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

December 9, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Dec-09 vol. A (PDF)

L026A - Thu 9 Dec 1999 / Jeu 9 déc 1999

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 CONCERNANT LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

FOOD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES BANQUES D'ALIMENTATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

IZETTA HOBBS

HANUKKAH

HOSPITAL FUNDING

QUITCARE PROGRAM

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO / MÉMENTO DU MILLÉNAIRE

RURAL ONTARIO

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY), 1999 / LOI CHRISTOPHER DE 1999 SUR LE REGISTRE DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (YOUTH PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

FOOD DRIVE

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD

HOMELESSNESS

HIGHWAY 407

POINTS OF ORDER

SPEAKER'S RULING

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

KARLA HOMOLKA

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 CONCERNANT LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

Mr Phillips moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about events at Ipperwash Provincial Park leading to the death of Dudley George / Projet de loi 3, Loi prévoyant une enquête publique pour découvrir la vérité sur les événements qui se sont produits au parc provincial Ipperwash et qui ont conduit au décès de Dudley George.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This is a matter of extreme importance to the Legislature in Ontario. I remind us that four years ago, on Labour Day weekend, a land dispute took place between the OPP and our First Nations, who had strong reason to believe that a burial ground was at Ipperwash Provincial Park. It was the first time in 100 years that a First Nations person was killed in a land dispute in Ontario. It led to the conviction of a senior OPP officer for criminal negligence causing death, and it is a black eye on the province of Ontario.

It is extremely important that we get a full explanation of what happened at Ipperwash Provincial Park and what led to the death of Dudley George. I might add that two of Mr George's brothers, Reg and Sam, are here with us today.

One reason that this matter is extremely important is that there is considerable evidence that the Premier, senior members of his cabinet and at least one backbench member of his government were directly and inappropriately involved in this action. The only way to clear the air is with an independent public inquiry.

What could be more important in a democracy, when there are serious allegations against the head of the government and his cabinet, allegations backed by considerable evidence, than that these government members remove themselves from the obvious conflict-they are in a conflict of interest-and allow an independent public inquiry to be held into these events?

When all of us are doing what we can to ensure that all the citizens of this province obey our laws, we cannot allow a situation where the head of our government uses the power of his office to avoid a thorough investigation of clear evidence against him and his cabinet of inappropriate behaviour in a very serious matter. I remind us that there was the death of a First Nations person involved and the conviction of a senior OPP officer for criminal negligence.

Why do I say there is evidence of inappropriate behaviour? Let me read into the record a few examples. By the way, I have seven pages of what I regard as inappropriate behaviour and contradictory evidence.

The first I'll read is from Hansard. The question was asked, "Premier, what directions did you give to Ms Hutton before she went into that September 6 meeting with the OPP superintendent?" Mr Harris said, "None. I gave no direction."

We then find contradictory evidence of minutes taken at that meeting. Here it refers to "D. Hutton," the Premier's executive assistant, saying "Premier last night, OPP only, out of the park only-nothing else." Contradictory evidence: The Premier said he gave no instructions; the minutes say he did.

The Premier said this in Hansard: "I determined nothing. I gave no direction. I gave no influence on it. We left that entirely to the OPP." The Sarnia Observer headline on the day of the shooting said, "Queen's Park to Take Hard Line with Occupiers."

Another piece of contradictory evidence is an injunction the government sought. The Attorney General said, "Quite simply, this was a very standard procedure and a very usual procedure in these kinds of situations."

But here's what the police said. This was literally two hours before the shooting. The two senior OPP command officers said, when they heard what the government was going to do-the government changed directions from what the plan was two hours before the shooting-it said, and these are the two senior officers: "Well, that injunction surprises me. They"-the government-"went from that regular type of injunction to an emergency type, which you know really isn't in our favour. We want a little bit more time." The Attorney General is saying that it was usual procedure. Our senior OPP officers are contradicting the evidence.

Another piece of contradictory evidence: "At no time did the police receive any instructions from anyone that I know of within my caucus or my office or me from the cabinet."

Again, literally four hours before the shooting at the police command post, Marcel Beaubien is in the com mand post, where the police are trying to plan and carry out their operations. This is the local government member who was at the command post on several different occasions.

This is what the police log said-this was at 6:42 of the night of the shooting, literally about four hours before the shooting took place-"Marcel Beaubien states to the police he doesn't mind taking controversy. `If the situation can't be handled by police services, something has to be done to handle the situation.' Marcel Beaubien was in that night. He had talked to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General. They were comfortable.

"Inspector Carson advised that Marcel Beaubien has been in contact with Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix. He advised he was calling the Premier." Constant interference in the operation of the police. Inappropriate, totally inappropriate.

"The First Nations went into the park because they have evidence of a burial ground there." That was raised in the Legislature, and the Attorney General said, "That isn't why they went into the park." Well, there is page after page of evidence that they stated that's why they were going into the park.

Guess what? The government ultimately found in its own files evidence of a burial ground and this is what the document says: "The crown has confirmed the existence of correspondence between the federal Indian Affairs branch and the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests which refers to the old Indian cemetery which is located within the territory now being developed as a park. It has been clearly indicated by Provincial Division judges at pre-trial that this defence will succeed in all instances."

The government had to drop 23 charges because of that evidence. So I say there is clear evidence of serious wrongdoing by our head of government and by the cabinet, and yet the government has the tools to block an inquiry, to block an inquiry from happening. What could be more important than a clear airing of these serious allegations against the head of state, the head of our government and the cabinet?

The bill that we're debating today does two simple things: It says the government commits to holding a public inquiry. So we no longer will allow the government to hide behind the lack of a public inquiry.

The second thing it says is, "The commission may defer beginning the inquiry if necessary to avoid prejudice to any person who is a party to court proceedings concerning matters which may be a subject of the inquiry." In other words, we answer the Premier's, I believe, stonewalling tactic by saying the commission, which will be appointed by the government, has the authority to defer beginning the hearing until satisfied that it would jeopardize no one's right to a fair trial.

If Premier Harris has nothing to hide, he should have no problem with this bill. I believe a public inquiry would prove that he and other members of the cabinet were inappropriately involved in this matter. I believe they will try to perpetuate the cover-up by dragging out the civil court trial for years, bankrupt the George family, which is a family of modest means trying to fight the government, and hope that the public runs out of interest in the issue.

I return to the central issue for all of us: What could be more important in a democracy than ensuring that when there are serious allegations with considerable evidence-these aren't simply allegations. There is considerable public evidence against the head of our government and senior cabinet ministers. When they're accused of serious, inappropriate behaviour, then we need to ensure that we remove them from controlling whether there is an investigation of that. They have a clear conflict of interest.

That's what this bill does. It allows for a public inquiry with a respected person or persons selected by the government and they will have the power to conduct a fair, thorough investigation. I cannot understate the importance of this: Serious allegations against the government, the death of a First Nations person the first time in the entire century, the conviction of an OPP officer for criminal negligence, and the government is hiding. They are afraid to hold a public inquiry. If we want the public to have confidence in its government, we cannot allow the head of the government to hide from these serious allegations. We must have a public inquiry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak firmly and clearly in support of this bill and the proposition contained within it. I can tell you that Gilles Bisson, our member responsible for native affairs, as well as Howard Hampton, our leader, will be addressing the bill as well.

It's been an incredible history of events: four years and counting, Dudley George shot down, murdered, in Ipperwash and a succession of not just allegations but bits and pieces of evidence which point to and raise the clear spectre of direct government involvement-this government, this Premier, this Premier's advisers and at least one of this Premier's backbenchers as well as, perhaps, the Attorney General and Solicitor General of the day being directly involved, politicizing the role of the Ontario Provincial Police; Marcel Beaubien, the member for now Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, and the comments attributed to him, "If they're not out of the park something has to be done," and the other now notorious comment, "Get the fucking Indians out of the park," as well as a Premier who has stonewalled and resisted any fair and thorough inquiry into what was the murder of a peaceful and gentle-

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I realize the member may be quoting something, but I don't think we use that type of language in this House.

The Acting Speaker: There is nothing out of order with the language. It may be inappropriate but that's up to the member.

Mr Kormos: It is regrettable that native persons, First Nations persons, would be spoken of in that context and with that level of disdain and repugnant language. I regret having to refer to it, but the fact remains that it's a statement that has clearly been identified as having been made. Let's not ignore the realities here. Let's understand that this has not only been an injustice, a grave injustice, of course, to Dudley George and to his family, but a grave injustice to the First Nations people of this province and of this country and a grave injustice to the community, the members of this province and of this country, all of us as residents or citizens.

The Premier has very skilfully avoided attendance at examinations for discovery so that he can be compelled to give evidence under oath. Every indication is there that he will continue to use every legal means to the point of pettifoggery to avoid appearance for the purpose of examination for discovery.

Dudley George, his family, First Nations people and the people of this province deserve nothing less, and the call today is for nothing less than a public inquiry with the full disclosure of the course of events that led to the murder of Dudley George, and a clear result indicting those who will be found or could be found or may be found to be responsible for those unconscionable actions some four years ago.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's a great honour for me to have an opportunity to participate in the ballot item moved by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I think it's important to note that in working on this issue for quite some time he has prepared a significant body of evidence. The need is clear. It is to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the death of Dudley George.

It seems to me that we in this House owe it to our First Nations community to ensure that justice is properly served and that we examine all the facts and all the serious allegations that had been made. There is, it would seem, a very strong body of evidence that suggests that members of the government-the Premier, members of the cabinet and government backbenchers-were directly and inappropriately involved in the first death in over 100 years of a First Nations person stemming from a land claim dispute.

The approach my colleague, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, puts forward is one that is independent. He has done work and has brought forward a body of evidence to us in this House to consider whether we should support the establishment of an independent public inquiry. We don't prejudge the results of that. This allows for protection of anyone before the courts. It allows for the government to appoint an independent public jury that would take a look at this issue and get to the bottom of it, to determine whether justice has been served for Mr George.

I would say that some members of the government should think very carefully about the way they decide to vote in this private members' hour today. To date, this has been something the government has been involved in stonewalling. The Premier himself has avoided examinations for discovery. But failure by members of the government to support this initiative today involves you and implicitly supports a programmed cover-up on the part of your government. The Premier needs to live up to the responsibilities that we as public servants are expected to uphold.

Public officials should bear a higher test in terms of the way we use the resources of government and the way we treat our citizens, and that has not been served here to date.

Page after page of very serious allegations have been brought forward. This issue has been discussed, and it has received considerable media coverage. But it is clear that justice has yet to be served in this issue. Mr George deserves nothing less than the support of this Legislature to determine the extent to which the government played a role-directly and inappropriately involved, we allege-in the death of Dudley George.

Again, we encourage the government members opposite not to involve themselves in what would seem to be a systematic attempt to ensure that all the facts do not see the light of day. I urge members opposite, in the name of justice and in the name of the highest calling, the highest level of public disclosure, to support this bill and allow an independent public inquiry to be established.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): First of all, as the critic for native affairs for the NDP caucus, I want to say outright and at this point that our caucus will be supporting this bill put forward by the honourable member, for a lot of reasons that were spoken to a little earlier and will be spoken to. But I want to say that we support to the utmost what he is trying to do here. Quite frankly, what we have seen over the past four years is a government that on every occasion has tried to duck out from its responsibility on this whole matter.

I'm not going to go through all the events that led to the unfortunate death, or I should say murder, of Dudley George. But it is fairly clear from the evidence as we see it, and as I think any fair-minded person would see it, that the police were basically influenced by the provincial government. The Mike Harris government-Mr Beaubien, Mr Harris himself and other members of his government-had their hands all over this thing. It was out of character for the Ontario Provincial Police to move in the way they did the night Dudley George was killed.

We know, because the OPP were under directives from our government previously, that in no case and at no time should the OPP react the way they did. I know from talking to OPP officers since then that they felt a great amount of pressure on the part of the government on this particular issue. It was stated earlier, in the comments made by the Harris government in regard to its decision to send the police in and to kick "the [expletive] Indians out of the park," and the influence by the local member. But I'll leave that for another part of the debate.

What bothers me in this debate is not only what has happened to Dudley George, as far as the murder of an innocent human being who was trying to advocate for what was rightfully a very important issue for that community, but how the government has since handled this whole issue. Can you imagine what would happen in a democracy if a person was charged with murder and ducked out from being subpoenaed for discovery, ducked out from going to court, and at every turn basically ducked out from the due process of law? Can you imagine if you were put in that situation?

If one of you in the gallery was charged with what should be charged in this case and didn't go to court, what would happen to you? They'd pick you off the street, drag you into court and put you in jail to make sure you testified to what you had done; you couldn't get away. But on three occasions, now, this government has wiggled out of its responsibility when it came to discovery.

First, the former Attorney General, Mr Harnick, was supposed to go to discovery in, I believe, September of this year and didn't show up-all kinds of legal wrangling. We know the Attorney General was involved in this process. I suspect that one of the reasons the Attorney General didn't run for re-election had a lot to do with what happened in this whole issue.

The second issue is what happened to the Solicitor General of the day. He too was served for discovery. Can you imagine what would happen if a citizen of this province got served for discovery and didn't show up time after time? Well, what happened was that the Solicitor General, the former top cop in the province of Ontario, got subpoenaed on this issue and didn't show. He used his lawyers to find all kinds of reasons why they can't do it on that day and why they shouldn't go.

Then the Premier, the head of the cabinet, the head of the government of the province of Ontario, who is quoted as having said, "Get the [expletive] Indians out of the park," didn't show for his discovery, and instead spends millions of taxpayers' dollars to defend himself against an action he took. I find that quite extraordinary. If any other citizen of this province was put in the position that this government is, I suggest they wouldn't have gotten away with it as long as they have.

The second thing I find quite appalling this morning is the apparent silence of the government in this debate. If the government and government backbenchers feel so strongly that, as I suspect, they're going to vote against this bill, I would think that they would get up and say to the George family and other people watching today why they are going to vote against this bill. Look them straight in the face and say, "We believe, for the following reasons ... " and explain why you're not going to vote for this bill. I find the silence of the government, skipping the rotation in debate this morning, quite amazing.

I ask the government members to do the right thing for once. A person has been murdered, plain and simple, and justice has to be given. Up to now, justice has not been given because this government has been running away from its responsibility. I ask the government members to do what's right and to allow this bill to pass so we can have a full public inquiry into the issues. If they think they're innocent, then they've got nothing to hide.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I think it's extremely important that we bring closure to this question surrounding the allegations made with considerable evidence. The Premier and cabinet have a responsibility to allow an independent evaluation of the evidence.

I have been privileged to know numerous members of the native community within Sarnia-Lambton. There's a legacy of injustice towards our native communities that is unprecedented to any other communities of indigenous population. I understand this quest for getting to the truth. For eight years I have attempted to do the same in my own community, which ended up in a judicial inquiry regarding people who made decisions on our behalf.

An inquiry will bring out the truth and clear the air, and I would think that the government would be glad to get the air cleared on this. I suggest that stonewalling as much as the Premier has done begs the question, why? The life of Mr George is of great value. I believe it is incumbent on us and on the government to have an inquiry into this matter so that we can bring closure to the question surrounding the allegations.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to take

part in this debate today, because there are a number of things that the government needs to realize and that the government members need to realize.

The first thing everyone needs to realize is that this issue is not going to go away. All the delaying tactics, trying to switch lawyers in midstream-again what I would term a delaying tactic in this context-are not going to work. The truth is going to come out. Whether an inquiry eventually is called here in the province of Ontario or whether an inquiry is called by the federal government, the people who want the truth to come out, who believe that there has to be accountability, are not going to go away.

To the government members, who I suspect will vote to a one against this bill, I would say to you that at some point this will have to have a public airing. There will have to be public accountability on these issues.

The government and government members make much of trying to say that there can't be an inquiry because some of these matters are still before the court. I want to spend some time pointing out exactly all the issues that could be subject to a public inquiry now, could have been subject to a public inquiry some time ago, without in any way affecting the guilt or innocence of a particular party.

Let me point out some of the questions that need to be answered and some of the questions that need to be asked. Part of what is so puzzling about the events around Ipperwash and the fact that a government MPP was present in the command post of the Ontario Provincial Police-now, that in itself is highly unusual. It is highly unusual for an elected member who is part of the government caucus to be anywhere near a police operational effort. Not only that, but we know that there was communication-in fact there were extended communications-between that government member and representatives of the Premier's office at the time when these matters were being dealt with, again highly unusual.

I would suggest that without necessarily inquiring into the guilt or innocence of a particular person, the question needs to be asked, what was a government MPP doing in the command post of the Ontario Provincial Police when these events began to transpire? That is a question that OPP officers want to have an answer to.

But there are some other questions that need to be answered. We know that the Ontario Provincial Police had a protocol and guidelines for dealing with these kinds of issues with First Nations. We know that their protocol called for them to engage in activities which lessen the possibility of conflict, which would tend to move away from conflict and move towards conciliation. Yet, at Ipperwash, the OPP apparently did not act according to their own protocol. Why? What would cause the Ontario Provincial Police not to follow, not to obey their own protocol?

Second, we know that in the utilization of police tactical units in the late 1980s and 1990s there were some very unfortunate accidents. This resulted in an inquiry, the Drinkwalter inquiry. Douglas Drinkwalter came forward with some recommendations on the utilization of police tactical units and those recommendations became part of the police method of operation. At Ipperwash, the OPP did not follow the Drinkwalter recommendations either.

We also know that the Ontario Provincial Police have a training manual that all officers who go into the tactical units have to follow. They're trained in this. At Ipperwash, the OPP did not follow their training manual either for the utilization of tactical units. Why? What could cause the Ontario Provincial Police to not obey and follow three of their own things: protocols, training manuals and guidelines? Those are questions which should be answered by a public inquiry, can be answered by a public inquiry-

The Acting Speaker: Thank you; the member's time has expired.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): What I find perplexing in this is why it has come to this. If there had been an accident involving a tourist in the park when it was operating, there would have been an investigation of some sort, an inquiry to determine the individuals responsible for it. Given these circumstances, any rational person would have made the decision months or years ago to proceed with it, to determine what happened.

If everything is as presented by the government side, then what's the problem with an inquiry? It can't be money. I don't believe money can be an issue in this, because the government had $112 million for advertising. Surely the life of a citizen would be more important than another ad on TV or an ad on an expressway. Since everything else seems to be driven by money, we can throw that one out at this stage.

My wife and I have a son who's First Nations. Before he came to live with us, we assumed that though he may have a different cultural background there would be absolutely no difference in the way the community treats him. We found that to be the case for our neighbours, for the people I work with, for the people we shop with and associate with. The fact that he's First Nations has made no difference at all to them. But where we have found a bias is in dealing with governments.

There continues to be a paternalistic kind of attitude that they know better than he does and that he's not able to make his own decisions and that he needs advice. Certainly he's a full Ontario citizen, but just not quite full. That saddened me, because I didn't believe that existed.

Twenty-one years ago there was no doubt in my mind that whatever the cultural background, wherever they were from, whatever their particular interests in life were, it didn't make any difference. But it does make a difference, unfortunately, to some people. If there are no problems, the fact is that we have significant numbers of people in this province who believe that there needs to be an inquiry, that there is a different treatment and we need to proceed and deal with it and get rid of that.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'm honoured to rise to speak in support of this bill today in this Legislature. I want to talk about two things in particular. I want to talk about courage and I want to talk about cowardice, a family's courage and a government's cowardice.

I want to begin by saluting my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. Gerry Phillips is deeply committed to finding the truth, the truth about Ipperwash. His continuing and tireless efforts on this matter are a testament to his decency, his work ethic, and his commitment to doing, quite simply, what is right.

But the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would be the first to tell you that his contribution has been relatively small compared to that made by the George family. This is a family that has shown enormous courage. They suffered the deepest personal loss one can imagine when Dudley George was shot dead in a protest outside Ipperwash Provincial Park on September 6, 1995. They lost someone they love, and they lost him suddenly and without explanation.

One might understand if this family simply walked away to take time to heal, but instead they have taken on the most powerful interests in our province. They don't seek revenge, they're not seeking attention, and they're not seeking personal gain. All they seek is the truth, the truth about Ipperwash, and despite very, very modest resources, the George family has fought for the truth now for four gruelling years. They have fought in our courts and they have fought in the court of public opinion. They have fought tirelessly and courageously.

We have to ask ourselves, why is it that it has been such a long and difficult fight for this family? The answer is, because of the cowardice of this government. Simply put, this government is afraid of the truth, and a government that hides the truth is not worthy of the people it is elected to serve.

The family was given no choice but to bring a lawsuit against the Premier and the members of his cabinet, but the ministers and the Premier continue to ignore our courts and to use stalling tactics wherever possible. The government's contempt for the courts is exceeded only by the contempt it has shown for the George family. It's ironic that a government that so overreacted to a roadblock at Ipperwash has now thrown up roadblock after roadblock after roadblock in front of the George family. This is cowardice of the worst possible kind.

You have to ask, what is it that the government is so afraid of? Ian Urquhart of the Toronto Star put it very eloquently this week when he wrote, "There is one downside to a cover-up, no matter how well it might be executed: It tells everyone that there is something to hide." If this government has nothing to hide, then surely it will support this bill, because this bill would set up a commission of public inquiry.

The George family has said it will drop its suit if there is a public inquiry, because all, in the end, that this courageous family wants is the truth: the truth about Ipperwash; the truth about why something went terribly wrong despite the OPP's lengthy history of dealing with these situations peacefully and successfully; the truth about the government's hard-line approach; the truth about what orders were issued to, as the quote goes, "Get those Indians out of the park."

The truth, the truth about Ipperwash: That is all that the George family is asking for, that is what they deserve, and that is what we in this Legislature have a responsibility to give them. I am very proud to support this bill.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I'm pleased to join this debate but I'm not pleased with the commentary that becomes necessary. We stand here, in private members' hour, dealing with a moral and ethical issue that's drawn international attention, the unwarranted killing of a civilian in peaceful protest who happens to come from one of our First Nations.

We're supposed to be here in this forum as parliamentarians as the highest authority in this province, and not one of the members of the government will speak to this issue, will deign to give an opinion about this. We have a whipped silenced on the other side of this House, and what we have is an ignorance against the truth. It's only in that kind of society, where we can have that kind of grip on what people say, that we can't get at the truth.

What are the members opposite afraid of? What is there about that small group of people who were in that park-that was an Indian burial ground, as we found out later, that was known to the provincial government to have a basis for a peaceful protest. What is it about those OPP transcripts that mention the Premier's office? What is it about the MPP for Sarnia-Lambton who was in that command post, in that trailer in a very unusual way?

What is it about the involvement of officials from the Premier's office or from the government that has silenced the entire opposite side of the House on a moral and ethical issue, that does not even deign to pay respect to the legitimate concerns of Ontario citizens and of the whole First Nations community of this province?

I stand here to support this bill and the actions of the member from Scarborough-Agincourt, but not this government.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): As usual the member for Parkdale-High Park has drawn some conclusions about this side of the House that are wrong. I rise on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House to say that the government has in fact decided not to debate this bill. Our reasons for this are consistent with our previous comments concerning the very sensitive nature of this issue. It's our position that the private member's bill from the member from Scarborough-Agincourt should not be before this House at this time.

Two criminal matters and three civil matters relating to the tragedy at Ipperwash are still before the courts. The Legislature's rules of debate, we believe, are very clear and should be equally as clear to the members opposite.

Section 23, in part, says, " ... a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she ... " says certain things, and I refer you to subsection (

g) where it continues by saying the items for which a member shall be called to order. They include referring "to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding ... that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination."

With respect to the outstanding criminal cases, the Court of Appeal has reserved judgment. Regarding the civil action, the lawyers for the defendants sought assistance from the court in moving the matter forward. At the request of the lawyers for the defendants, a judge has been designated to hear all motions involved so that it proceeds as efficiently as possible.

Because this is still before the courts, we want to stress that everyone from the Premier to the former Solicitor General to the former Attorney General has every intention of co-operating with the courts. We are not ruling anything in or out with respect to a public inquiry. What we do say is that we on this side of the House believe that it is important to respect this place and to conduct our business in accordance with respect not only for the rules of this House but for the judicial system in our province. Under these circumstances no further comment, we believe, is appropriate.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Further debate? There being none, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt in response.

Mr Phillips: I go back to my bill. The Premier has refused to ever, ever commit to holding a public inquiry. I say there is overwhelming evidence of the need for a public inquiry. I say that these are more than allegations, that there is evidence of the need for a public inquiry. The Premier has never, ever said he would hold a public inquiry. In my view he is deliberately stonewalling this issue in the hope that it will fade from people's memory. I will remind the Legislature that the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that an inquiry could begin when there are still criminal matters before the courts.

But even then, this bill says that the commission can defer beginning the inquiry if he or she has any concerns about the right to a fair trial for anyone.

What this is all about is that the head of our government has had serious allegations, with considerable evidence, made against him and many members of his cabinet. He is refusing steadfastly to hold a public inquiry into these matters, to even commit to holding a public inquiry. That's what this bill is all about. We want from the Premier an assurance that there will be a public inquiry.

Does anybody here believe there's not sufficient evidence that there should be a public inquiry? Does anyone here believe there's not considerable evidence that we need this fully aired? Does anyone here believe the Premier is not in a direct conflict of interest?

I say to the government members, do the right thing. Have this government commit to an inquiry. Give the government-selected commission the right to begin the inquiry when he or she is satisfied that no one's right to a fair trial is jeopardized.

The Acting Speaker: The disposition of this matter will take place at 12 noon. This House will stand in recess until 11 o'clock when I will retake the chair.

The House recessed from 1052 to 1102.

FOOD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES BANQUES D'ALIMENTATION

Mr Spina moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to ensure that food banks account for donations / Projet de loi 20, Loi visant à assurer que les banques d'alimentation rendent compte des dons.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss an issue of importance to my constituents and I think to many residents across Ontario.

Before I get into the details of discussing the Food Bank Accountability Act, I want to state for the record that I appreciate and understand the hard work and dedication of the thousands of workers and volunteers at food banks across this province. On behalf of government members, I want to say thank you for all your efforts.

I want to encourage all members to contribute to and support these hard-working, legitimate food banks and people in need, especially during this important Christmas season.

If passed, the bill will: require food banks to be corporations without share capital, at least under the current structure of the bill; ensure a food bank uses all donations that it receives for its intended purpose, which, of course, is the needy; require food banks to maintain records that account for all donations of money, food and other things; and make the above records available to the public where requested.

Locally in Brampton, I met with Morris Samson of the Salvation Army, as well as Roger Peddle, the chair of the Red Shield campaign, and Gary Cresswell, their operations manager, to go over my proposed legislation. They're supportive of the bill and its intentions. Of course, there are a few things we can improve upon in the bill, and if it got to the stage of going to committee, then we would certainly be willing to look at aspects to improve the bill.

Our local Salvation Army indicated that as a result of this case, Thanksgiving donations were down, the case being the incident that took place in Brampton back in September and early October, just before Thanksgiving, where a local food bank operator was charged with one count of defrauding the public and accused of taking as much as $250,000 in donations and selling at least 10 skids of food for about $80,000. The allegation, according to the police, was that the donated food was sold to liquidators, small grocery and convenience stores around the GTA and as far away as North Bay.

Constable Harnden from the Peel Regional Police Service said his investigation, started in April, was sparked by information from a similar investigation at a Toronto food bank two years ago.

In October 1999, the operator of the Brampton Food Bank, as I said, was arrested and charged. They indicated that one of the main problems with the unregistered food banks is the lack of government regulation; and indicated that there's a need for government regulation in this industry as a whole. We do have some self-regulation, and I compliment the Ontario Association of Food Banks and the Canadian association, which oversee their members with internal guidelines and rules, such as a ban on bartering, trading and selling of food.

However, the Brampton Food Bank, as many of us know, was not an association member-I will stress that-and was not a registered charity. It is also my understanding that membership in the OAFB is voluntary.

My legislation doesn't call for anything more than what the OAFB already does. I applaud the members of the association for their hard work and diligence in putting these policies in place, and I appreciate the fact that they took the time out of their

schedule to join us today in the members' gallery. However, now it's time for the unregistered food banks to follow similar policies and practices.

When I introduced this bill, there were concerns raised by many people involved in food banks. I met with the association briefly, stating the reasons for introducing the bill. My intention, and I believe it was theirs also, was to find a way to clamp down somehow on the unscrupulous operators. We did not agree on the method of doing that, and I certainly appreciate their perspective.

I will say publicly that I received a letter today, that I know was sent to many members and perhaps there will be some quotes from it today, making clear the position of the Ontario Association of Food Banks, along with the Metro Daily Bread Food Bank, expressing their opposition to the bill. However, I'm very pleased to hear that they offered some alternative recommendations. I think that wherever this bill goes, we should pursue those objectives and those recommendations.

I'd like all food banks to operate under similar rules and regulations that members at the Daily Bread Food Bank and the other members of the OAFB already do. What's not helpful is when members of the opposition began ranting and raving that this is some sort of way for the government to go after food banks. We're going after unscrupulous operators. There are good people out there who donate thousands of hours to help the public.

There are concerns surrounding the timing of this bill, near the busiest season of Christmas, but the fact is that I don't get to choose my private member's time and we're not being asked to pass this law today.

I encourage all members to contribute and support these hard-working, legitimate food banks, especially during this very important Christmas season, and I assure you that I will continue to consult the stakeholders and receive their advice and input on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I'm not very happy to have to stand up and speak about this bill. This is private members' hour. It's a chance for members to do good. This is not such a bill.

I do not for a second take away from the good intentions of the member for Brampton. However, there is an onus on all of us in public office to ensure we do no harm. This bill raises a spectre about organizations that have nothing to do with the intentions the member has.

Talking about food banks and fraudulent organizations in the same breath is simply wrong. It becomes more than wrong, it becomes harmful, when it happens during the Christmas season when 40% of donations to food banks are expected. It is damaging to food banks to have that occur. So I ask the member opposite to withdraw this bill.

I ask you for that because the food bank organizations affected, that serve importantly, are just like any other organization. They're not rejecting in any way the need for regulation, if there's a legitimate need. But in the course of a year, they serve 300,000 vulnerable Ontarians and 120,000 children.

We're talking about people who don't get enough to eat, children and families whose nutrition is deprived through no fault of their own. That may be a new concept to some of the members opposite. The profile of people using food banks: 32% have some college or university education, their last job was six years-not people who haven't paid taxes but people who have made a way for themselves and have found it difficult.

Today the organizations that are their lifeline-temporarily, usually about four times a year, but at the worst time of their lives-are again under attack, giving them less capability. And the reason is because they're being cast in a negative light.

This is not a bill to commend food banks for what they are doing and to work with them to see that illegitimate organizations are gotten rid of. That's not the thrust of the bill. It suggests a lower standard for food banks than exists today, than is endorsed by the Canadian Association of Food Banks. It provides for an inspector to come in and see if these organizations keep records, a terrible, terrible insult to organizations that have all kinds of controls built in.

Further, it doesn't even have a basis to tell between those who falsify accounting records and those who aren't. It doesn't require those organizations to be charities and, in that case, reduces the standards that are required for food banks to operate. In fact, it's so sloppy in its formation that it misses most of the food banks in the province, because they have to be giving out food directly. Most of the large food banks in this province, like food banks in Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton, collect in a large warehouse and then distribute to other organizations. So those food banks are not even mentioned in this.

In fact, the fraudulent organizations, the organizations that should be the focus of this bill, the charities that get away with pretending to be what they weren't would be missed in this bill and, simply by keeping fraudulent records, would be able to continue with the false imprimatur from the government that things are OK.

Simply put, this government has no basis to go after food banks on any grounds whatsoever. Food banks in Ontario are not funded by government. Food banks clean up after government. They clean up after reckless cuts to social assistance that take food off the tables of families. That's what happened. Food bank demand went up. These are interdenominational church groups, people from all parts of this House-there's no partisan reflection on food banks. The current chair of the food bank in Toronto is Alan Redway, a former Conservative cabinet minister.

There has never been that kind of reflection on those organizations. They've grown up as community organizations and, frankly, they see this as a slap in the face. They see this at a time when the police made a mistake in bringing up an organization in Brampton, an organization which incidentally was de-listed by food banks in 1990. If there's any place to look, it's at the public accounts of this province and the need to have a proper public trustee's office to make sure that charities-there's a law there already for charities of any type. One was masquerading as an animal shelter. Why attack food banks?

Why not go after the animal shelter aspect if you really want to get at fraudulent organizations? Because it says "charitable purpose," it doesn't declare that the charitable purpose is feeding the needy, as most food banks do in their charitable objects.

It leaves open the possibility of visiting the homes of food bank officials, anyplace there could be records. This does not reflect a deep and abiding effort to get at the problems that exist in any part of the charitable world.

I do not want to just conclude with this bill. I think this bill is irrelevant to the lives of the people who are helped by food banks, to the people who volunteer at food banks, and the people who support food banks, except in the negative. What I want to celebrate is that many people-individuals, corporations, employee drives-are organizing this Christmas. I would enjoin the members of this House, who are in a situation to do harm, to convert that into something to do good, because the food banks need assistance at this time of year.

There is, for example, an opportunity in Toronto to donate to food banks at any chartered bank between December 13 and January 7. There are all kinds of opportunities.

I just want people to reflect: The fact that people in this country have to beg for food is bad enough. The fact that the organizations that have to provide sometimes small plastic bags of powered milk because there isn't enough food to go around to families for two and three days at a time-the only response, the only thing they hear from Harris government for the whole time it's in office is that one of their members wants them to have to account to the police, to an inspector, and face $25,000 fines.

I suggest this bill brings disgrace to this House, unless the members opposite do the honourable thing, keep to their good intentions, withdraw the bill, talk to the food banks of this province and find a way to do some good.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's an embarrassment that we should be debating this kind of subject matter, that we should be debating this bill as we approach Christmastime, as food banks across this province-big-city food banks, small-town food banks-find their shelves depleted and more and more families and their kids are looking forward to the bleakest and hungriest of Christmas seasons.

I come from the Niagara region, and one of the things that people are saying down there is, "What a remarkable revelation for this government, because at least the bill indicates that they acknowledge the reality of food banks and the huge communities of hungry and homeless people in this province."

This government doesn't want to support the hungry, and it doesn't want to provide comfort and shelter for the homeless. It wants to jail squeegee kids and panhandlers, and now it wants to strangle food banks like the food banks in the city of Welland or in Thorold that operate in small, modest accommodations and which struggle with a small group of volunteers on a daily basis to collect the modest cans and packaged goods that people are lined up for regularly, every single day of the week including Saturdays and Sundays.

Let me tell you, let me tell Mr Spina, the author of this bill, the one who promotes this philosophy: The people lined up at those food banks aren't there to rip off donors. Sadly and tragically, more often than not, they are there with their eyes downcast and fearful of being seen asking for that small package of food that's going to keep their kids' bellies a little fuller that weekend than they would otherwise have been. And the operators of those food banks aren't doing it for profit. In most cases they aren't doing it for any remuneration at all. They are members of the various faith communities.

They're just plain, simple folk who care about their neighbours and who believe we have a responsibility to ensure that kids don't go hungry.

You believe in eliminating red tape when it comes to your corporate buddies and when it comes to environmental polluters. You believe in eliminating red tape for the high-profit corporate industries. But when you've got small groups in small-town Ontario, volunteers working well beyond anything we should expect of them in terms of the amount of hours, the amount of energy and the amount of their efforts to take care of their neighbours, you want to regulate, you want to red tape. Quite frankly, at the end of the day, you want to put many of these operations of out business. You want them to shut down.

You've got an agenda all right. Your agenda consists of jailing the poor, imprisoning the homeless and making sure that hungry kids' faces aren't seen in public places so that the people of Ontario don't have to be reminded of your insensitivity to the poor, your insensitivity to women and to kids and of your callous disregard for the growing poverty in this province while you and your friends accumulate more and more wealth.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 20 that was brought forward by the member from Brampton Centre. The bill, if passed, will require food banks to be corporations without share capital; ensure that a food bank uses all donations that it receives for its intended purpose, the needy; require food banks to maintain records that account for all donations of money, food and other things and make the above records available to the public.

The goal of Mr Spina, the member for Brampton Centre, is simply this: to ensure that the food bank donations can be accounted for. I quote him: "I cannot sit by and watch people in need and the public being ripped off. We should not tolerate people profiting off the backs of the generous public and, more important, the needy."

What I've heard from the other side today is that they share those principles put out by the member from Brampton Centre, but all I've heard from the other side today is this: They're worried about the timing. The timing is their big concern, that this is going to affect food banks and that it's going it impact them. That's really all their concern is, the timing. They're into optics.

The member for Parkdale-High Park says, "It's an insult to keep records." An insult to keep records? The public demands and expects organizations to be properly run. It's not an insult to keep records.

The bottom line is that we have to open a dialogue. I agree with what the member from Welland says, that there should be a dialogue. The bottom line is, the only way to open up a dialogue is the way Mr Spina is opening it here today. There is a dialogue and I think it's high time. Something very serious happened in Brampton; the members on the other side can basically make their criticisms and whatever, but something serious happened in Brampton. That's why the member from Brampton has brought it.

I look at the Ontario Association of Food Banks. They wrote a letter, and I've reviewed it. They have some very serious concerns about this bill. But they also have some alternatives to deal with the problem of fraudulent charities more effectively. They merit serious consideration.

I would just point out two that I want to look at. The first one would be amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada to make it easier to prosecute these cases. They say in brackets, "The police have discussed their frustration in this regard." Do you see the federal Liberals doing anything? Of course not. They don't do anything over there when it deals with protecting the public with respect to criminal matters. You're not going to see any amendments to the Criminal Code from the federal Liberals.

What you're going to see is continued frustration on behalf of the police, and when situations arise, nothing is going to be done. At least the member for Brampton Centre is proposing an option here, an alternative. We don't hear anything from the other side with respect to this. The alternative is legitimate.

The other alternative, being suggested by the Ontario Association of Food Banks, is better enforcement of the existing Revenue Canada rules concerning charitable status. "The St Francis organization was continuing to issue charitable receipts after criminal charges had been laid against its principals and continue to solicit food donations even now when under another name." They make reference to that organization in their letter. That's very serious, obviously.

If you don't have any status as a charity and you're issuing receipts, you're misrepresenting to the public that you are a legitimate organization. That's very serious. The members on the other side should take it as being a very serious matter.

What we have here is a situation where, if Revenue Canada was more diligent in doing their job-another issue with respect to the federal Liberals if they're not doing their job, as usual-

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): We'll get you an audit.

Mr Tascona: I didn't say this. It's coming from the Ontario Association of Food Banks. They're saying the federal government is not doing anything to help the situation. They're undermining the legitimacy of food banks. They're undermining the legitimacy of trying to help people-the federal Liberals, as usual, are undermining the legitimacy of trying to help people. This is coming right from the Ontario Association of Food Banks. It's right here. Read it and understand it. Show some compassion on your side. You never want to do anything with respect to the federal Liberals. It's a do-nothing approach.

The member from Brampton Centre is trying to do something here. He is trying to open up a dialogue with respect to this issue.

I want to refer directly to the bill because I've read the bill, unlike some of the members across the way. The definition of "food bank": "means an agency that receives donations of food and distributes the food for free directly to people in need; ... "

One of the charitable objects of the bill, in

section 4, is that, "A food bank shall use all donations it receives for the food bank's charitable objects." I'll repeat that because the other side is getting a little bit too noisy.

Section 4: "A food bank shall use all donations it receives for the food bank's charitable objects." That's a tremendous objective.

The requirement for records: "A food bank shall maintain financial records and records accounting for inventory, ... in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and ... in accordance with prescribed standards, if any."

What is wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr Smitherman: Red tape for food banks.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Toronto-Centre-Rosedale.

Mr Tascona: The member for Toronto-Centre-Rosedale is talking about red tape. We're talking about accountability. There would be accountability and there would be greater ease with respect to the police in this issue if the federal Liberals did-they do nothing.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton East.

Mr Tascona: What we have right here is that the food banks association indicates that their organization adheres to a strict code of ethics. They don't think there's a necessity for food banks to keep good records and audited financial statements because it's done. All we're saying is that we want to make sure everybody does it. I think it's a laudable objective that Mr Spina is putting forth, that we have financial accountability. After all, the public, out of the generosity of their hearts, is giving food to these organizations and they expect it to be used properly. They expect it to go to the needy.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): What evidence do you have-

Mr Tascona: The bottom line is that all we're hearing from the member from Hamilton is that he's talking as usual because he protects the federal Liberals because they do nothing. He likes the status quo: Do nothing and don't have any accountability. But I'll say this: The member from Brampton Centre is trying to do something and I support him.

Mr Agostino: I'm angered that we're even having this debate this morning. I think my colleague from Parkdale earlier explained what is wrong with this bill, the fundamentals and the contents, or lack of, in this bill. But I think what is even more insulting is the blatant, brutal attack that this bill-it is not only on food banks. Let me suggest that thousands of volunteers and staff work at food banks. Let me suggest that it's a brutal attack on the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who donate to food banks. Let me suggest that, worst of all, it's another brutal attack on the poor of this province who need and rely on food banks.

This is a disgusting bill. It does nothing to deal with the problems of food banks. It does nothing to deal with the problems of poverty. But once again this government and these members who are defending this bill continue to use it as another wedge issue to beat up on the poor. If you're poor in this province, it's a crime. If you're poor in this province under this government, you should be punished. I love this. Proper use of food collected: Where the hell do you think the food is going to? Do you think the workers take it home?

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm becoming continually annoyed and concerned with the language that is being used in the Legislature. I would humbly ask you to consider the words just used by my colleague opposite and rule whether that is appropriate parliamentary language.

The Acting Speaker: I agree that the language being used is bordering on being unparliamentary. The member would be wise to use more appropriate expressions. Perhaps the member would want to withdraw that word. If not, I think he can continue but consider yourself to be warned.

Mr Agostino: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

What this bill is all about is nothing more than a blatant, sleazy attack on every food bank and every user of food banks in this province. There are organizations-St Matthew's House, in my riding, works out of a church basement. It collects food and distributes it to the single moms of my riding who, because of this government's actions, the third week of the month have no money, no food and are forced to turn to food banks in order to feed their kids. That's what this attack is on.

It's an attack on the Neighbour to Neighbour food bank on the mountain in Hamilton, which does the same thing and feeds thousands of families every week who have no money, who run out of money because of what this government has done and their policies.

Instead of using this time as an opportunity to help food banks, to encourage food bank drives, the message we're sending out through this bill and through this government's actions is that somehow food banks are bad, that somehow food banks are wrong, that somehow food banks are misusing their donations. How does that encourage people to donate to food banks? How does that include-

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): When was Neighbour to Neighbour founded?

Mr Agostino: I'm sorry, I'm hearing the former Liberal from Stoney Creek mumbling something there about the poor people in his riding.

What this government should be doing is finding ways of helping food banks. There isn't one cent of government money that goes into food banks. Why are people relying, since 1995, in such greater numbers on food banks? Maybe it's something to do with the fact that you've cut welfare benefits to 500,000 kids by 22% since you took office. Maybe it's the fact that you've changed the rules to kick many of these folks off welfare and on to shelters and on to the streets.

Why don't you look at yourself in the mirror and understand and realize what you've done to the poor in Ontario; why people are relying on food banks now in greater numbers than ever in one of most booming economic times in the history of this province? It's because of what you have done to attack the poor.

I'm angry because this is a blatant, brutal attack that was not necessary, at a time when food banks are looking for the greatest drive of the year, at a time when food banks want to make sure that the kids have food for Christmas. Most of us can't relate to or understand that, but there are a lot of Ontarians who go through that every single day.

I would urge this government, I would urge this member to support the food banks, to support the good people who work at food banks, the Ontarians who donate to food banks, the people who use the food banks while we're drawing up this cheap, sleazy piece of cheap political legislation that does nothing to help food banks or poor people in Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): How low can members of this government force us to stoop in this House? What are we doing here today, debating this odious bill when we know that every month up to 125,000 people in the GTA must use emergency food programs, of which 50,000 are children? What we should be doing here today, I say to Mr Spina, is having a constructive debate about how we can help those people and how we can make sure that people don't go hungry in this province. That's what we should be here to do.

Rather than trying to deal with the causes of hunger, this government has chosen to attack food banks when we should be having a debate on how to eliminate hunger. At the same time that a member of this government would support, I'm sad to see, is talking about cutting red tape across the board for everybody else, business and industry, it's red tape when it comes to that. Here it's accountability when we're talking about the food bank sector. Different strokes for different folks.

This is a direct attack on the caring people in our society, most of whom are volunteers who are doing their best to pick up the slack where governments are falling down. I want to emphasize here that there's nothing new in this. Rather than looking at the issue of poverty and seeking solutions, this government vilifies those afflicted by poverty by welfare-bashing constantly, and by picking on homeless youth who are trying to earn money, and by getting rid of any kind of affordable housing in this province.

The mere existence of this bill stands to undermine public confidence in food banks. Perhaps the member is sincere when he says he didn't mean to do that, but it's very clear by now that that is what's happening. I wish that he had withdrawn this bill today so we wouldn't be disgraced in this way.

The introduction of this bill during the holiday season makes matters much worse. The reputation of food banks is being questioned at a time when those organizations are conducting the food drives that are so necessary to stock their shelves for the winter ahead.

Let's think about this for a moment. Food banks are the creation of caring members of society who realize that everybody has a right and in fact a need to eat. That's all. The only reason for their existence is to feed hungry people. So how can you possibly justify this attack today? Because that's what it is. It may not appear that way to you, Mr Spina, but that is what it is. I would urge you to withdraw the bill. You said, and you acknowledge, that you had a letter with constructive ideas for other ways to deal with accountability. Nobody disagrees that there should be accountability; in fact, there are laws already in place to deal with accountability.

I do want to say that there are people here today from the food bank sector. Some other people came later so I don't have all the names, but Sue Cox, Julia Banks, Devi Arasanayagan, Paula Thiessen, Loren Freid, Jim Russell and others are with us today. I want to take this moment to not only acknowledge their presence and their swift reaction to this odious attack on the work that they're doing, but for all the work that they've been doing, not only in feeding the homeless but by constantly and relentlessly bringing to the attention of the legislators and the public what a terrible crisis we have in Ontario right now with homeless people and hungry people, many of whom are children.

Mr Spina, I appeal to you right now to stand up and withdraw this bill and work with the people who are here today, and if there is a need for a little further accountability, to come up with some reasonable suggestions. Do that, Mr Spina, and get us out of this disgraceful debate that we're having today.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It's a pleasure for me to speak today on the Food Bank Accountability Act, Bill 20. I applaud the member for Brampton Centre for initiating a bill that I believe is long overdue. I have a great deal of concern for those folks who are across who are speaking out against this bill. Do these people not believe in accountability? Do they have something to hide? Is the contributing public being taken advantage of? After what you saw happened in Brampton, do they condone theft? I get very concerned for that. In today's society, those who do things right have absolutely nothing to worry about.

In my riding of Peterborough there are anywhere from 14 to 15 or 16 food banks of various sizes; some are sponsored and registered charities and others are not. I think groups like the Salvation Army, the various church groups and the YWCA are getting concerned that legitimacy in various areas of this province with regard to food banks could be compromised. I believe complete accountability, having been in business for many years, is a necessity that must happen.

Over the last number of years, as more and more food banks endeavour to get additional support, the contributors are questioning their authenticity. Many food banks are encouraging the public to donate money and you have seen them collecting, whether it be on the street corners or at the liquor stores-whatever. People are very concerned and they are now questioning the fact that as they give cash dollars, records are not being kept well. I believe the public has the right to know; if their dollars are being given, they should have access to records and they should have access to make sure there is that complete accountability.

Certainly accountability to ourselves is very important. I also believe accountability to various programs is indeed very important. If that accountability is not there, I am afraid that food banks and other charitable organizations that are needed these days will start to deteriorate because the public will not contribute.

These days, unfortunately, in our society there are a great many scams and much fraudulent activity going on. The public, needless to say, is becoming more and more aware of theses types of illegitimate activity, and I believe the public wants accountability. I would suggest that all the food banks would endorse this type of legislation, certainly those who feel they should be accountable.

In the riding there have been rumours of various inefficiencies over the years. Granted, they are rumours, but rumours will lead to reductions and to less support for them. Let's squelch those rumours by making sure that the rules and regulations are in place to make sure that everybody is accountable.

It's interesting to note that in other jurisdictions they do have that accountability, they do have centralized control, they do have controlled distribution. I'd like to mention a couple of them; one especially is the state of Virginia. They have some very major rules that I believe could be used here:

That they hold current tax-exempt, non-profit status from the Internal Revenue Service.

That they provide food directly to the needy, ill or children in the form of meals or food boxes as an ongoing part of their program.

That they have regular days of operation.

That emergency food pantries must have been providing food assistance to people in need for at least three months prior to date of application.

That agencies serving cooked meals must process a current certificate of approval from the local public health authority. I think that is so very important, that we have food safety both in handling and in storage. We want to make sure that the food is healthy and that it is nutritious.

That they must not require any money, property or services from individuals in exchange for food.

That they must have proper storage space for the safekeeping of food products.

I think those are the kinds of regulations, as well as the accountability and records etc, that should be mandatory in this province. But I also want to make one other comment; that is, not only do we constantly increase the availability or the number of food banks, but we should also be looking at ways to help people help themselves. I compliment a number of organizations in Peterborough that have organized community gardens, that have organized collective kitchens, that have a program called Hearts Alive Gleaning. They also have food box programs.

Again I suggest that we have to concentrate on helping those help themselves, because without that, we will be reliant on food banks for the next many, many years, and I don't think the people need that. I think they want to learn new ways of helping to process food, how to create their own food and how to grow their own food.

There's absolutely no doubt that we have to help the needy, but we also must protect the public who are giving funds and the dollars and the product to make sure that these food banks work. I'm a great believer in accountability, as I said, whether it's to ourselves or to others. I suggest to the member from Brampton Centre that this initiative should be in a complimentary fashion rather than those that I believe are condemning-well, actually condemn everything in society, and I do feel extremely sorry for them.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): If this really is private members' hour, then any member can bring forward anything he or she feels important. But before you do that, I think it's very important to do research, to involve the communities most directly affected, and I believe there's where the weakness of this bill is.

I suggest to the member from Brampton Centre that had he conferred, discussed and interacted with the people who are directly involved, some of whom are here today and others who have written you, you would not have brought this bill forward. There's the weakness of a government that doesn't involve the people who are most directly involved in something. There's the weakness of this bill.

For that reason, I think the opposition is asking for the right thing to be done, for the bill to be withdrawn. But the reality is that this bill is not going to be withdrawn. I would have only hoped that the member from Brampton Centre would have addressed the needs that he wants to try to get across, that he isn't getting across because he hasn't listened to the Ontario Association of Food Banks.

He didn't listen to the Sudbury Food Bank chair either, when he wrote the member and suggested that the best thing that could happen is the withdrawal of this bill, that in fact he put the resources that this bill would create-and let me tell you and let the people of Ontario know that if this bill were to pass, there would be an enormous bureaucracy built up. An enormous cost would have to be incurred to ensure that volunteers do their job the way this government wants.

Let me deal with the Inner City Home in Sudbury that's run by Mary Ali. The stats as of November 30, as of the end of this past month, indicate that they assisted 10,534 people. Of those, 3,628 were children; 4,600 families were assisted; 6,906 adults were assisted. Imagine for a second the bureaucracy, the red tape that would have to be created to number, to verify that so many cans of dented tuna went out to the needy. Imagine the bureaucracy that would grow. Imagine the penalty in this bill: If you make a mistake and you're a small food bank, you get fined $5,000 and a possible prison term.

It is ridiculous to suggest that this bill does anything except beat up, again, on not only the most needy but those people who want to assist the most needy to ensure that they have something to eat every single, solitary day.

There was an excellent editorial in Northern Life. It suggested that it's time to close food banks; that government should ensure, the way their tax dollars are spent, that food banks would be able to be closed as opposed to being mandated to govern, to create red tape, to be bureaucratic, to punish those who wish to help people.

I'd like to quote briefly from this article. "How's this for a Christmas card message at the end of the millennium: Our tax dollars should be spent wisely and humanely." I would suggest to you that this bill is neither wise nor humane, and that's why everyone in this House should vote against it.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have some grave concerns about this bill as well in that it does a couple of things, from my perspective. Some may or may not know that before I came to this place I, with the help of literally hundreds of others in my community, set up and ran a soup kitchen. I have to tell you what this bill would have done to us at that time and what it will do to others across this province if it becomes the law of the land, is it will inhibit and it will put a chill effect into any of these groups.

All these groups want to do, all we wanted to do when we set up the soup kitchen in Sault Ste Marie, was to become a conduit. There were people in the community that we knew had the wherewithal, had extra food to provide to those who didn't, and we were the conduit.

They gave us the stuff and we gave it out. It was as simple as that. No bureaucracy, no big reporting mechanism, no board of directors, no meeting after meeting after meeting. It was simply hundreds of people gathering in the basement of a church, taking food from those who felt that they had enough to give and giving it to those who didn't. I have to say to you that this bill, if passed today, will put a chill effect into that work that goes on that is so important, particularly in these days when the poor are struggling so badly in this province.

The other thing that concerns me about the bill is its attempt to criminalize, again, the poor in this province. They've done it over and over again in the four years that they've been in government. With this bill, they are now going to dump the people who actually provide services to the poor into that same bag.

I object to that and say that it's wrong and it's bad, and I won't be supporting it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to stand up and recognize the member from Brampton Centre and the legislation he has brought forward in private members' hour.

That being said, there has been debate whether or not this is an appropriate time and purpose in the legislation. But I think my purpose in standing is to pay respect to the many volunteers-

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'm sorry, but your caucus is out of time. It was my mistake.

Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was watching the clock as I spoke because I wanted to make sure that my colleague had enough time to put his thoughts on the record and we actually had over four minutes on the clock.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton West.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Let me say at the outset that I honestly don't believe that Mr Spina is trying to be cruel, or mean, or do something that might appear to be evil deliberately. But I say very directly that that is the effect of what you're doing if you allow this to go through. I'm going to begin and end on the same note as some of my colleagues and ask you, over the next few moments, to please consider withdrawing the bill.

If you're serious about what you want to accomplish, there are representatives from the food bank community. I'm sure we could find opposition members who are prepared to sit down and try to do something on a non-partisan basis that would achieve what you want without doing the absolutely incredible, horrific, collateral damage that's being done by virtue of you putting this on the floor.

If you don't do that and you have enough of your colleagues stand up and force this through today, you have done something that borders on evil because what you've done is sent out a message about food banks that isn't true.

You're leaving the impression that there's all kinds of fraud going on and all kinds of problems out there with food banks and that's why, boy, you're going to step in and crack down again. That's not the case. In fact, this bill wouldn't even deal directly with the issue that spurred this in the first place.

You are ignoring the fact that it's your government that cut the income of the poorest of the poor by 22%. Who do you think is using these food banks? The people that you've pushed to the margins of society. And while you-and you supported it-while your government cut the income of the poorest of the poor by 22%, we know from the release of the Growing Gap that the top 10 CEOs in Canada, the majority of them centred here in Ontario, had a 56% increase in their compensation. We're talking millions of dollars.

Whether you know it or not, member, you're leaving the impression in my community of Hamilton that perhaps Joanne Santucci, someone I happen to know personally and can speak to her credibility and commitment, who is the executive director of the Greater Hamilton Food Share program, and all the groups that work with her-Good Shepherd Centre, Neighbour to Neighbour Centre, Wesley Urban Ministries, Mission Services of Hamilton, St Matthew's House, Operation Blessing, Welcome Inn, Salvation Army. Tell me which of those you think is committing fraud. What is so disturbing about this is that you don't even know.

You're so insensitive to the plight of those who need food banks that all you can do when you finally admit they exist is to say, "We've got to crack down," like there's some kind of mafia deal going on here.

This is despicable in terms of the message that's going out of this place today, and the only way to make it right is for you to stand up today and withdraw this bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton Centre has two minutes to reply.

Mr Spina: I want to thank all the members for their comments, agreeable or disagreeable. It's interesting to note that they seem to think that the use of my name should be an insult. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm proud of my name and of my heritage.

The interesting thing is that the member for Parkdale-High Park, who ran a major food bank out west and then came to Toronto-you know, I wonder what planet these guys are on. I didn't hear him talk at any time about turning back part of his six-figure salary into helping the food bank operate better.

Mr Kennedy: It wasn't six-figure. Point of privilege.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Stop the clock. Members will take their seats.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Sit down. The clock will remain stopped while we take some points of order. The member for Hamilton East.

Mr Agostino: I will defer to the member for High Park.

The Acting Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Speaker, the member opposite is impugning a member of this House, raising completely inaccurate information. I ask that member to withdraw that information, because I believe it compromises both the order of this House and my privilege.

The Acting Speaker: Will the member withdraw?

Mr Spina: I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Broadview-Greenwood.

Ms Churley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've sat in your shoes and I know it's difficult, but our NDP caucus lost about a minute on the clock and-

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'm not aware that that happened. If it did, I'm sorry, but what's done is done. Now, the member for Brampton Centre.

Mr Spina: The member for Parkdale-High Park made an interesting point, which I think is good. He said the particular bank that was errant, where the charges were laid, was delisted in 1990. I understand that, but the criminal part of it is that this food bank, even though delisted by the association, was able to continue operating for another eight or nine years. The point of it is that, with due respect to the Ontario association, there are 90 members. There are between 400 and 600 food banks in this province. As the member has indicated, we're not looking to chase after the church food bank.

What are they going to do? They're going to have to close. If they're affiliated with a recognized charitable organization, they're fine.

I ask the people to support the bill. I ask the public to please ensure that when they make donations this Christmas-

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 CONCERNANT LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 3. Mr Phillips has moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about events at Ipperwash Provincial Park leading to the death of Dudley George.

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will take the other vote.

FOOD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES BANQUES D'ALIMENTATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Spina has moved ballot item number 10, second reading of Bill 20,

An Act to ensure that food banks account for donations.

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 CONCERNANT LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Members take their seats, please.

Mr Phillips has moved second reading of Bill3. All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 41; the nays are 46.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost. There will be a 30-second moment where people may enter or leave the chamber.

FOOD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DES BANQUES D'ALIMENTATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Spina has moved second reading of Bill 20.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Clement, Tony

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Sampson, Rob

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Stockwell, Chris

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 24; the nays are 55.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and will return at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The people in my city and my community grow continually concerned about the direction that the restructuring is taking. In fact, in a letter written by the greater city chamber of commerce in Sudbury to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the chair suggested, "It is unconscionable to expect the taxpayers of the Sudbury area to bear this load"-of transitional costs-"when other communities in the province that have undergone similar amalgamation have received grants from the province." To do so is to show that this government "is not only unfair and biased, but demonstrates partiality and inequity."

That's a concern of the chamber of commerce in Sudbury. That concern was echoed last night at regional council. Unanimously, they passed a resolution asking this government to ensure that transitional costs are picked up by the government. They also passed a resolution, unanimously, to ask and petition the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to ensure that French-language services are enhanced and expanded in the city of greater Sudbury.

To make it simple for the government, we want no less treatment than any other person in this province.

IZETTA HOBBS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On this, the day we celebrate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I think it's important that we put some skin on the bones of that very important document and talk about some of the people who have lived their lives accordingly and were inspired by that and other documents of its sort.

In Sault Ste Marie, recently we lost just such a person in Izetta Hobbs, a woman who in Sault Ste Marie exuded all those very important Canadian characteristics: humility, courage, sense of humour, compassion and generosity.

In Sault Ste Marie, the contribution of Izetta Hobbs was recognized in many ways. She was founder of Big Sisters in our community. She was founding member of the Heart Foundation, the Canadian Hearing Society. She belonged to the Order of Royal Purple. She took leadership in the United Way and just recently, before she passed away, was very active in the development of the teen centre-in fact, Sault Ste Marie's oldest teenager.

It's so important that we remember people like Izetta, who was recognized by our Governor General as one of Canada's caring Canadians, by the province of Ontario with the Senior Achievement Award, with Sault Ste Marie's Medal of Merit, with the United Way of Canada's Chair of Distinction award and as the Business and Professional Woman of the Decade.

As we search for the heart and soul of this wonderful country we call Canada, let's remember the spirit and drive of Izetta. Let's be inspired by her great sense of generosity, compassion and community.

HANUKKAH

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Today is the sixth day of Hanukkah, the festival of light, a joyous holiday celebrated by Jews around the world. Hanukkah is an eight-day celebration within the Jewish community. It is a celebration where family, warmth and light are central images.

History tells us that the Greek kings outlawed the Jewish religion and forbade the study of Jewish law.

The desecration of the Temple of Jerusalem represented a continuation of the effort to erase Judaism. The Maccabees led a revolt against their oppressors in defence of their faith. They were successful in regaining control of the temple. This represented the first miracle.

The sacred lamp that was to burn eternally in the temple only had enough oil to burn for one day but continued to burn for eight days, representing the second miracle of Hanukkah.

Hanukkah was observed in the concentration camps and ghettos of eastern Europe. The interred remembered how God helped the Maccabees fight their enemies. Using margarine from their daily rations as oil and a spoon as a menorah, the prisoners were able to celebrate the festival of light. As the Hanukkah light burned, it kindled a glimmer of hope. If God had provided a miracle to the Maccabees, then perhaps another miracle could save them.

Today Jews around the world celebrate Hanukkah with different traditions and customs, but the message remains clear. The values of freedom, religious tolerance, hope, peace, community and family are passed from generation to generation. As Canadians, we are fortunate to live in a land where these freedoms can be celebrated and enjoyed.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to talk again about the ongoing health care crisis existing in Hamilton-Wentworth. Yesterday I mentioned in the Legislature that in the last two months 25% of the time the emergency departments were on critical care bypass-over 1,000 hours in two months. Let me update the House on what's happening at this point.

As of today, the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals are at a 98% occupancy rate. As of this morning, 42 patients are waiting in the hallways of Hamilton hospitals to be admitted to a bed, waiting in emergency departments.

There are 175 people in long-term-care beds who should be in a long-term-care facility, not in a hospital ward-175 people occupying beds because we don't have long-term-care facilities.

This government announced 600 beds as of last year. As of today, not one of those 600 beds has been built. Therefore the crisis continues and continues. As of this morning, three of the four hospitals in the city of Hamilton were on redirect, and this minister yesterday had the gall to stand up in the House and brag about how much money they have put into the system, brag about how well they have done.

Why don't we tell that to the hundreds of patients who are being turned away? Why don't we tell that to the 42 patients who have been stacked in the hallways in emergency departments because we can't get beds for them? It's a disgraceful record of a disgraceful government that has abandoned health care, abandoned Hamilton and abandoned patients. Frankly, they are risking the lives of Ontarians every single day by their arrogance and inaction in health care in this community.

QUITCARE PROGRAM

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): Quitting smoking can be a very difficult task. That's why I would like to inform the House about the Homewood Behavioural Health Corp's program called QuitCare.

QuitCare was developed through years of clinical research along with input from smokers themselves. This program is part of our government's $19-million commitment to prevention of smoking programs for the year 1999-2000, a $10-million increase over the year before. Homewood was granted $354,000 to pilot this concept.

Our government is working hard to assist people to stop smoking and discourage others from starting. This is an investment in promoting not only better health for smokers, but preventing disease and offering opportunities to reduce overall health care costs.

QuitCare is available free of charge to over 1,000 smokers in Waterloo, Wellington and Dufferin counties. For those interested, they may contact the following number: 1-888-710-1111.

My congratulations to all involved in yet another innovative program underway in Guelph-Wellington.

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO / MÉMENTO DU MILLÉNAIRE

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): I take great pleasure in rising today to recognize and praise the students of Canterbury High School. Last week these students, as well as other students in the Ottawa area, took the initiative and blew the whistle on the Harris government. They launched an ambitious, region-wide campaign to alert the public to the government's misuse of taxpayers' money, over $2 million, to send students a millennium memento, the booklet My Ontario Millennium Memento.

Tandis que les programmes d'art dans leur école, Canterbury High School, sont menacés par les coupures budgétaires imposées par le gouvernement, l'argent des contribuables est dépensé sur ce livre souvenir. Les étudiants et les étudiantes sont inquiets de cet état de choses.

They are concerned that money is being spent on a keepsake while they do not have the textbooks they need to complete the new curriculum. These are students who have taken an interest in the political process, spotted a wrong and made a determined effort to have their voices heard. We must be proud of them.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today to applaud a young student from my riding. Jenna O'Connor, a grade 7 student in Peterborough, is the author of a poem which appears in the My Ontario Millennium Memento book. As the MPP for Peterborough, I would like to tell the members of this Legislature how proud I am of the accomplishment of students like Jenna.

I compliment the 80-plus young people who contributed to the publication of My Ontario Millennium Memento. The enthusiasm and vision of our young Ontarians in making their contribution to a keepsake book that will become history in the future is commendable. Our children dream dreams to shape our future.

This book is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity where students can record some of their life experiences. It will become a lasting legacy of the millennium and something that can be passed on to future generations. It exhibits originality, creativity and innovation and shows diversity.

Student excellence should be shown, and is evident in this publication. Let's say thanks, let's say congratulations, let's say, "Well done, young Ontarians, we are proud of you. Your plans will make your visions a reality." This publication was created for our future and by our future: young Ontarians. In the words of Jenna O'Connor, "So that in the future, we will pass the torch to our daughters and our sons."

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Over 40% of the population of southwestern Ontario is considered to be living in rural areas. Since its election in 1995, the Mike Harris government has walked further and further away from rural Ontario.

This government has centralized services rather than providing smaller communities with some control over their own affairs. This government has closed their offices in small communities, forcing people to travel to get the services that used to be just around the corner. This government treats people in rural Ontario like second-class citizens.

Rural Ontarians have a much more difficult time trying to find a doctor, thanks to the shortage this government has failed to solve. Rural schools are being closed. The downloading on municipalities means a rise in user fees, erasing the gains made by your so-called tax cuts. Family support regional offices are gone, and families and children have to do their work by phone. Last week the government betrayed the province's farmers by closing the regional offices in southwestern Ontario. They have slashed over $8 million from the OMAFRA budget.

Now we see the Harris government threatening to pull out of the federal-provincial farm assistance program. The ministers in other provinces are worried that Ontario will pull up the stakes and abandon the interprovincial agreements.

I guess the Premier is too busy worrying about the squeegee kids in this province to think about rural Ontario. The government's answer to rural Ontario is, "Call 1-800."

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): I would like to speak about something the Liberals attempted to make an election issue several months ago: the debt and the deficit. Actually, I'm glad the Liberals tried to talk about fiscal responsibility, because everyone in Ontario knows that they have no credibility when it comes to this issue.

I remember the Liberals saying how the Mike Harris government would have been able to balance the budget sooner had we not cut personal income tax rates in our province. But we all know that tax revenues have increased. So their argument is quite amusing, but sad as well. Does anyone in Ontario really believe that a tax-and-spend Liberal government would have been able to pay off the debt? I don't think so, and neither did the people of Ontario.

I've heard the tired story many times myself, how back in 1989 it was the Liberal government that introduced Ontario's last balanced budget. But let's look at the facts. In 1989 the Liberals actually predicted a deficit of $577 million. It was the federal government that made an adjustment in personal income tax revenue that gave Ontario an extra $882 million. An extra $882 million means we should expect a surplus of $305 million, right? Wrong. Liberal economics meant $270 million was wasted, and Ontario had a momentary budget surplus of only $35 million.

Does anyone expect the Liberals to be able to balance a budget in this province? I don't think so. Their fairy tales of fiscal responsibility are simply false, and, Dalton McGuinty, no one is being fooled.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHRISTOPHER'S LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY), 1999 / LOI CHRISTOPHER DE 1999 SUR LE REGISTRE DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act, in memory of Christopher Stephenson, to establish and maintain a registry of sex offenders to protect children and communities / Projet de loi 31, Loi à la mémoire de Christopher Stephenson visant à créer et à tenir un registre des délinquants sexuels en vue de protéger les enfants et les collectivités.

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (YOUTH PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE)

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to require a driver's licence to be suspended if a motor vehicle is used when purchasing sexual services from a child / Projet de loi 32, Loi modifiant le Code de la route pour exiger la suspension du permis de conduire d'une personne si elle utilise un véhicule automobile alors qu'elle achète des services sexuels d'un enfant.

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

The member for Sudbury for a short explanation.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It will be a short explanation. It's a Highway Traffic Amendment Act, a youth protection act.

Section 41 of the Highway Traffic Act provides for the suspension of a driver's licence of a person who is convicted of committing offences while using a motor vehicle. The suspension is for one year for a first conviction. The bill adds to the list of offences in subsection 1(4) the offence under subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada relating to purchasing the sexual services of a person who is under the age of 18 years.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): It is with pleasure that I rise today in the Legislature to make a commitment on behalf of our government about the future of our children with special needs.

Earlier today I was joined in Mississauga at the Erinoak children's treatment centre by some of these families. We cannot begin to know just how difficult nor how challenging their lives are, nor can we know how every day can bring with it a new hurdle to be cleared. But we do know that these families teach us all about the true meaning of dedication, strength and courage. As a result, the success these children achieve brings joy and pride into everyone's heart.

We are providing an additional $7 million for respite services. This new funding will increase respite care by as many as 175 hours per year for each of the 1,700 families caring for children who are medically fragile or technologically dependent.

Today I am also announcing four community initiatives that will look at best practices in order to improve the delivery of services to medically fragile and technologically dependent children being cared for at home.

Simcoe county, Halton-Peel, Thunder Bay and Ottawa are the locations which have been selected for these integrated services initiatives. Clearly integration is a key to helping our special needs children realize their potential. By linking social, health, educational and recreational services together, we can create a model that can result in improved access for these families.

Today, we are also announcing $4 million in new annual funding for children's treatment centres. This funding will help improve access to health services for children with special needs and their families across Ontario, who count on these centres.

All children are a priority for our government. That is why we must, above all else, continue to listen, to support and to communicate with children who have special needs and with all those involved in the daily lives of these children.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): Earlier today I introduced a bill that would, if passed, provide stronger, more comprehensive legislation to establish a provincial sex offender registry, the first of its kind in Canada.

Ontario's new bill would include the following features:

Sex offenders would be required to register with their local police service within 15 days of their release from custody. This means that police will have information on the location of sex offenders on probation or parole.

Individuals who the courts have determined have committed sex offences but who receive absolute or conditional discharges would also be required to register.

Police would have the power to arrest sex offenders who break this law. Police would be able to obtain warrants electronically on short notice.

This bill would also require convicted sex offenders residing in Ontario to register their names and addresses with the police in their communities and to update that information on an annual basis or any time their address changes. This means that Ontario will be the first province to give police the ability to track the whereabouts of sex offenders. The information would be placed in a sex offender registry maintained by the Ontario Provincial Police and would be accessible to local police services.

The provincial government, under regulations pursuant to the Community Safety Act, has already given local police services the authority to disclose the names of sex offenders to protect the public. The sex offender registry is one way of assuring that local police become aware of sex offenders who may move into their communities.

When this legislation was first introduced last spring, we were still hopeful that the federal Liberal government would create a national sex offender registry providing protection for all Canadians. Since it is now clear that the federal government will not accept its responsibility in this matter, Ontario will do what is right and act to protect its citizens.

The proposed sex offender registry legislation would continue to be known as Christopher's Law in memory of Christopher Stephenson, an 11-year-old boy abducted and brutally murdered by a convicted pedophile who was on federal parole when he committed this crime.

I'm also pleased at this time to advise the House that Anna and Jim Stephenson are with us today in the gallery. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that others may be spared the fate of their son, and I thank them for their efforts and their support. Also in the gallery is Wendy Carroll, who is also an advocate for victims. I thank all three for being here today.

This government is committed to making Ontario a safer place. Christopher's Law would contribute to that goal, which I believe is a goal shared by the members of this Legislature. It would not only send a clear message to those who would prey unto the vulnerable members of our society but also honour Christopher Stephenson and others who have been victimized by sex predators.

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I'd like to respond to the announcement by the minister responsible for children. The minister would like us to see this as a great leap forward, but it is indicative of a timid and half-hearted commitment to the welfare of children when we have one small step forward today on top of four steps back.

Let's look at it directly. There's an announcement of $7 million when in fact the need was identified over two years ago as being $13 million for the special services at home program; $4 million for child treatment centres that have already been cut back, that have been languishing for years, unable to respond to the increased needs of the deinstitutionalization of families.

As we look at the pilot projects this government talks about, committing itself to today, we can only contrast that with the findings of the Fraser Mustard-McCain report last year. Everyone in this House knows that we have information today that could make a substantial difference in the lives of all the children of this province. Instead, special-needs families have to beg all over the place, as they have in this House in the last number of weeks, for the services just to recognize their obvious and ostensible needs.

Minister, we haven't heard enough from you about the well-being of children, because that should be front and centre of your government's agenda. Instead, we have sidebar announcements. There's $106 million that has been cut from special-needs funding in this province for education. You should be advocating for that money. Those families are advocating, the selfsame families that made use of that health care money that you're announcing today.

In fact, you should be advocating for a coordinated system so that those families-you so aptly remarked on their courage and their struggle for what most parents in this province can take for granted. Instead, Minister, what they want from you is to see that they don't get penalized by community and social-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order, please. Member, continue.

Mr Kennedy: -these families receive enough understanding from the government, through you, Minister, so that they don't get penalized going from one ministry to the other as they try to get the basic essentials for their children, because it's simply not happening.

A member opposite asked for a commitment on the part of the Liberals. We made a commitment of $15 million to the special services at home funding two years ago. Minister, the need is greater today. What they need to hear from you, loudly and clearly and on a frequent basis, is what those needs are. Frankly, taking the money away that we've taken from children in this province, the money you've cut from social services, millions and billions of dollars off the plates of poor children, simply doesn't square with the little bit of sprinkling you've done today. We welcome it, but we want a lot more for our province's children.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I will be responding to the Solicitor General's introduction of his bill. I want to tell him in a solemn way that I stand to respond inasmuch to the bill itself called Christopher's Law. I want to express to the family my personal prayers and sympathies. I would also extend them from the caucus and indeed I would feel free to say to the family from the entire House how saddened we were with this news. I did not personally know the family, but any such loss is a tragedy in our province today.

I speak also in favour of the bill to let the minister know that any law that can protect our children and any law that speaks to the goodness of our population is accepted on this side.

I want to also indicate to you that it's a good signal to the police and to the investigators who are involved in these cases, to give them the ammunition they need to wipe out this tragedy that's happening in our province.

With those words spoken, I would offer to you a hand out, as I promised to do. My hand out to you is a bill that was just offered to us by the member from Sudbury to discuss and to clearly indicate our commitment as well that the Highway Traffic Act,

section 41, be amended, and we ask for your support in ensuring that children under 18 years of age are protected to a degree that I know you feel as well.

In our discussions, I did point out, Solicitor General, that 1995 is a long time ago when it comes to putting these kinds of bills on the books; 1995 required action then. I would challenge all of us in this House that when these types of bills are available we do nothing else but expedite their passage and that we do nothing else but put the needs of Ontario children first and that we do nothing else but ensure that the population of Ontario understands very clearly that we are acting in their best interests.

Finally, I would also suggest and respectfully ask of the government to stop the fed-bashing, to stop blaming the federal government for inaction. It's time for us to hold our hand out and make this country better than what we already know it is.

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the minister responsible for children's issues, this is a welcome announcement in that anything that makes the lives of these children better is to be welcomed, but it's not nearly enough and the minister knows that. In a government that has done so much to hurt children, this is a drop in the bucket. This minister has such a pathetic reputation for advocating for children within the government that children continue to be put at risk, and we've got a Premier who thinks child poverty statistics are hogwash.

There are still lots of children with special needs who can't get their needs met in the classroom because of your cuts to educational assistants. Look at their long-term-care regulations that limit care to two hours a day and take away any flexibility that community care access centres might have in addressing real needs. Children are suffering in a major way from this decision. Your welfare cuts are hurting children in a major way.

Your recent cut to child care puts another 8,500 child care spaces at risk in Toronto alone, and you've abandoned your promise to expand child care as part of implementing the Fraser Mustard report. Your gutting of rent control means families are spending more than $1,000 more in rent, money they could be spending on their children.

Minister, you made this announcement today. It's time that you stood up and defended your actions and answered the tough questions we're asking you about these issues, instead of continually handing them off to other ministries. Shame on you, Minister. I hope the next time we address some of these very serious problems, you will take the opportunity to tell us what you, as the children's advocate, are going to be doing about it.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The New Democratic Party caucus is eager to see the Solicitor General's bill go to second reading and out to committee so that we can work with this bill and make it the best possible piece of legislation that could exist within the limited context of what it does.

I share the Solicitor General's disappointment that the federal government did not embark on this exercise. It would be more appropriately done by the federal government, which has supervision of the Criminal Code and of records, and would provide that provincial database, but in the absence of their action, I submit it's entirely appropriate that this province, or any other for that matter, embark in this direction.

This is but one of the many recommendations made by the jury in the coroner's inquest into the horrible murder of the young boy over 10 years ago now. I can't begin to imagine the pain that Christopher's parents and other family members and his friends must continue to feel, but I can applaud the incredible courage they demonstrate, by struggling and advocating and trying over the course of more than a decade now to ensure that the incredible tragedy that young boy was subjected to can perhaps be alleviated.

Is the registry the only answer? Of course not. But as you read the jury's recommendations-and my copy is dog-eared and tattered-with each reading, you say, "My God, what if?" or, "If only." If this registry can save but one child, it will be a success.

Solicitor General, you are well aware of my private member's bill, Bill 9, which is a response to yet another of the recommendations made by the jury that involves police records checks. The bill is still before the committee. I'm pleased that the justice committee has undertaken to continue to examine the bill, to perhaps flesh it out and make it more effective than it would be were it passed in its present form.

As a community, let's respond not just to the proposition of sexual offender