairly responsible; I haven't had a lot of trouble.

I've found one of the reasons why is that we've given them that responsibility. We've said, "You're responsible for your actions." So I think that's one of the things we can look at.

If the member for Scarborough West had come forward with a suggestion such as that, we in the New Democratic Party would have no problem supporting that. I think that would be a positive measure, I think it would be enforceable, and I think in the end it would go a long way towards affecting the problem that you're trying to bring to this House.

The other thing we need to address is the whole question of why our society is becoming more violent. Our society is becoming more violent for a number of reasons, which are not as complex as we think. One is that the whole entertainment industry is a problem. I don't advocate censorship; I would not stand for that for one second. But we need to take into account that young people and older people alike are subject to all kinds of movies, television shows, radio announcements, you name it, that depict acts of crime as if they're something that's okay to do. I think we need to come to terms with that.

A young person or an older person goes and watches a movie where somebody gets severely beaten up or killed and he gets all pumped up and runs out of the movie and then tries to act out what he's seen in the movie. That happens. I think we need to come to terms with that.

The other thing, which is the bigger issue, is giving people a sense of hope. I was in Attawapiskat last week. For people who don't know where Attawapiskat is, it's north of Moosonee by some 200 miles up the James Bay coast. About 90% of the people in that community are unemployed. What do you say to those kids when they're 12, 13, 14 or 15 years old and growing up in a community like Attawapiskat, where there is no hope of getting a job? That's a big problem.

I was reading some writings of the kids inside the high school, and what some of them were saying really blew me away: "What do you do to spend the time?" "There's nothing to do. Most of all I want a job, and I want to be able to look forward to something in the future. I see no hope, so I do drugs." I think that's something we've got to come to terms with, and that's not easily done. I don't put the blame for that at the feet of the government. We were government for five years, you were government for 44, the Liberals were government for five years; it's something we've all had to face as political parties.

In a non-partisan way, we need to try to find somehow in this Legislature a way of restoring hope to people in our province so they can obtain employment, so they don't have free time on their hands to say: "What am I going to do today? Let's all get together and go down to the mall and see what happens." I would much rather see younger people involved in a good system of education so they're able to get the skills they need to get to the job they will have later on in life, to give them some hope so they know there is a chance of getting employment.

There was a time not too long ago, and members of this assembly across the way would know, when you grew up you knew you were going to get a job in the plant, or if you went to college or university you would be in a profession, and you had a job for life. It hasn't been that way for 10 years and that has greatly affected our society. There are many children and young people in our society who have virtually no hope for the future. They have a lot of free time on their hands and they're saying: "Lord, what am I going to do? Well, I think I'll maybe go hang out at the mall and see what happens."

They see the advertisements on television, they see the sneakers, at $200, that they can't afford, so they go out and beat up the kid next door so they can get the kid's sneakers, or they go out and steal a snow machine or a car, whatever it might be. Those are societal problems that we have to deal with.

In the last minutes that I have I want to say to the member for Scarborough West that I respect what you're trying to do. You're trying to deal with what is a very real problem of violent crime in our society. I only put to you that I understand you're trying to deal with one particular aspect of violent crime, which is crime perpetrated by youth, but I hope you're not saying it is only created by youth. There is violent crime committed on the part of many people in our society, youth and old alike.

There is a portion in this bill that makes a lot of sense: the point about the driver's licence. I think that's supportable. That's something that probably could be made to work with a little bit of effort. I really wonder how you're going to enforce the other parts of the bill: the suspension of drinking and the suspension of gambling. I think that will be very problematic to enforce, either expensive or very bureaucratic, something I know you don't stand for. I want to hear you respond to that.

Also, I would like to hear you respond to the point about how we're able to maybe bring this back in some way to deal with some of the issues I raised about finding some way of putting in place a program of restitution that makes individuals responsible for their actions. If you can make individuals responsible and ultimately pay for their crimes, if there's been damage done and there's a cost associated with it, I would argue that it will not eliminate the problem but it will severely limit the problem we're having in our society.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to debate on behalf of the New Democratic Party the motion brought forward by the member for Scarborough West.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to comment with respect to Bill 80 brought forward by the member for Scarborough West. He's brought forward a social problem we all agree on: violence by youth and crime in our society today. Every day we open up the newspapers and we read about violence that has occurred by youth in our society. In fact it seems to be on the increase. Certainly all of us on all sides of the House are concerned with that particular issue.

Our government has asked Allan Rock, the federal justice minister, to amend the Young Offenders Act substantially. Our Solicitor General has asked Allan Rock to amend the Young Offenders Act substantially. All of those requests have gone unheeded.

I understand the member for Scarborough West bringing forth this legislation because of his frustration personally and in representing his constituents; however, I have a number of concerns with respect to the legislation and I believe it is going to have problems in the future. The bill is, I believe, fraught with problems and has a number of legal problems that we should consider. In the few minutes I have, I'd like to briefly discuss the constitutional problems, the charter problems, the policy problems and even the increase of power to police with respect to youth.

The constitutional problems: Although the province can legislate over health, safety and even crime prevention, there is a serious risk that this legislation would be construed by a court in pith and substance as an attempt by the province to legislate criminal law. There is no clear link between any of the restrictions that follow from a conviction and the activity associated with that conviction at all. If a young person is convicted of assaulting his school mates in the school yard during the day, what has that got to do with a curfew to be imposed upon him at night?

Similarly, if a young person is convicted of dangerous driving or even the provincial offence of careless driving, what is the connection between these offences and the legal requirement to attend school?

The legislation in so far as it pertains to Criminal Code offences could be construed as an attempt by the province to create harsher penalties than those imposed by the federal Young Offenders Act, and we believe this would make the legislation ultra vires. There are a number of charter implications that we would need to look at, specifically

section 12 of the charter,

section 15 of the charter and, I believe,

section 7 of the charter.

Even if the legislation is considered to come within the proper sphere of provincial jurisdiction over law, there are a number of potential charter problems within the legislation. The legislation effectively penalizes people, not so much for what they have done but for what they are; in other words, young offenders. The curfew is not imposed as a special condition of probation by a court sentencing an offender for a specific offence; it is imposed automatically as a result of any conviction. It is therefore a kind of status offence. Status offences have been ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada as not being valid and have been struck down under the federal Criminal Code.

Section 12 of the charter, which is the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, for example -- and I don't believe this is the intention of the member for Scarborough West. If a young person is convicted of illegal parking a number of times -- in other words, a minor type of offence -- or finds himself or herself subject to quite severe restrictions, their liberty could be entirely restricted.

There are a number of policy problems which infect a whole slew of pieces of legislation, some of which were referred to by the member for Cochrane South. I think all of those things need to be looked at before the bill proceeds any further.

From a criminal justice perspective, it should be made clear that a person who commits an offence is given a sentence for that offence. The aim of the sentence may be denunciation, deterrence or rehabilitation, but when that sentence is served, the offender has paid his debt to society and is entitled to be given an opportunity to become reintegrated into society. The young person who has damaged property, as a sentence paid restitution to the victim and performed community service work, should not be further penalized by the province through curfews or ineligibility to obtain privileges.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a clear overlap of provincial power by this bill, which I don't believe it has, with respect to the authority given under our Constitution to the federal government. I encourage the House to continue on with this issue, but I quite frankly believe this bill will lead to problems in the future in the courts. Unfortunately I am not prepared to support the bill because of those legal problems.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on this bill, Bill 80. Quite frankly, it's unfortunate that a bill like this is even necessary. Something in our society has changed over the past two decades. Many of us talk about the breakdown in family values. It has nothing to do with the fact that parents are working outside the home today. It has to do with responsibility and commitment to the welfare of others and ourselves.

What has happened is that young people, many of them still children themselves, care so little about themselves and others that they need to break the law in the first place, let alone reoffend. It used to be that when you got in trouble at school, you got in trouble at home. Now all too often teachers are called to task for something a youth did. It used to be that when you were picked up by the police, it was a serious matter. Now all too often it's the law enforcer who is called to task for a number of reasons.

It used to be that parents were respected, and it used to be that parents could expect reasonable behaviour from their children. This bill may seem harsh but, first and foremost, Bill 80 provides for measures of enforced accountability following convictions, accountability and the loss of privilege that seem to be missing today.

Let's look at the facts: To be a young offender means that you have to have done something that resulted in a conviction under the Criminal Code of Canada or a provincial act. That means that somebody else's rights were violated in some major way. If all the youth gets is a slap on the wrist, what motivation is there not to offend a second or third or even a fourth time? How would we feel if our loved ones were hurt or our personal property damaged? How would we feel if our loved one was murdered by someone who had offended before and shouldn't have been on our streets?

It comes down to personal responsibility and having consequences for inappropriate and unlawful actions. Put another way, we need the punishment to fit the crime. There is simply no doubt about it: There is cause and effect in life; there have to be real consequences. It's time to realize that we have to go back to the notion that crime does not pay.

Bill 80 provides for such consequences. First, there's the curfew for individuals under 18 years of age from 10 pm to 6 am daily for a term of six months for a first offence and then 12 months for persons convicted of more than one offence. There's also the curfew for youth under 16 years of age from 9 am until 2 pm, when they should be in school. In my view, these types of curfews provide some structure in a youth's life that has the potential to keep them out of trouble and into something productive. It also says to young people that there are consequences to your freedom of movement.

Then there is the issue of the driver's licence. The bill calls for a delay in applying for a driver's licence if the youth offends on two separate occasions while under the age of 18. They must wait until they are 19 years of age to apply. All of us in this House who have children know that as soon as they turn 16 they want to apply for the driver's licence -- it's a rite of passage in our society -- so curtailing the process could have definite consequences and could be a way of keeping youth away from the wrong company and the possibility of offending or reoffending.

There's also the issue of drinking or engaging in activities that should not be available to youth under the age of 18. When you combine not being able to drive with not being able to drink, especially for a youth, you have a powerful incentive not to reoffend.

There is no doubt in my mind that the people of this province are tired of lenient youth offender laws and punishments. It's time we did something to bring back the notion of cause and effect and true consequences, and it is clearly time we did something to reduce crime. It is for those reasons that I fully support Bill 80.

Mr Preston: I am pleased to rise today in support of this bill. I have a five-minute speech all nicely written out. I apologize to my staff who have gone over and corrected my grammar and my punctuation, but after the comments today I'm going to have to deviate from this. We've heard comments about responsibility, and the main thrust is responsibility: responsibility for one's actions, responsibility to one's peers and responsibility to society at large. We have to instil a sense of responsibility in our youth today.

There are arguments that this bill is going to infringe on the rights of youth. My wife and I, in my non-political life, run a home for youthful offenders, as most people here know. I have worked over the last 15 or 20 years with probably 100 youth who have lived in my home.

The initial stages of this bill, the initial punishments of this bill are punishments that I mete out in the home, and I did for my own children: a curfew, loss of privileges. I'm pleased to say that over the past 20 years, 70% of the youth who have lived in my home have gone on to lead a life without further crime. I'm very pleased that these youth continue to call back. They call on Father's Day, they call at Christmas. They learned a sense of responsibility.

As a requirement in my home, I have a poster, which I would like to have brought today but I know you would rule against it, a poster about this size. It's got 16 squares on it, and 15 of those squares outline the youths' rights. One square outlines their responsibilities. The third square down on the right-hand side says, "If you're convicted of an offence, you have even more rights."

I think the response of the official opposition was probably expected.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Disappointing.

Mr Preston: It's disappointing, yes.

The speaker from the New Democratic Party, the member for Cochrane South, was very reasonable.

Mr Klees: It's about time.

Mr Preston: Yes, surprisingly, very reasonable. He also spoke of rights. The speaker from our party spoke about the problems with the charter. What about the charter rights of the victims? "Oh, these are only small crimes: a broken window, graffiti on somebody's garage door." That's not the way the victim feels about it.

We're not imposing harsh penalties on a youth who has committed a minor offence. We're saying, "You have to go to school and you've got to be in by 10 o'clock" -- that's not too tough -- "but when you do the third crime, you're going to have to do the time." To say that the sentence is over and we can't expect to carry it on -- in the case of the third crime, under this bill, the sentence does not end until they are 22.

How do you enforce it? How do you get the person selling alcohol, how do you get the person selling the tickets to enforce it? They can't, as they cannot enforce probation laws that work from age 12 through to whenever. But when you commit an offence --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Preston: I hope everybody in this House will back this bill.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I am pleased to rise to speak to Mr Brown's bill, my friend from Scarborough West's bill. I think he raises with this bill one of the most serious concerns we have in our society today, and that's how we deal with young offenders and the young offender population and how we deal with young people who are not behaving or taking their responsibilities in a way that any of us would want to happen, and conversely, the effect that has on individuals and on property in this province.

Certainly, I think from the days of the ancient Greeks, when Socrates talked about the younger generation in effect going to hell in a handbasket, we have had this problem in western civilization, and probably in every civilization in the history of this planet. I know we have difficulties and we aren't addressing this situation at the present time in an acceptable way. We have too many people being victims of what many of us would consider to be just plain young punks. I think the member might even agree with my characterization of that.

My problem is not that the member brought the bill before the House, because I'm glad he did. It gives us an opportunity to speak to this issue. It gives us an opportunity to say: "Look, we understand there's a problem and we understand we have to deal more effectively with the young people in our society.

We have to make sure they take their responsibilities as citizens, that their families support them in taking their responsibilities and that they can do that." My difficulty with this bill, not being a lawyer -- and that's sometimes a plus around here -- is that many sections of this bill, I suggest to the member, will just plain not work and are probably unconstitutional, would not be permitted to go forward.

Rather than going forward with this as a bill, I would hope we could maybe have a look at this as members of the Legislature looking at solutions that are appropriate in the space of the next few weeks, few months, whatever, so that we can look directly at the problem.

The problem is serious and I'm happy the member has brought it forward, but I would think perhaps it should be a resolution asking that we establish or send to one of our committees a direction to have a look at this problem and to see what we can do in Ontario to deal with the difficulty of instilling, I think is the right way to look at it, responsibility in those young people in our province who for one reason or another have decided not to follow the rules.

I'm concerned that the remedies that are here are both unenforceable and probably, as I said, unconstitutional, so I would suggest to the member that perhaps the way to go would be what we have in committees. All members know we have a 125 process, where members can, in one of the four committees, and in this case the justice committee, have before them the opportunity to present a motion -- it can be by a private member -- to be considered for 12 hours, to have a look at this issue in a non-partisan, reasonable way. I don't think you're hearing from anybody in this place that the issue isn't important.

What you're hearing from people in this place is that the proposed solution may not be the appropriate one: (

a) It probably is unenforceable and (

b) it's probably unconstitutional.

That's our problem on this side. I again commend the member for bringing the issue forward, because I think it's important, and I suggest these other remedies for him as a private member to move this issue forward so that we can as legislators debate this and perhaps have some hearings, get some people in who know about these things with some degree of expertise. We can listen to them and then propose some solutions that will be enforceable, will work and will assist us in making those kinds of decisions.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Just briefly. I have not had a real opportunity to extensively look at the bill. I think that with respect to what's contained in it, I would echo the remarks made by my colleague who spoke previously. There are some difficulties that I see with respect to amendments to the Highway Traffic Act that I have concern with.

I think the whole idea with respect to offenders is to rehabilitate and to give those offenders the opportunity to come back into society, particularly at a young age. I understand the need to curb privileges. I understand that is an attempt being made under this act with respect to curfew orders, restricting the granting of a licence to someone who is a repeat offender until that person has attained the age of 19 years.

I'm concerned about that, because if we're talking about an offender who is trying to be rehabilitated, if that involves such an offender going out and seeking employment, for example, which would require that offender to have a licence and to use that licence, then you're cutting off or restricting access to those types of jobs. I think you have to consider that.

I would echo what my colleague has suggested in terms of looking at this very carefully, studying it in some other fashion. It would give us a greater opportunity to deal with what was intended and what can be done and accomplished through the various means that we have in this assembly.

I commend the member for bringing this forward. I think it's a truly important matter. I think it's an important matter with respect to what's happening in our society. The kind of criminality that's beginning to take hold of young people is something that is of great concern to us on this side of the House and it's not to be taken lightly, so I say to you that there might be other avenues for this to be dealt with.

Mr Jim Brown: Thanks to all those who participated in the debate.

This is a major issue in Ontario, and to now defer it to another method of attacking the issue is to ignore the issue, because it will take so long for this to come back to the House. My bill should be supported at second reading to get it into committee so that we can improve it, so that we can make it the best that it can be, so that the opinions of the opposition and the third party can be incorporated into it. If there are constitutional problems, which I don't really believe there are, but if there are, we can sort them out in committee.

If we vote against it today, you won't see it in this Legislature for years -- guaranteed. It's another delaying tactic. How many more kids have to get into trouble? How many more families like the Ambases and the Ewaschuks in the gallery have to lose their kids through murders? How many more victims will there be while we sit here and play our games? We have to vote today for this bill to get it into committee so that we can make it the best that it can be.

Bill 80 does kids a favour: It tells them that minor infractions will be punished. Experience will show, as it has in New York, that major crimes will decrease. Rehabilitation is fine; I want prevention. I don't want kids to get into trouble at all. We owe it to the kids to tell them: "These are the rules. You're going to lose your privileges, so don't fool around."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 55. If there is any member opposed to taking a vote on this item, they will now please rise.

Mr Cordiano has moved private member's notice of motion number 34.

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.

Thank you. You may take your seats. There will be a division on this. We will have it after the next item.

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 56, second reading of Bill 80, standing in the name of Mr Brown. If there are any members opposed to taking a vote on this ballot item now, they should please rise.

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 55, private member's notice of motion number 34, standing in the name of Mr Cordiano.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bisson, Gilles

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Bradley, James J.

Gerretsen, John

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Kennedy, Gerard

Pouliot, Gilles

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kwinter, Monte

Ruprecht, Tony

Colle, Mike

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Cordiano, Joseph

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Crozier, Bruce

Marchese, Rosario

Wildman, Bud

Curling, Alvin

Martel, Shelley

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing until recognized.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Fox, Gary

Parker, John L.

Barrett, Toby

Froese, Tom

Pettit, Trevor

Beaubien, Marcel

Gilchrist, Steve

Preston, Peter

Boushy, Dave

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Jim

Hudak, Tim

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Tilson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, W. Leo

Vankoughnet, Bill

Clement, Tony

Klees, Frank

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Danford, Harry

Leadston, Gary L.

Wood, Bob

Doyle, Ed

Munro, Julia

Young, Terence H.

Fisher, Barbara

Murdoch, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Newman, Dan

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The ayes are 24, the nays are 34.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion defeated, the resolution lost.

The doors will be opened for 30 seconds.

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 56, second reading of Bill 80.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Duncan, Dwight

Murdoch, Bill

Baird, John R.

Fisher, Barbara

Newman, Dan

Barrett, Toby

Ford, Douglas B.

Parker, John L.

Beaubien, Marcel

Fox, Gary

Pettit, Trevor

Bisson, Gilles

Froese, Tom

Phillips, Gerry

Boushy, Dave

Gerretsen, John

Pouliot, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Gilchrist, Steve

Preston, Peter

Brown, Jim

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Michael A.

Hudak, Tim

Ruprecht, Tony

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Sergio, Mario

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, W. Leo

Sheehan, Frank

Clement, Tony

Kennedy, Gerard

Silipo, Tony

Colle, Mike

Klees, Frank

Vankoughnet, Bill

Cordiano, Joseph

Kwinter, Monte

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Crozier, Bruce

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Wood, Bob

Curling, Alvin

Lankin, Frances

Young, Terence H.

Danford, Harry

Leadston, Gary L.

Doyle, Ed

Munro, Julia

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing until recognized.

Nays

Laughren, Floyd

Martin, Tony

Wood, Len

Marchese, Rosario

Tilson, David

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The ayes are 52, the nays are 5.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the bill passed. Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill stands referred to the committee of --

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): General government.

The Acting Speaker: The bill stands referred to the standing committee on general government. Is there a majority in favour? The bill is referred to the committee on general government.

There being no further business, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1213 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PETER ENNIS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Sudbury, Ontario and Canadian sporting communities lost a great friend and one of their most talented and committed coaches with the untimely death of Peter Ennis, who passed away after a courageous battle with cancer.

Peter guided Canada's Olympic ladies' basketball team during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. This was the first time in 12 years that the Canadian women's team had qualified for the Olympics, and Peter Ennis was the person who got them there.

Peter, who was 50 at the time of his death, guided Laurentian University's Lady Vees basketball team. Starting in 1979, he maintained a winning attitude and team at Laurentian. For each of his 17 seasons, Peter guided the Lady Vees to the Canadian championship tournament. His success culminated in back-to-back Canadian titles in 1989-90 and 1990-91, and he was named coach of the year in 1987 and 1991.

Peter, though, taught much more than basketball skills; he taught dedication, determination and diligence. He instilled the real, human and lifelong skills of compassion, cooperation and caring in and for his players.

He will be sadly missed and always loved by his wife, Gail, and children Kelly and Liam.

Those who taught with him will miss his unique sense of humour, and those of us who coached with, for or against him will always remember his sense of fairness. Peter's motto was "Pride and tradition," which made him always strive for gold. I know he has forever attained it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Later today the government will once again be calling Bill 103, which is otherwise known as the megacity bill, for debate in this Legislature. This will be the third day that we've got in some minimal amount of time on debate, and yet the government has yet to inform the public or members of the opposition parties with respect to its intent on public hearings and on passage of this bill.

Our critic for the GTA, the member for Dovercourt, and our House leader, the member for Algoma, have made it very clear that our party's position is that there must be extensive public hearings on this. There are already over 500 people who have applied to be heard by the legislative committee on the megacity legislation. There is great interest, and the numbers are growing every day.

We've also made it clear that we expect that these committee hearings should take place not just here in Queen's Park but in the city council chambers around Metro so that people can come out and can observe and be part of this democratic process.

We've also made it very clear that it would be absolutely anti-democratic for this government to force passage of this bill before citizens have their democratic say through the referenda and consultation processes that have been set in place.

We've yet to get any kind of commitment or guarantee from the government. In fact, it has been alluded to that their options are open to them and that they may well move a time allocation motion to force passage of this through before the referenda. That would be a shame and a travesty of democracy. All people should revolt against that.

PATHFINDERS AND GIRL GUIDES

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today as the member for Scarborough Centre to inform the members of the Legislature of several of my constituents who will be honoured shortly for their achievements.

I'd like to congratulate Elizabeth Eick, Megan Kuzma, Melissa Martone and Tammi Shapcott, who this past year earned their Canada cord as Pathfinders of Girl Guides of Canada. These 15-year-old girls should be honoured for their dedication and commitment to achieving this award.

In meeting the challenges of their Canada cord, these girls had to complete three stages -- bronze, silver and gold -- in each of the camping, community, home, outdoor and world emblems and all sections of the "Be prepared" emblem.

Pathfinders and Girl Guides are an excellent and exciting way for girls and young women to learn to become responsible citizens, able to give leadership and service to the community. I am proud to have these four great citizens as members of my community in Scarborough Centre. I would like every member in the House to join me today in offering our congratulations to Elizabeth, Megan, Melissa and Tammi.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Today the Harris government has dealt another huge blow to the seniors in our province. Today, the Harris government has chosen to give the elderly something more to worry about, more to fear, more to lose.

The government is not content with the tremendous pain it has inflicted on seniors so far: user fees for prescriptions, cuts to Wheel-Trans funding, $40-a-day charges for chronically ill seniors in hospitals, and ending rent control protection. Now, with the introduction of a new tax system, the finance minister proudly boasts that this legislation will protect seniors on fixed incomes by allowing them to place their increased property taxes on a negative mortgage.

Once again, the Harris government is actually adding insult to injury. These are citizens who have dutifully paid taxes all their lives, made many sacrifices and built our province into what it is today. I would like to say to the senior citizens of Ontario that it is shameful and an embarrassment that tax hikes brought on by AVA might actually force some of them from their homes or force these tax hikes to be added to their mortgages.

The number of poor seniors is on the rise. We know that poor seniors are not eligible for a tax cut. We know that this is a group in our society which is most vulnerable to increases in costs for services. These are our seniors.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We have before the House significant legislation that relates certainly to Metropolitan Toronto, but we also have proposals coming from this government that affect all municipalities across the province and will probably mean cuts in services, loss of jobs and increased property taxes for municipal ratepayers right across Ontario.

If I look at one small community in my own constituency, the community of Wawa, which is the largest community in my constituency, of approximately 4,000 people, already that community has seen significant downturns in employment related to the cuts at the Ministry of Natural Resources. Now we are seeing further cuts. The proposals on education amalgamation of school boards means that the local office of the public school and separate school board will close; those jobs will be lost.

We are seeing the closure of the Carlson Wagonlit Travel agency that had a contract with the provincial government and a loss of 20-some jobs in that area. We're seeing significant effects on the private sector because of these job losses.

This government says its reforms are going to mean improvements for people in communities across Ontario. In fact, it means economic downturn and loss of jobs and loss of services for people.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): As I make this announcement, the Ontario Hydro generating station at Nanticoke in my riding is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Opened in 1972 by then Premier Bill Davis, Nanticoke generating station has a capacity of over four million kilowatts and has produced to date 320 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.

Nanticoke is the largest coal-fired generator in North America. Located on Lake Erie, east of Port Dover, this station was the first of three large developments for Nanticoke, which also included Stelco's Lake Erie works and the Texaco -- now Esso -- oil refinery. Over 80% of the plant's 530 employees live in the Haldimand-Norfolk region and both the station and its staff are very active in our community.

Through previous employment, I have had the pleasure of visiting the thermal generating station many times and I can personally attest to a very important fact: The strength of the Nanticoke station is its high-quality, skilled and productive workforce. This is one reason why Ontario Hydro has been able to cut electricity rates for many large industrial users and has been able to hold rates flat for all other users.

I would like to congratulate everyone who has been involved with the Nanticoke generating station, management, the employees and their union, for a job well done, and my personal best wishes for their continued success in the future.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today we have yet another mega-announcement as part of a series of mega-changes to Ontario and the beginning of what is, in the opinion of the Ontario Liberal Party, mega-problems for property taxpayers across the province who are heavily burdened now.

As a percentage of our gross domestic product, property taxes in Ontario are as heavy as most other jurisdictions in the OECD. No guarantees that the types of services that are being downloaded to municipalities won't become an even heavier burden for property taxpayers, those people on fixed incomes, those people who can probably least afford to pay what is in effect a very regressive form of taxation.

We know that as the province downloads health care particularly, those costs are going to go up. Long-term care: The costs are going to go up, while education costs stay the same. This party, the Ontario Liberal Party, believes that the property tax base cannot bear this, that residential property taxpayers, be they in Toronto or Windsor or Ottawa, will eventually see large increases in their assessments to cope with what will become exacerbating problems for the municipal property tax base.

We in the Ontario Liberal Party believe that health care and other so-called soft services ought not to be borne by the property tax, but ought to be borne by the wider income tax base, and that's the future of this province.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to take my minute and a half to congratulate John Sewell and the Citizens for Local Democracy, who have been meeting since December to fight and defeat Bill 103. They have been involved over the last month and a half in a way to be able to show the public at large that they want to participate and that they're offended with what is happening here in Metropolitan Toronto.

We are seeing an expression of growing democracy. They started in the early period of December with a few people at city hall, and those meetings started to grow. On December 23 and December 30, 300 people attended, and last Monday 650 people attended a Holy Trinity Church meeting to defeat this bill.

We expect that this growing democracy is going to grow at next Monday's meeting. We are seeing here an expression of fear. People are afraid of what you are doing to Metropolitan Toronto, of what you are doing to local democracy and what it means for local participation. They are afraid that what they're showing you through these meetings is likely to disappear once you amalgamate.

At this last meeting we had an appearance by the ghost of William Lyon Mackenzie, thanks to Eric Peterson, and Mackenzie reminded us what citizens of Toronto pay to have democratic control. They said the family compact has now been replaced by the corporate compact, and that's what we need to defeat.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Speaker, I want you to know I'll try very hard to behave myself this afternoon.

I'm rising this afternoon to thank and commend the Wellington County Board of Education for its positive and cooperative response to the Minister of Education's announcement earlier this week on school board restructuring. Under the changes announced in the legislation, the Wellington and Dufferin boards will come together to become one board effective January of next year.

In a news release issued by the Wellington board, Chairman Jennifer Waterston stated: "This board has never been afraid of change; Change is inevitable. Now that we know what this change is, we can proceed with managing the transition to our new district school board with Dufferin in an orderly fashion."

I'm very pleased that the Minister of Education announced in December that he is maintaining the same level of funding to school boards this year as they received last year. I am also pleased that the minister has indicated that the new funding model will recognize the requirements of special needs students and special circumstances.

I want to advise the minister that I believe the vast majority of educators in Wellington county understand the seriousness of our debt problem. They recognize that they must be part of the solution and they want to continue to provide students with the best level of instruction possible. All of us must recognize the dedication of teachers to our students. In this time of change I encourage the minister to work alongside trustees, educators, parents and students, building on our strengths, striving together to give us the best schools in the world.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): This week our government is making important, long-overdue changes to how services are delivered to the people of this province. These changes will ensure that Ontarians get the highest-quality services at the lowest cost, increase accountability of governments and improve fairness for taxpayers. An integral part of these important changes is the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997, which I will be introducing later today.

Ontario's system of assessment and property tax is out of date, inconsistent and unclear. In many municipalities of the province, assessments are far out of date. Assessments are based on property values that range from the 1940s to the early 1990s. When assessments no longer reflect how values change over time, the distribution of taxes becomes unfair. Some assessments haven't been updated for 50 years. There are situations where homes purchased at the same time for the same price in the same community are assessed differently.

Past governments failed to take up the challenge to fix this problem. Because they didn't act, thousands of homeowners and businesses are paying more property tax than they should be. That's not fair, and it's harder for businesses to compete when the playing field is not l