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

October 21, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 21 October 2002 Lundi 21 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VETERANS HIGHWAY

GURU NANAK CAR RALLY

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

PROJECT AMIK

ANDREW OXENHAM

NAVISTAR CLOSURE

SCULPTURE PROJECT

MEMBER'S EXPENSES

BRAIN TUMOUR AWARENESS MONTH

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS'

WARRANTY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA GARANTIE DES FABRICANTS

DE VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RACIAL PROFILING

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

HYDRO RATES

RACIAL PROFILING

MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOURISM

STUDENT DROPOUT RATE

LIBRARY WEEK

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ROAD SAFETY

SCHOOL BOARDS

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

NATURAL GAS RATES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HIGHWAY 69

WATER EXTRACTION

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

HIGHWAY 69

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Monday 21 October 2002 Lundi 21 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VETERANS HIGHWAY

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): They fought in defence of a notion and returned home to build a nation: this wonderful

country, Canada. The notion had to do with freedom, the belief that all free people should continue to enjoy the benefits of freedom and that all oppressed, freedom-loving people must be

liberated.

Thanks to the special efforts of Halton Regional Chairman Joyce Savoline, her council and many others, a very special ceremony took place yesterday, October 20,

at the Halton region headquarters at Bronte Road. The ceremony and others that followed later that day in Milton and Acton officially dedicated Regional Road 25 as Veterans Highway. This dedication

was in thankful recognition of the historic role our veterans played in both defending freedom abroad and at home and, upon their return from the war, using their considerable entrepreneurial,

technical and teaching skills to strengthen the foundation and fabric of this great nation.

It is entirely fitting and appropriate that a pathway, this road used every single day by thousands of our citizens, be dedicated and known forever as Veterans

Highway. This highway will now serve as a perpetual reminder of the paths travelled and walked by those who have gone before us, the men and women veterans who continue to inspire us with everyday

acts of leadership and courage.

Today we stand on the shoulders of our veterans and today we are taller, prouder and stronger for it. As one of several Halton MPPs, I am pleased to affirm our

Halton veterans. I'm sure this Legislative Assembly will want to join me in acknowledging each and every one of our veterans with gratitude.

GURU NANAK CAR RALLY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's my pleasure to rise today and salute the wonderful work of members of the Guru Nanak

Community Services Foundation and the Ramgarhia Sikh Association of Ontario for organizing the fourth annual Guru Nanak Car Rally in Brampton.

Named after the Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the Guru Nanak Car Rally continues to attract volunteers, participants and sponsors who seek to follow in the guru's path by

volunteering and performing charitable work. Established only a few years ago, the foundation seeks to raise money in support of community projects. In 1999, the inaugural year of the car rally,

$12,000 was raised for Credit Valley Hospital; in the year 2000, $22,000 was raised for William Osler hospital in Brampton; and last year, $23,000 was raised for Etobicoke General Hospital.

This year's rally, which took place in Brampton yesterday, included 40 participants, 50 volunteers and over 65 sponsors. Together, these volunteers raised

$25,000 for William Osler hospital, Brampton campus, and for the new Brampton hospital to be constructed in my riding. Without a doubt, this is one of the most unique fundraising events in my

riding. Over the past four years, it has continued to grow and attract more participants and sponsors. Dr Tom Dickson, chief of staff of William Osler Health Centre, along with his son, also took

part.

On behalf of all members of this Legislature, I would like to congratulate Mr Darshan Singh Bilkhu, Mr Jagdish Singh Grewal, Mr Gurdip Singh Thethi, Mr Daljit

Singh Gaidhu and all the other members of the organizing committee, the volunteers and the participants who worked diligently to make yesterday's Guru Nanak Car Rally a success.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the thousands of Ontarians with disabilities who are having trouble

reconciling what this government says and what it does. I'd like to provide a little bit of

interpretation for them.

of 12. When he says they will be gender-balanced, they have five men, zero women. Only to this government would that be gender-balanced. When the minister says they will consult, it's not with you.

We're not sure whom it's with, but it's not with the disability community by any means.

When the minister says they have put in place legislation that applies in municipalities with over 10,000 people, that means they want it to sound like they are

doing it. They have in fact proclaimed the portion that says municipalities must have a plan. The only

section they didn't proclaim was

section 21, which makes it an offence to not comply. It is

absolutely without teeth for the public sector and the private sector.

When they say "no new barriers," that means nothing. When you get rid of 50 special education teachers from the Ottawa school board, those are barriers to

thousands and thousands of young people who are now denied access to education.

When they say, as the minister did, "We know the private sector is ready and willing to participate with us," that doesn't apply to pizza organizations either.

What a sham.

PROJECT AMIK

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today to talk about a new housing development in Beaches-East York called Project Amik. It is

developed by the Frontiers Foundation, and it has been developed keeping in mind our native community in Toronto and our aboriginal and native communities in Ontario. It is a remarkable housing

project, one of the first of what I hope will be many but, sadly, what are all too few in the province of Ontario since 1995.

I take my hat off to Reverend Charles Catto. He has done an amazing job in bringing together people from many disciplines, people who are willing to assist to

build 74 housing units on Coxwell Avenue in Beaches-East York. This will house up to 100 underhoused people, primarily -- at least half of them -- native Canadians who now live in Toronto.

The total cost of building this housing is some $10 million, of which the city of Toronto donated almost $3 million, the federal government donated a little

over $1 million, and Frontiers nearly $7 million. Quite sadly, the provincial donations to date have been $148,000, or a little over 1% of what it has cost to build these. We have a crying need for

affordable housing in this city and in this province. This is an example of what can be done by those who have a mind to do it. We ask the province to listen very carefully to what is happening, to

recognize that this housing is needed in Toronto and in Ontario -- there are 63,000 people waiting -- and to please start to do something about the crying need.

ANDREW OXENHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise in the House to congratulate another one of my constituents, Andrew Oxenham, on being selected by

the Professional Photographers of Ontario for submitting the best black-and-white photo in their 131st annual print competition. His photo, entitled "Floating," is an image of two dancers that was

taken at the Ballet Jorgen Studio in Toronto. It was judged to be the best black-and-white photo in Ontario.

Andrew Oxenham is the owner of the Water Street Studio in Port Perry. As a photographer, his specialty has included dance and theatre topics in photography. In

addition, he has expanded his excellent scope to include portraits and weddings.

He was recently featured in "Notables," a supplement to the Port Perry Star. "Notables" includes profiles on many of the leading members of our art community in

Scugog township who are ranked and making their mark in the world of art and design. The featured artists included watercolour painter Karen Richardson, and artists and entrepreneurs Paula and Bill

Lishman. Also featured in the publication were Brenda Clark, illustrator of Franklin the Turtle; painter Walter Campbell, whose name many here would know; gallery founder Kent Farndale; and

photographer Joe Duff.

These are just a few of the talented artists from the township of Scugog in my beautiful riding of Durham that I would like to introduce to this House. Their

vision enhances the life of our communities and serves as an inspiration to all.

NAVISTAR CLOSURE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Last Thursday, Navistar International Corp, which employs 1,000 workers in Chatham, announced its decision to

close next June and move its production to Mexico. My heart goes out to all those families harmed by this decision. They were excellent workers, making the best quality trucks in North America,

part of a company that was a good corporate citizen and a vital part of Chatham-Kent. I point out that Navistar executives never once said the product wasn't up to par or the workforce wasn't

skilled, yet they are closing this plant. This closing will be a huge economic loss to Chatham-Kent, a blow to the manufacturing centre of the region, eliminating more than 5% of the jobs in the

city. Nearly 4,000 jobs will be at risk as a result of the negative economic spin-off.

The factory had made it through tough times before, including the recession of the early 1990s. Demand for heavy trucks was down then, but the plant kept

operating. Now Chatham's loss is Mexico's gain because the Harris-Eves government did nothing to save these jobs. While this government worked secretly to give their wealthy friends a $10-million

tax break, there was no help for working families in Chatham-Kent.

Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals believe we can do so much better for our people with a government that's on their side. The best path to economic

strength is a government that invests in our workforce. We need a government that provides leadership that works for all the people for a change.

SCULPTURE PROJECT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to share with everyone about "The Fish are Here" campaign on behalf of the

Walkerton Tourist Recovery Partnership Committee. The project originally stems from the Walkerton tragedy and is made possible with help from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. It involves 12

large fish sculptures designed by Debbie Schenk and Ken Freiburger and decorated by 12 local artists. Each one is located in high-traffic areas throughout the counties of Grey and Bruce.

The primary goal of the fish sculpture project is to rebuild Walkerton and the regional image as an outdoor recreation and safe tourism destination.

Artists for the sculptures include Jenn Tuff, Suzanne Simmie-Stier, Kevin Yates and Marcy Adzich of Southampton; Amy

Cooney of Walkerton; Iriz Paabo of Elmwood; Ann Keeling and Dave Devlin of Owen Sound; Richard Mund of Neustadt; Angie McCurdy and John Cowper of Chesley; and Velda Marshall of Hanover.

The Walkerton Tourism Recovery Partnership Committee includes Barry Randall from Owen Sound Tourism; Bryan Plumstead as tourism development coordinator, along

with Carole Sonier as tourism development assistant; Chris Hughes from Bruce County Tourism; Debbie Schenk from Human Resources Development Canada; Fran Hill from the Walkerton Chamber of Commerce;

Garry MacGregor from Pizza Delight; Jim Coffey from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority; Kim Mizen from Grey County Tourism; Pat Lippert from the Walkerton Chamber of Commerce; Peter McFadden

from the Southern Ontario Tourism Organization; Jack Riley from the municipality of Brockton; Vicki Young from Saugeen country; and Paul Samson from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. They are

all valuable people in our community and we thank them for their hard work.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will continue next week with some more.

MEMBER'S EXPENSES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): It's been 20 days since we first learned that Cam Jackson charged taxpayers $104,000 so that he

could live the high life. He charged expensive hotel bills. He charged for in-room movies, he charged for expensive steak dinners at upscale restaurants, he charged for alcohol and he charged for

valet parking.

Once this gluttonous lifestyle was exposed, Cam Jackson was fired, and for good reason. But what the taxpayers of Burlington, Hamilton and all of Ontario want to

know is, when will they be reimbursed for Cam Jackson's reckless spending of our money? Ernie Eves promised that he would launch a review of those expenses and order Cam Jackson to make further

repayment, but that hasn't happened. And just last week, Ernie changed his tune. He said maybe someone is doing a review, but that wasn't a sure thing and he wasn't sure when it would be done.

That's not good enough, Premier. It's not good enough for the people of Burlington or for the people of Ontario who are owed that money. We have countless

examples of inappropriate expenses: booze, hotel stays, in-room movies, valet parking, and the list goes on and on. Taxpayers of Ontario deserve some answers. Is there a review actually happening,

or was this just a cynical stalling tactic by Ernie Eves? Who is conducting the review? What is the deadline for the review?

Ontario families don't get to live high on the hog at taxpayers' expense, and neither should Cam Jackson. He owes us money, and we demand that he repay those

expenses. There can't be one standard for ordinary Ontarians and another one for you and your Tory friends. Get on with the job, Premier. Do the review and make Cam Jackson pay the money back.

BRAIN TUMOUR AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to remind all members that October 2002 is the first official Brain Tumour Awareness Month in Ontario.

For many years now, October has been designated as Brain Tumour --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll let the member start over. I apologize to him. It's too tough. People do need to hear it. If we can start all

over, the member has a very important statement.

Mr Wood: I rise today to remind all members that October 2002 is the first official Brain Tumour Awareness Month in Ontario. For many years now,

October has been designated as Brain Tumour Awareness Month in Canada. It has also been proclaimed in many cities across Canada.

Brain tumour is a devastating disease that strikes people of all ages, from newborns to seniors, across all economic, social and ethnic boundaries and affects

people in all walks of life. Brain tumours are the most common cause of solid cancers in children. Early detection and treatment are vital for a person to survive brain tumours.

Brain tumour research, patient and family support services and awareness among the general public are essential to promote early detection and treatment of brain

tumours. Each year approximately 10,000 Canadians of all ages are diagnosed with a brain tumour. Brain tumours are the second leading cause of cancer death in people under the age of 20 and the

third leading cause of cancer death in young adults between the ages of 20 and 39.

The reason for the legislation is of course to assist all who are interested in alerting people to the dangers and symptoms of brain tumours. The act provides

the basis for requests to our own ministries, school boards and other institutions for help in this cause. It is my firm conviction that many lives will be saved in the coming years by this law.

Thank you again to all members for supporting it.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the Consul General of the Ukraine in Toronto,

Mr Ihor Lossovsky. Please join me in welcoming our special guest.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS'

WARRANTY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA GARANTIE DES FABRICANTS

DE VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 192,

An Act respecting warranties offered by manufacturers of motor vehicles / Projet de loi 192, Loi concernant les garanties offertes par les fabricants

de véhicules automobiles.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): This bill, should the House deem to approve and pass it, would be the first so-called lemon law in Canada

applying to the purchasers of new vehicles in the province of Ontario. It would provide remedies to a consumer who enters into an agreement to purchase a motor vehicle on or after the bill comes

into force if a substantial deficiency arises in the motor vehicle that is covered by a manufacturer's warranty.

I ask the House and the members to read this bill very carefully. There have been a number of issues lately in the media about this that need to be dealt

with.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe I have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice

regarding the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list for private members'

public business:

Mr Hardeman and Mr Stewart exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Hardeman assumes ballot item 79 and Mr Stewart assumes ballot item number 70;

and

Mr Patten and Mr Sorbara exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Sorbara assumes ballot item 72 and Mr Patten assumes ballot item 74, the clam

chowder act.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall

meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 21, Tuesday, October 22, Wednesday, October 23 and Thursday, October 24, 2002, for the purpose of considering government business. This motion is

seconded by Mr Kormos.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I got the feeling that's not true.

Mr Stockwell moves that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 21 -- dispense? Is it the pleasure

of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 69; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): My question is to the Solicitor General. There was to be a day when people would be judged by the

strength of their character and not just the colour of their skin. Sadly, that day still hasn't arrived in Ontario. This weekend, the rest of the province learned something that every young Black

knows already: we are still being treated differently. Let me be clear: the problem doesn't begin or end with the policing, and it doesn't begin or end in Toronto.

Former Lieutenant Governor Lincoln Alexander has called for a summit. I spoke to him earlier today, and I fully support him in that effort. Will you join

Lincoln Alexander and all the leaders across the province to work toward finding solutions to this very regrettable problem?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I join with the honourable member in terms of our respect for the former

Lieutenant Governor. As the honorary commissioner of the OPP, and I believe the honorary chief of the Toronto Police Service, he has enormous respect among the rank-and-file police officers across

this province. If Mr Alexander believes there is some substance to the suggestions that have been released to the public over the weekend, I'm quite prepared, and this government is quite prepared,

to sit down with not only Mr Alexander but other people who have an interest in this subject to discuss it, to see if there is a real problem here -- I understand there is a real concern, but to

ensure that if indeed there is a real problem here, that it's eradicated.

Mr Curling: Let me assure the minister that there is a problem, and I want you to know that we want to work with you to address this problem.

I also want you to know that we respect our police who, as you know, put their lives on the line each day to protect us. But let us be clear: that respect does not mean these concerns aren't

real.

There are two things that need to be done. First, I'd like the Premier, as the head of our government, to issue a statement on this matter today. He needs to

make it clear that racism in any form will not be tolerated. Second, and perhaps most important, we have to admit we still have a problem. Those problems go beyond the police and beyond the city

limits. Do you agree with me, and will you take these steps today?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think I indicated in the initial response that I take the concern seriously and the government takes the concern seriously.

We're prepared to join with Lincoln Alexander and others in discussing the situation.

I don't want to make a judgment here today or a commitment to the honourable member with respect to whether I share those conclusions or not. We have to sit

down. I think having that opportunity to sit down and discuss this and really carefully analyze the facts is the appropriate and responsible way to proceed.

Mr Curling: Let me see if I can encourage you to move a bit faster than I'm hearing, Mr Minister. I want you to walk a mile in my shoes.

People in the Black community want to walk home safely at night, but many are afraid. They're afraid of being targeted by criminals, and many are also afraid of the police. We're talking about

good, law-abiding citizens being afraid of the people who protect them. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that parents are worried their kids will be unfairly targeted. While many of those

fears are based on myth, unfortunately too many are based on daily experiences that are real.

We need to address this problem and bring it out into the open. We need to talk about this in an honest way, not just to protect the reputation of our police

but to ensure that they have the trust of the public they serve. Do you agree with my analysis, and do you have any ideas of your own to improve the trust between the Black community and the

police?

Hon Mr Runciman: I very much recognize and appreciate the member's comments. I have to say that there have been efforts over the past number

of years, in terms of anti-racism training at the police college, for recruits, training that deals with racism with respect to the use of force, a whole range of initiatives to deal with this.

Despite the criticism in the media with respect to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, I think they have worked very effectively as a

quasi-judicial, independent, arm's-length body to deal with complaints from the public.

I'm certainly open, and the government is open, to having further discussions. I share the member's concerns. If we have those kinds of ongoing sensitivities

within the minority communities in this province, we want to address them; we want to work with you to address them.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Transportation and has to do with the Eves government's lack of

standards on conflict of interest. The minister will know that Al Leach, who is a well-regarded individual, I might add, is on the board of directors of the Highway 407 Corp and SNC-Lavalin.

SNC-Lavalin, by the way, is a major shareholder in highway 407. The problem is that the Eves government has also appointed Mr Leach to the board of GO Transit, where he serves as the vice-chair. In

our opinion, that is a direct conflict of interest. The 407 makes an enormous amount of money from congestion, and GO Transit's job is to alleviate congestion.

We raised it in the Legislature, and Premier Eves responded in writing that he saw no problem. We disagree.

The question to you, Minister, is this: do you agree that Mr Leach has a major conflict of interest and that he must be removed from the GO board?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): No.

Mr Phillips: Well, I appreciate the answer, but it's unacceptable.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: It's unacceptable to the public. Not to me; it's unacceptable to the public.

SNC-Lavalin said in its latest annual report that it invested in 1999 -- by the way, the highway was sold the day the election was called in 1999. Their

investment was $175 million. It's now worth four times that.

Mr Leach is on their board. He is paid $25,000 a year as a director. He also is paid $100,000 a year as a retainer, a consultant, and he owns 6,000 shares in

SNC-Lavalin. He benefits enormously from the increased traffic on the 407.

The problem is not Mr Leach; it's you and it's Mr Eves, the Premier. You put him on the board of GO Transit in direct conflict with the 407 and SNC-Lavalin. GO

is designed to take traffic off the 407; he benefits from traffic on the 407. How can Mr Leach possibly serve his private sector interest and the competing public interest at exactly the same

time?

Hon Mr Sterling: Without going into the merits of Mr Leach's tremendous qualifications to sit on the GO Transit board, having had just an

enormous background in terms of transportation in this city and in this province, let me say this. In 1987, the then Liberal government brought forward a procedure whereby this Legislature would

have the opportunity to review public appointments. Mr Leach's appointment was reviewed under that Liberal procedure, the same arguments were put forward, and he was affirmed. Therefore, the

procedure which you put forward --

Interjections.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): You wrote the legislation.

Hon Mr Sterling: You wrote the book, and now you don't want to follow it. Mr Leach was affirmed by a committee of this Legislature, and I

believe that's the proof in the pudding.

Mr Phillips: I would just say to the public, I would invite you all to read the Hansard from that meeting. I was at it. I raised these very

same issues, and Al Leach dismissed me. He said, "There's enough business to go around for everybody. Don't worry about it." The Liberals voted against it and the NDP voted against it. The only

reason he got through was because you rammed it through with your majority. So I say to the public again, read the Hansard. Al Leach just dismissed it.

I say again to you, Minister, we disagree with it. The committee voted against it. Is it appropriate for an individual who has a $100,000-a-year contract, has

6,000 shares and is paid $25,000 for the board of directors to be sitting on the GO Transit board while he has this other, separate private interest? Is that the standard that the Eves government

has chosen to set for the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: This very member was part of the government that wrote the legislation creating this procedure for all members of the

Legislature to have their opportunity to put forward their arguments. I have read the Hansard with regard to that committee. The member put forward the same argument in the committee. He lost then,

and he's going to lose now.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member take his seat. We'll give him the time.

Stop the clock. Come to order, please. The leader of the third party has the floor now. Order.

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sit down. Take a rest.

Government House leader and the House leader of the official opposition, please come to order. Two seconds after I get down I don't need you yelling across at

each other. Come to order, please.

Sorry again, leader of the third party. You can start all over again.

Mr Hampton: Minister, consumers on fixed incomes are worried that their hydro will be cut off if they can't pay your skyrocketing hydro bills,

so I want to do something about it. Later this week, I'll be tabling a private member's bill that says consumers can't be cut off or can't have their hydro cut off during the winter if they cannot

pay their bills.

Minister, will you support my private member's bill so that consumers won't be forced to freeze in the dark this winter?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

Obviously, we're always tremendously concerned that in the colder months anyone in the province of Ontario would be without electricity and perhaps even without heat.

The member opposite has suggested that at some point in the future he'll table a private member's bill. I'm certain all members in the House will give it full

consideration, as they properly should.

Mr Hampton: I think we know how private members' bills work in this Legislature. If the government decides to support a private member's bill,

it passes.

This private member's bill is about people like Portia Southon, a disability pensioner in Hamilton who is being threatened with disconnection. She can't afford

to pay her $225 hydro bill -- it's more than double what it used to be -- but she can afford to pay $75 in the interim. But Hamilton Hydro, under your new rules, has said, "You either pay all the

bill or we disconnect, and then we charge you a security deposit on top of that plus interest."

Will you help consumers like Portia Southon by passing my private member's bill banning hydro disconnects between October 1 and May 1? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Baird: As I indicated to the member opposite, I would be more than prepared, as I know all members in this place would be, to read his

private member's bill when he has tabled it. He has not tabled it yet. I would welcome a copy of it, if he has one, and would certainly give it due consideration.

He does raise the issue of prices. Prices have come down considerably in the month of October. What we saw in October is that prices are almost half what they

were just a month before that.

The NDP leader does raise a concern about those who are vulnerable, whether they're disabled, on fixed incomes or in receipt of social assistance. If he has an

idea, we would certainly be prepared to look at it.

Mr Hampton: This is not a terribly difficult question. I want to pass a private member's bill that would in effect say that no hydro utility

in the province can cut someone's hydro off between October 1 and May 1, when we happen to have cold weather in this province, when people, frankly, can freeze to death if they don't have access to

adequate heat. That's the concept here.

Will you pass my private member's bill, or does your government want to see people freezing in the dark this winter? What's your answer, Minister?

Hon Mr Baird: I have heard members of the opposition rise in their place and say they'd like the opportunity to review a bill that we've

already voted on at first reading. I've yet to have anyone ever request any member of this Legislature to adopt a bill which we haven't even read, let alone which hasn't been presented here in this

House.

The member opposite has brought forward an initiative, one which I know all members of this House would want to do their due diligence on and read. Would his

bill include businesses? Would it include industrial customers? Would it include retail customers? Would it include commercial customers? What would be the benchmark? We'd certainly be prepared to

review the private member's bill when it comes forward and give it due consideration.

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, the Toronto Star's study into racial profiling

by Toronto police discloses the discrimination that Black motorists encounter daily.

As Attorney General, I appointed a royal commission to examine discrimination in the criminal justice system. They produced an excellent report. Your

government ignored the report and failed to act.

A year ago, I worked with community leaders to develop a Building Hope action plan, which we forwarded to the Premier and other members of the government. Once

again, your government failed to act. In fact, your government has undone much of the progressive work that was done out there in terms of the criminal justice system to ensure that racial

profiling didn't happen, to ensure that racism didn't happen.

Will you convene a citizens' and police task force to find practical solutions to the unfair treatment that black families experience in this province?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would refer that to the Minister of Public Safety and Security.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): It's regrettable that the leader of the third party is reaching conclusions

and making judgments. I indicated earlier that we are quite prepared to follow the lead and the encouragement of the former Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander, to meet with the parties who have

expressed concerns with respect to the actions of police in this province and the approach they take in dealing with individuals. We're open to doing that.

I think we have responded very positively. If you take a look at the record over the past six or seven years, a whole range of initiatives have been brought

forward by this government and have been very positive in terms of addressing those kinds of concerns. If there is more to do, we're quite open to exploring that.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is the report, the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. I'm going to send it over

to you. Maybe now you'll read it. I'll send you over a copy of the Building Hope action plan, which has been available to your government for the last year and a half and which you've failed to act

on as well.

Black families aren't asking for special treatment. They're simply asking that their children be treated on the same basis as other children. They're asking

for basic fairness. The Toronto Star says that isn't happening.

I'm repeating the request from Lincoln Alexander: will you put together a task force of civilians, police representatives and members of all three political

parties to ensure that there is a task force that makes sure Black families will be treated like the children of every other family in this province? It's a simple request. Will you do it?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not aware of Mr Alexander requesting a task force; I think he requested a gathering, a meeting, of people who have

indicated concerns with respect to this community organization's police services. I think he mentioned the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and others. I indicated in my earlier responses

that I'm quite prepared and this government is quite prepared to take

part in those conversations.

I recognize and appreciate there are still concerns in minority communities. If there is validity to these concerns, we have to address them, as a government,

as people representing the people of this province. We're committed to doing that.

I certainly do not want to close any doors. We're quite prepared, and if there are real problems out there, this government is prepared to act on them.

MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Over the weekend, the people of Ontario were disturbed to learn that the

member for Mississauga West is neglecting his duties as an MPP. But it gets worse. Even though Mr Snobelen is failing to do the job he was elected to do, the Premier recently handed him a second

set of responsibilities. On June 19, 2002, Premier Eves appointed John Snobelen to be vice-chair of Ontario Exports Inc. It may be an expense-only position for Mr Snobelen, but judging from his

commitment to being an MPP, even then the taxpayers of Ontario aren't getting their money's worth.

Deputy Premier, can you tell me why Premier Eves would appoint John Snobelen to a second job when he doesn't even do the one he was elected to do?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would like to remind the member opposite of the fact that on November 9, 2001,

his leader, Dalton McGuinty, introduced the democratic reform charter. It made it mandatory for ministers and the Premier to be present for at least two thirds of the question periods in a

legislative session. He said he would penalize individuals $500 for every question period missed beyond the two-thirds limit.

We have been here for 15 days. There are about 10 members who --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Deputy Premier, take your seat. I hope you aren't going down the road to talk about somebody's attendance.

I'm not going to allow it to happen.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Settle down, all of you, right now. I'm the one who's going to be in charge, and I will yell if I have to if your members are

yelling while I'm standing up. I'm going to be the one to decide what's in order and what's not in order, and talking about people's attendance will not be. It has been a long-standing tradition in

here, and if that's the road she's going down, I'm going to be up very quickly.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We're talking about people's

attendance, and the response can't --

The Speaker: We've had the discussion on this. It is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Get to it quickly, then. It's not a point of order, and get to it quickly or I will cut you off. You've got 10 seconds to point

it or I'm going to be up.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I will do my best. The response that the Deputy Premier is making seems to me to be no different than the question put with

respect to the attendance for the member from Mississauga West.

The Speaker: The question was relating to his duties. It's another capacity. You can talk about anybody else's attendance in his capacity as

whatever it is; I forget what it is.

Deputy Premier, you may answer it. I will remind members on both sides: members' attendance is not -- what people do in their additional capacities, you can

speak about.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I was simply reminding the House of the introduction by the Leader of the Opposition of the democratic reform charter which

would penalize members if they did not attend question period for two thirds of the time. I think it's important to keep in mind that if we take a look at this two thirds of the time, there are

certainly people in the opposition who would have lost a lot of money.

Mr Kwinter: To be on the board of Ontario Exports you need to be more than just an Ontario export. Mr Snobelen, by his own admission, has not

been engaged in serving the people of this province for some time, and why he would get this appointment is beyond me. He has stated clearly that he would rather be in a saddle in Oklahoma than

serving his constituents in Mississauga.

Like so many other members of this government he is putting himself ahead of the people. It's a pattern with this government. Deputy Premier, given Ontario's

critical dependence on exports, what kind of signal does this send as to this government's commitment to Ontario's exports when the Premier of Ontario appoints an absentee vice-chairman of Ontario

Exports Inc?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member is right. Order. I would ask the member in the future to be very careful; I know it's a fine line between his duties

here and his other duties, but I would ask that you don't get too close to it. Otherwise what you're going to have in here is the other side as well.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, just a second. I would ask all members to caution when doing that because it's going to come back on both sides. As everyone

knows in here, there are members on both sides and I do not want to get into battles of who's here and who's not here.

I understand that the member is walking that fine line toward his duties but I would ask him to be careful in his question. I believe he had some time left --

or is this a point of order?

Mr Kwinter: It's a point of order. Mr Speaker, I was very careful, understanding the rules of this House, not to refer to his attendance in

this House. My question deals with the fact that he was appointed vice-chair of Exports Ontario Inc. All I want to know is, what kind of signal does that send when he is an absentee vice-chair?

The Speaker: He says "member," "vice-chair." It is a very fine line again. I would caution all members to be careful. It is a long-standing

tradition and I will not allow it. It is in his capacity.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre, come to order, or we'll send her out for the afternoon.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-St Clair, this is your last warning now.

It is now the Deputy Premier's turn for a one-minute reply.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I believe the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation would like to answer that question.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): A word about the role of Ontario Exports Inc, which is an advisory body

to the government: the board meets on a quarterly basis. The remuneration for the board members, for Mr Snobelen and the others, is a grand total of $1 per year each as an honorarium. We value the

contribution that Mr Snobelen is prepared to make both by way of his experience and his expertise.

He has the experience certainly from his business acumen, his business experience, his work internationally to export our resources as the Minister of Natural

Resources in the province of Ontario. We welcome his assistance. He will stand in for the chair when necessary in his role as vice-chair. As I say, all of this is for the grand total of an

honorarium of $1 a year.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. On Friday, our government announced that the

ONTC would be entering into exclusive negotiations with CN around the issue of rail service in northeastern Ontario. Minister could you please outline the details of this announcement?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank my colleague for the very important question. As the member has

noted, on Friday our government did announce that it had directed the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to begin negotiations for the sale of ON rail with CN.

The CN submission is the only submission of the four that clearly meets the service improvement plan objectives and provides the greatest overall value to

employees, customers and the people of northeastern Ontario. Our government stands by the commitment of the service improvement plan: job protection, economic development and service improvement.

The Premier has made this commitment very clear, and a promise made is a promise kept.

The ONTC will also pursue a joint venture between ON telecom and a major telecommunications provider. Once again, customer service and job protection will

guide our efforts. I want to make it clear that no final decisions have been made for entering into negotiations with CN, and it would be inappropriate to discuss any further details at this

time.

Mr McDonald: In reading through the coverage of the announcement this weekend, I noticed several members of the opposition were insisting that

we had not kept our promise when it came to job protection

Interjection.

Mr McDonald: Listen, you've asked eight questions and you haven't asked one of our ministers regarding the ONTC. I think there's a little more

concern on our side.

Minister, could you please clarify our government's position around the protection of jobs for ONTC employees?

Hon Mr Wilson: I know job protection is the number one concern for people of the northeast, particularly the member's own constituents. Job

protection, economic development and service improvement are our number one priorities. Number one among those is job protection. The Premier made it clear, both when he was running for leader of

the party and when he became Premier that job protection is number one. Those principles are guiding our efforts.

CN had the best proposal at this time to best protect jobs. They have the best network, the greatest employment opportunities for the current employees. Our

goal at the end of the day is to make sure everybody working today is working into the future and is working for a company that can indeed enhance their job prospects, invest money into the shops

of North Bay, into the rails and into the passenger service, and actually improve the economic development opportunities of northeastern Ontario.

That's where we're headed. That's the track we're on. It's the track we're going to stay on until we come to a deal. This is satisfactory to not only the

honourable member but his constituents, the union and all the people of northeastern Ontario.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): To the same minister, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, on the same subject, the sale of

the ONR.

Minister, we are not very reassured by your comments or those of the member for Nipissing -- the newly elected member for Nipissing, by 19 votes, I might add

-- who says that there will be no job loss on his watch. I'd like to remind you that his watch is over, probably, next spring, so that doesn't give us much reassurance at all.

What we want to see is some permanent assurance from you that there's not going to be any job loss. You say in the paper that one of the reasons we chose CN

was because of the tremendous job record they've had. Don't you remember the hundreds of jobs that CN has pulled out of northern Ontario and the thousands of jobs that CN has pulled out right

across this country? Talk to the people in Capreol, talk to the people in Moncton, New Brunswick, about all the jobs CN has killed in this country.

Minister, I want you to stand in your place today and guarantee the people of northeastern Ontario that there will be no losses of jobs or rail or freight

services in northeastern Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is reiterating the commitment that the government has made. The honourable member AL McDonald, the

Premier, and I as minister have said that the road we're on is one to protect the jobs of the employees at the ONTC, at the Ontario Northland Railway. CN, of all the proposals, is in the position

to best protect the jobs and best create more jobs. They have deep pockets as a company. The overtures they've made so far in the negotiations leading up to this stage have been very positive in

terms of wanting to invest four million additional dollars into the shops of North Bay, to actually improve the rail bed, to improve the track and to improve the passenger trains and the freight

trains, the actual cars themselves, so more people will want to use the train. These are things that we're going to continue to negotiate with CN. At the end of the day, job protection is our

number one priority.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, we are in the best position to protect those jobs by government ownership of the ONR, and that's the way it should

remain: government ownership. Two years ago, the employees and management came to you and said, "We want to develop an internal solutions proposal." You encouraged them to do that and said that the

proposal would be given serious consideration by the Ontario government. Not only have you not given that serious consideration, but you also put a gag order on that committee so that the proposal

would never see the light of day.

We in northeastern Ontario want to see that proposal. We want an opportunity to debate that proposal before you sell off our railway. I want a commitment today

that you will do that -- that you will release that proposal and we'll have a debate so we can keep that railway for northeastern Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member talks about continued government ownership of this particular railway and the telephone company. On April

19, before the standing committee on government agencies, the honourable member, David Ramsay, said the following: "Over the years I've been critical of the organization," referring to ONTC.

"Shouldn't we get this cleaned up and let the private sector run this?" He went on to say, "I've proposed a casino in that train, snowmobile cars, and to really get back to the idea of providing

people here a northern adventure. We have a mechanism here. It probably should be run by the private sector." At the same meeting, for a third time the honourable member said, "I've really got to

ask you" -- the current chair of the ONTC, Royal Poulin -- "do you think government should be in the telephone business today?" That's one of the businesses run by ONTC. "Shouldn't we get this

cleaned up and let the private sector run this?"

He knows full well that CN is the best rail company in North America and that CN's proposal at this stage of negotiations is the best proposal on the table to

protect jobs --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

TOURISM

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): While the member for Nipissing clearly puts the interests of the people of the north in the forefront more than

does any other member of the House, especially among the neglectful members opposite, I like to think that I likewise put the interests of tourism at the forefront more than any other members of

the House. Therefore, my question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

Minister, small business in Ontario creates major opportunities for economic development and innovations, keeping our economy strong. Diverse and prosperous

small businesses in my riding of Niagara Falls have ensured that our local economy continues to grow. After September 11, 2001, having fewer visitors come to Niagara challenged businesses,

especially tourism-related small businesses. As tourism minister, what are you doing to entice more tourists to visit Niagara and the province?

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I thank the member for Niagara Falls for his question. I know that he's keenly

interested in tourism in Ontario. This government knows full well that small business and tourism are vital in Ontario's economy. There are close to 150,000 businesses in Ontario providing tourism

products and services. This represents almost 20% of all of the business done in Ontario.

After September 11, we invested some additional $10 million in marketing, which totalled some $14 million to assist tourism in the province. Of particular

interest to the member for Niagara Falls is that, working with Niagara Falls Tourism, the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership developed a media campaign in Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester,

Pittsburgh and Syracuse, building on the successful theme "Come On Over," and they did. Additional tourism was generated within the border area. Last year's campaigns generated 46,000 responses and

a 37% increase in sales of vacation packages to Niagara.

Mr Maves: Thank you very much, Minister, for your response. Indeed, the increase in marketing support from the government helped in Niagara

quite a bit after September 11. I congratulate you and one of your predecessors, Minister Hudak, who was minister at the time, for that initiative. Small businesses, as I say, have benefited from

this government's efforts since September 11.

As you know, tourism is the world's fastest-growing industry. What are you doing to ensure that smaller tourism-related businesses in Ontario will continue to

benefit from tourism?

Hon Mr Klees: A good question. The Ernie Eves government is working on making Ontario a top-of-mind tourism destination throughout the world.

We are promoting seasonal marketing campaigns, promoting festivals and events, and supporting new product and development investment.

My ministry also provides marketing opportunities for small businesses by building alliances with businesses that have similar audiences. Promoting

destinations is an integral part of my ministry's mandate. The Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership organizes familiarization trips for international media to tour destinations throughout

Ontario.

Just last Friday, I had the pleasure of launching the new tourism consumer information system. TCIS is a $16.2-million investment on the part of our government

in an interactive, integrated travel and tourism service that will make information on travelling in Ontario more accessible to travellers and tourism businesses alike.

STUDENT DROPOUT RATE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, you must act immediately to prevent tens of

thousands of high school students taking applied courses from dropping out.

Your own Dr King -- I think you'll probably know him by now -- told you that things were better for these students before your government took over. We're

talking about students, young people, who come from modest-income homes, people who work in factories, people who work in restaurants, in plants across this province, in the retail sector, in the

service sector, in every sector. They work hard and they want better opportunities for their children.

Minister, I want to work with you. Our party wants to work with you. Are you willing to work with us to develop emergency measures to keep these students in

school?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): We are always interested in working with other parties. In fact, as the member

full well knows, it was his party that set up the Royal Commission on Learning under Bégin and Caplan. As you remember, that commission found that the dropout rates were 65% for students in

basic level courses. For students in general level courses, they had a 58% dropout rate. Of course, they recommended that we take a look at a two-streamed approach. We did introduce the

recommendations of the report that you commissioned and we have been working ever since to make sure that those students who need the extra help to succeed are not left behind.

Mr Marchese: They are being left behind. I didn't create the mess; you did. You and your government created this crisis, and Dr King, the

person you hired to do the study, said these students are doing worse today than they were in my time. So I didn't create the mess; you did. The opportunities young people are looking for are not

there. Don't tell me about some commission that you say you worked on; King is telling you that whatever you've done has created a problem for young people who come from modest homes. These kids

need a degree, need an education, without which they can't get into a college, without which they won't have the opportunities that they are desperately looking for.

I want to work with you, Minister. We need emergency measures today. I'm asking you, will you work with us to find what those emergency measures are today, not

in another year and not after the next election?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have made progress and we are making progress. In fact, the difference between us and the other parties is that we

commissioned this study because we wanted to find out how the students were doing and how we could help those students.

Furthermore, it might interest you to know that the Star

article claiming a 50% increase in failure rates for students taking applied courses is totally

inaccurate and misleading.

6.8%, and in science it was 2.9%. That's a long way from what the Star

article says about 50%.

For your information, we have put policies in place to help principals identify students. We have remediation funding for literacy and numeracy in grades 7 to

10. I have asked the curriculum implementation partnership to develop --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the Deputy Premier's time is up. New question?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Minister, I'm hoping that on reflection there might be some better answers because I'd like to ask you

about the same subject matter. There is a problem, and if you don't acknowledge it, 65,000 young adults in this province will pay the price.

You brought up a new curriculum. It looked good on paper and it was popular when it was still on paper, but in practice it is failing a whole host of kids. You

have this huge, thick report. It's your second report. You told us last week that you hadn't even read this report, but surely you are aware of this distinctive problem. There is a 50% increase in

the number of these young adults who are failing to accumulate courses on a track to graduate; a 50% jump. Minister, 64% of the kids in this applied stream are at risk, according to the author of

your report.

You're here with that huge failure in front of you. Please table with us your plan to help these kids and to do it without delay.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Here is this member, one more time, claiming a 50% increase in failure rates. That is totally inaccurate and misleading. The

King study --

The Speaker: Sorry, Deputy Premier. You'll have to withdraw the word "misleading." You can't say that about another member.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I withdraw.

in failure; math, 6.8% increase; science, 2.9%. That is far different than the 50% increase in failure rate that the Star

article claims. Furthermore, we asked for this study because, unlike you,

we want to know how our students are doing. We want to make sure we can give them the extra help.

We have put programs in place. We have new workplace experience programs, we have new co-op programs --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the Deputy Premier's time is up.

Mr Kennedy: It's too important, Minister, to bandy with you. On page 6 of the report is a 50% jump in loss of credits by kids who are trying

to graduate in the applied stream.

Minister, what I do want to discuss with you and I do want your attention for is something these kids can't get by without, and that is some extra assistance.

For the last four years people have been telling you that the grade 8 and grade 9 curriculum isn't fitting together, that there needs to be remedial, that there needs to be more help for teacher

training, that there needs to be assistance in terms of teaching resources. Are you listening today? There is a report here, and on this hangs the future of 65,000 kids who this report says are at

risk for dropping out of school. You need to focus on this and you need to tell us here today how you will be responding this year to help these kids do what all of us in this House have a

responsibility to aid and abet, and that is getting them to graduate. Will you be helping them?

Dalton McGuinty and I tabled a plan in June, Minister. We asked you to focus. We asked you to give these kids extra assistance --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member's time is up.

Hon Mrs Witmer: No government has done more in order to help our students achieve success than our government. We have been providing

remediation support: $25 million annually for grades 7 to 10 for extra help in reading, math and writing; $70 million in ongoing funding to help improve reading skills; $875,000 in higher

achievement support for grades 6 to 9.

Recently I announced 21 million additional dollars in order to help our teachers excel in the program. As I've just indicated, I have asked the curriculum

implementation partnership to further develop an action plan to make sure that we can support all of these students at risk. They will be providing a report by the end of November. They have

already done very good work and we're going to build on what they've done, unlike the members opposite.

LIBRARY WEEK

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Culture. I understand that today marks the official launch of

Ontario Public Library Week. In fact, I know that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities was in her riding of London North Centre this morning at the new Central Library to mark this

important week and to say a few words on your behalf.

We all know the significant social, educational and economic contributions that public libraries make to communities across Ontario. Let us not forget that

libraries also promote free and equitable access to information and a world of ideas. Could you please enlighten this House as to the many other benefits that our libraries provide to the people of

Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough Centre

for the question. I'd also thank the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities for representing our government at this very important event.

It is indeed my pleasure to promote Ontario Public Library Week. I think of one of the finalists in the Trillium Book Award, Make Believe Love, by an Ontario

author by the name of Lee Gowan. In that book, one of the characters refers to libraries as one of the great institutions of democracy. It's quite true. Libraries recognize no differences between

race, wealth, ethnicity or religion. Libraries do open up doors for our young people through reading, through learning and to their future. It is indeed my great pleasure to speak about libraries

in this very important week.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response. It's also my hope that people around the province will go out and celebrate library week by

visiting their local libraries to see first hand what services are offered right in their own community.

I know that libraries often serve as community centres, particularly in smaller areas of Ontario. In fact, I know that to many new Canadians, libraries

represent a safe place to go, somewhere where they will not feel intimidated. Families wanting to spend time together may enjoy the advantages of areas dedicated to readers of all ages.

To help celebrate Ontario Library Week, I understand that many local libraries are preparing special events, such as visiting authors. I know that some are

taking advantage of this time to launch new programs, like homework help sessions and cooking demonstrations.

Can you tell us how your ministry plans to recognize libraries across the province this week?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I thank the member for Scarborough Centre again. It is indeed my pleasure today to say that libraries are recognized by our

ministry for excellence in two categories. One is for excellence and the other is for innovation. It's my great pleasure to announce the winning libraries right now.

The awards for innovation recognizing new ideas in public library service go to the East Ferris Public Library, the

Oxford Public Library and the Pickering Public Library, which I know the Minister of Finance would like to applaud for.

The awards for excellence in public library service go to the Manitoulin Island Library Action Network, the Powassan and District Union Public Library, the

Brantford Public Library and the Windsor Public Library.

I join with all members of the House in congratulating our libraries for providing such wonderful services to the people, and especially the children, of this

province.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have an affair that I'd like to talk to him about.

Following the amalgamation of the city of Ottawa in 2000, the city council was obliged by your government to review its ward boundaries in its first term. The Ottawa city council unanimously

decided to proceed -- this was over a year ago; it unanimously agreed on the terms of reference and the criteria -- all councillors; and it unanimously agreed on the three people to head up the

task force -- a very prestigious group of people, I might add.

Ward populations range from 14,000 to 63,000 right now and, if not changed, will spread to probably five times one over and against another. Three rural

associations launched an appeal at the OMB and you, Minister, took the highly unusual step of intervening by invoking a stay in the proceedings. Why would you put a stop to this process that

pre-empts the OMB and undercut the city council that was told to review the boundaries by your government?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I know the minister of rural affairs wants to answer this.

Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the member opposite knows, whenever the amalgamation discussions in

Ottawa were underway, one of the major considerations was representation in rural areas. Of course, as the member well knows, 90% of the city of Ottawa is in the rural portion. Three organizations

that cover more than three quarters of that expressed great concern with the decision the city council made and were quite concerned about losing representation, their voice on the city council, by

removing one member from the rural area.

The minister and this ministry felt it was appropriate to take a time out, and let's review the process on how we review that. Strictly, the application of

representation by population was one of the things that was considered during the amalgamation, but it wasn't the only thing. The representation at the council table by the rural areas was of

utmost importance.

Mr Patten: What you're really saying is that whatever system you put, no matter what mandate -- this was going on for over a year -- if you

don't agree with the other party, then you walk in and take over, which is typical. I know the activities of Mr Baird and Mr Sterling in pushing for this as well.

These boundaries were set by your government, by the way, and all councillors were happy except one.

There's a man by the name of Mr Randall Denley, who's usually on this government's side, and he says, "... but it's always disturbing to see the provincial

government usurping local decision-making powers. It's getting to be a bad habit. Any time something doesn't go the way the Tories want, they change the rules or fire the people involved. First

they made Claude Bennett dictator for a year, then they took over the hospital board, dumped the community care access centre board and fired the school board. The province has also undercut the

Ontario Municipal Board, the appeal body designed to resolve disputes about municipal decisions.

"Seems like the only guys who can get it right are the Tories themselves."

Will you do something before the end of this year so that we don't have to --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member's time is up. Associate Minister.

Hon Mr Coburn: With the time out there will be an opportunity to review it with the folks in Ottawa as to how they can address this situation.

Our government listens to the concerns of all the people --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Coburn: -- not just a select few in different areas. There is good reason --

The Speaker: May I ask the member for Ottawa Centre to withdraw that?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Associate Minister, sorry. Continue.

Hon Mr Coburn: He finds it quite convenient to reference all of the other issues that have gone on in Ottawa. Every one had merits on its own

as to why we addressed those particular areas: because of accountability, because of concern by the residents and the electorate that I serve as well in the Ottawa area. Those concerns were brought

to our attention.

It's a time out. There's ample opportunity there for the city council and residents to work on a process that will resolve this conflict in the future.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Today, my question is to the Minister of Transportation. We all read about tragic events

on our provincial roads and highways. In fact, we were sadly reminded of this again over this past weekend. Three teens were killed when a car hit them in the Welland area as they walked along the

sidewalk. The driver of the car was also killed.

We know that many road crashes are preventable. Speeding, alcohol, distractions or just plain careless driving claim too many lives. We all agree that the loss

of just one life is too many. What action are you taking to reduce aggressive and unsafe driving here in Ontario?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): No matter what we do with regard to building better roads, creating safer rules around

road safety, we still have a number of things that happen on our highways. I want to express our sympathy to the families who were involved in that terrible crash over this weekend in Welland.

Since we came to power in 1995, our government has worked hard to curb aggressive and unsafe driving. We have introduced many tough new measures that are

making our roads safer. We've allowed municipalities to establish community safety zones, doubling fines for many of the unsafe driving offences, including speeding. We've increased fines for

running red lights. We have allowed municipalities to have red-light cameras. We introduced vehicle impoundment for persons suspended under the Criminal Code who continue to drive. We'll continue

to work on these as long as we can, but we still must educate the public to drive safer.

Mr Gill: I want to thank the minister for his response. I know many Ontarians share your concern for road safety and are eager to

contribute.

Despite the valuable efforts over the years of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, and the Ontario Provincial

Police, to name just a few, drinking and driving continues to be a problem in this province. Minister, what is your ministry doing to address the problem of drinking and driving in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: It's a combination of things. We are working co-operatively with our police forces across our province to ensure that

drinking and driving don't go together. We've introduced a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension. We have 12-hour roadside licence suspension for drivers with a blood alcohol content

between 0.05% and 0.08%. We have a zero blood alcohol level for novice drivers. We have a mandatory remedial measures program involving assessment, education, treatment and follow-up for convicted

offenders.

I guess the most recent innovation, brought forward by Garfield Dunlop, is the ignition interlock program which we will be instituting in January of next

year.

We will continue to look for more and more ways of preventing drinking and driving together.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, you will know, or should know, that last

Wednesday your personally appointed supervisor of our school board spoke at the assembly of school councils at Westmount Secondary School. At that meeting, he stated that he had now formed a

community advisory council that was advising him on all of the big questions facing him, and I would assume that would include the strike involving the educational assistants that is keeping

hundreds of children out of the classrooms. During the course of the meeting, Minister, citizens asked if they could be told who is on the advisory committee. Your supervisor said that he was not

going to release the names of the members of the advisory committee.

Minister, this is unacceptable on our side of the House. I want to know if this is acceptable to you, to have a secret advisory committee, or whether you're

going to direct the supervisor to make those names public.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I understand that the supervisor in Hamilton is being advised by many people. I

understand he's had extensive consultations with people in the community and I understand he's very close to being ready to present us with a balanced budget.

Mr Christopherson: That is exactly the point. The budget is everything at the end of the day in terms of education and the crisis that we face

in Hamilton. It is your supervisor who made a specific point to say that the steps he was taking involved the formal setting up of a community advisory council. We want to know who is on it. It

affects our kids. He's keeping it secret. I want to know whether you find it acceptable that there's a secret advisory group advising your supervisor on how our education system ought to run, or

whether you're going to stand in your place today and say that that is unacceptable and that you are directing your supervisor to release the names of his secret advisory group.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can assure you that in everything the supervisor in Hamilton has undertaken, he has always done so with the best interests

of the students at heart. In fact, I know he has made visits to schools to personally see the state of the schools and to meet students, parents and teachers. I can assure you that as he makes his

decisions, he has consulted widely with a wide-ranging group of individuals in the community of Hamilton.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have several thousand names on this petition, which is a part of the 26,000-name petition dealing with Highway

69. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it says:

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of a government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Harris-Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-Eves government to begin construction

immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I affix my signature to this petition. I give this petition to Nazir, our new page, who will bring it to the table.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have more petitions on adoption disclosure reform. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario, adopted adults are denied a right available to non-adoptees, that is, the unrestricted right to identifying information concerning their

family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and

other acts to permit adult adoptees unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information; permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth

certificate when the adopted person reaches age 18; permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children; allow adopted persons and birth relatives

to file a contact veto restricting contact by the searching party; replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters have historically provided a vital service to small and rural communities across Ontario by volunteering services to their

local fire departments in addition to their professional firefighter duties; and

"Whereas by volunteering, these full-time firefighters provide highly valued expertise, skills and training for fellow volunteers; and

"Whereas the vital input, support and work of our full-time firefighters are now being placed in jeopardy by reported union pressure, including charges and

threats of charges aimed at putting an end to this vital volunteer service; and

"Whereas MPP Toby Barrett" -- and others -- "the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Firefighters' Association of Ontario have made clear their

support for this legislation;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario support Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 30, a private member's bill titled the Volunteer Firefighters Employment

Protection Act, and enshrine in law the right of full-time firefighters to volunteer."

I have signed this also.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we believe that all education resources should be directed to our public schools, not private schools;

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has been attacking public education for six years, chopping $1.8 billion from the classroom, and now wants to pay parents

to leave public education for private schools;

"Whereas we believe that a voucher plan for private schools is wrong, unfair, steals money from public education;

"Whereas we believe that these funds being invested in private schools would be better spent on rebuilding public education through such measures as bringing

class sizes down to 20 students per class in the early years;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Do not turn your back on Ontario's working families, fight the Harris-Eves voucher system for private schools, fight for smaller class sizes, and fight for

public education."

I'm very happy to sign my signature to this petition. I will be handing it to Maureen, who has just started as a page today in the assembly.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government promised the people of Ontario that the opening of the electricity market would deliver lower hydro rates and improve

service; and

"Whereas hydro rates have risen 21% over the past five months since the opening of that market; and

"Whereas consumers have been advised to expect power shortages in spite of higher costs; and

"Whereas consumers have not been adequately informed about the unbundling of charges and therefore do not understand and cannot reconcile the charges shown on

their hydro invoices;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to convene a legislative committee to oversee electricity

issues in order to inform and protect the public interest."

Speaker, I'm pleased to add my name to the petition and I will give it to Hin-Hey, our new page, to bring over to you.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also have a petition entitled "Support the Right of Full-Time Firefighters to Volunteer." It's

signed by a number of people in my riding, people from Port Dover, Caledonia, Simcoe, Delhi, Vittoria, Walsingham and Langton.

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters have historically provided a vital service to small and rural communities across Ontario by volunteering services to their

local fire departments in addition to their professional firefighter duties; and

"Whereas by volunteering, these full-time firefighters provide highly valued expertise, skills and training for fellow volunteers; and

"Whereas the vital input, support and work by our full-time firefighters are now being placed in jeopardy by reported union pressure, including charges and

threats of charges, aimed at putting an end to this vital volunteer service; and

"Whereas MPP Toby Barrett, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Firefighters' Association of Ontario (FFAO) have made clear their support

for this legislation;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario support Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 30, a private member's bill titled the Volunteer Firefighters Employment

Protection Act, and enshrine in law the right of full-time firefighters to volunteer."

I will add that hearings from interested parties continue before the standing committee on justice and social policy. I'm in agreement with the sentiments of

this petition, and hereby affix my signature to it.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

Board Act disallowing the retroactive hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that

will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

This is signed by a number of persons from Grande Pointe, Chatham, Port Lambton and Tilbury, and I too sign this petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the number of tenants receiving above-guideline increases is growing exponentially; and

"Whereas many of these increases are for increases in utility costs, many of which have gone down since; and

"Whereas tenants should not have to pay for improvements forever, even when the costs have been realized by these rent increases; and

"Whereas the Tenant Protection Act does not give a tenant relief due to the costs being realized or a drop in utility costs; and

"Whereas tenants should not be receiving rent increases where there are work orders issued for the building;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to immediately pass the Liberal bill entitled the Fair Rent Increases Act

at the earliest possible opportunity so that tenants can get relief from above-guideline increases once the bills have been paid."

I feel so strongly about this one that I'm going to affix my name to this one myself.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have more names on this 26,000-name petition. It's dealing with the multi-laning of Highway 69, and it's to

the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of any government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Harris-Eves

government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-Eves government to begin construction

immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I affix my signature to this petition. I give this to our new page, Natalie, to bring to the front desk.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents and cottagers of Bob's Lake, strenuously object to the permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment to OMYA Inc to remove 1.5

million litres of water per day from the Tay River, without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise

and interest; and

"Whereas it is our belief that this water taking will drastically impact the environment and seriously affect the water levels in Bob's and Christie lakes.

This in turn would affect fish spawning beds as well as habitat. It would also affect the wildlife in and around the lakes; and

"Whereas Bob's Lake and the Tay River watershed are already highly stressed by the historic responsibility of Parks Canada to use Bob's Lake as a reservoir for

the Rideau Canal; and

"Whereas the movement of water from the lake through the watershed for navigation purposes in the canal provides sufficient stress and problems for the lake.

This water-taking permit will only compound the stresses on the waterway;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We request that this permit be rescinded until a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of water taking by OMYA Inc on the environment, the water levels and

the water needs of these communities is complete. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

I am very happy to sign this petition because I am in full agreement. I'm going to hand it to Grant, who is with us today for the first time.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas some motorists are recklessly endangering the lives of children by not obeying the highway traffic law requiring them to stop for buses with their

warning lights activated;

"Whereas the current law has no teeth to protect the children who ride the school buses of Ontario, and who are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

and

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce, since not only is the licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver,

which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the measures contained in private member's Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses, presented by Pat

Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent Essex, be immediately enacted. Bill 112 received the unanimous all-party support of the Ontario Legislature at second reading on June 13, 2002.

"Bill 112 imposed liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing; and ...

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

This is signed by a number of residents from the Chatham area. I have hundreds and hundreds of names on petitions, and I too have signed this one.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): A further petition on the multi-laning of Highway 69, and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of any government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Harris-Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-Eves government to begin construction

immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I, of course, affix my signature. I ask Matthew, our new page, to bring it to the table for us.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special

order of the House relating to Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, when Bill 181 is next called as a government order the Speaker shall put every question necessary to

dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy;

and

That the vote on second reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred; and

That the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet for one day at its next scheduled meeting time for the purpose of

consideration of the bill; and

That, no later than 4 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall

interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee

shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment until completion of clause-by-clause consideration. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been

put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the

completion of clause-by-clause consideration. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be

reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on justice and social policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report

forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or

amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Galt has moved government notice of motion 44. Further debate?

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I will be sharing my time with several esteemed members of my party who are asking me to

do so.

Just to remind the people at home so that they can follow as I go along, today we are going to be debating a motion to send Bill 181, the Legal Aid Services

Amendment Act, to the standing committee on justice and social policy for its consideration. This motion comes after three sessional days of debate on this bill with numerous speeches from all

sides of the House.

In an effort to save some time this afternoon, I'll do the House a small favour. I'll both raise and rebut the tired

arguments that the opposition trots out every time the government tries to move a bill forward. I'll then explain again why Bill 181 is essential to the proper administration of justice in Ontario

and worthy of the approval of this House. Hopefully, the opposition will return this favour by not inflicting their usual time allocation rant on their very fellow members and people at

home.

The first opposition argument comes courtesy of the member for St Paul's. His argument goes like this, and this is historic opposition argument number 1:

"Since 1995, the Harris-Eves government has time-allocated 80 bills." This is how he'll say it. I'm sure he'll get a chance to say that again today. I'm sure you've seen that before. "This

government has made more guillotine motions than Madame Lafarge." That's what he'll say.

It's true that this government has made use of the standing orders of this House to advance a bill efficiently, but only after a substantial period of debate.

In fact, some might say it's our job to pass legislation -- the people of Ontario have given us that right and that mandate -- and not to debate it to death.

In the case of Bill 181, we'll have had about 10 hours of debate by the end of this session. We've heard a number of speeches from every party, including an

opening speech from the Attorney General and speeches from the main Liberal and NDP opposition critics that went on one full hour apiece. So let's be clear: we have dedicated a great deal of time

to debating Bill 181 in this House.

The next argument is one the member for St Catharines likes to use, and that is stock opposition argument number 2: the word "Parliament" is derived from the

French verb "parler," which means "to talk." Time allocation motions diminish democracy and the ability of the members of the Legislature to talk about bills of interest to them and to their

constituents.

This is how the member for St Catharines will start his argument. I'm sure you'll agree that the opposition's knowledge of the French language is impressive;

however, the failure to remember or acknowledge the 10 hours of debate on this important bill before today is not.

The government's position on this bill is very clear. Regrettably, so is the opposition's. Let's remember that the opposition does not agree with the bill.

They do not believe the House should approve a bill that would provide legal counsel to hundreds of poor Ontarians who currently have none. Why is that so? For the New Democrats, the reasons are

perhaps ideological. For the Liberals, the reasons were probably dictated over the phone by policy director Warren Kinsella. At any rate, because they oppose this bill, they will do anything,

including subjecting the House to epic speeches by the member for Niagara Centre, to slow down or prevent its passage.

Should they be more co-operative? Perhaps they should be. Every day the opposition calls upon the government to take immediate action to help those in need.

With Bill 181, that's exactly what we're doing: taking swift action to make sure those in need can have legal representation. Yet here they are asking us to delay and delay more. Is that in the

interests of the people who rely on Legal Aid Ontario for help? Clearly not. So in whose interests are the Liberals and NDP arguing when they say they want to drag this bill out? It's not clear to

me or to many others here, as well as to people at home.

Personally, I think that if the opposition adopted more of our policies, particularly relating to taxes and public safety, they might find themselves a little

more successful at the polls. I can assure the members of the opposition that the women and children who need legal aid lawyers will find little comfort in the knowledge that Liberals and New

Democrats believe it politically expedient to talk till they drop. Members on this side of the House want to do right by these people. Why don't they?

Now we come to stock opposition argument number 3, and I quote: "Time allocation motions are a way for the government to prevent members of the opposition from

examining or criticizing ill-considered bills. That's censorship." That's what they will say.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there quorum?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Do we have quorum?

Deputy Clerk (Ms Deborah Deller): Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Deputy Clerk: Quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Quorum being present, the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale may continue.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to thank all the members who came back to listen to my speech. I appreciate that.

Let me remind the House that as we speak, some lawyers in this province are choosing to deny legal representation to some very vulnerable people: women and

children. This is unacceptable, to this government anyway. I can't understand why the opposition, particularly the NDP, do not favour speedy consideration and passage of this bill. Consider my

surprise to read Hansard and find the member for Toronto-Danforth stating that she opposes this bill because legal aid lawyers making $88 per hour are underpaid. Although I knew the New Democrats

wanted to raise Ontario's minimum wage, I would never have guessed that they meant raising it from $88 per hour to $150 per hour, perhaps.

Stock argument number 4: "This bill will fundamentally alter the way we have delivered services in the province of Ontario; therefore we need public hearings

on this bill." You've heard that.

They want public hearings on everything. Last week the member for Toronto-Danforth stated that she wanted public hearings on this bill. Why? Because their

resident justice expert, the member for Niagara Centre, said it would be a good idea. Mr Speaker, it's just too easy. They want public hearings on everything. They don't want this House to move on

and do the right thing for Ontarians. They just want to drag this thing out, debate it to death. Those calling for public hearings are the same people who have been calling on us to act quickly to

solve this problem. It's amazing. They ask us to move quickly, we do, and now they want us to take the bill on the road for weeks and weeks to hear what lawyers think. With respect, we already know

what they think. Lawyers have made it abundantly clear with their tactics. The people in Brockville who can't get a lawyer don't need public hearings. They need help, and we're going to give it to

them. And they need the help now.

The reason we need to move forward with this bill quickly is clear to everyone but the opposition. Maybe they just don't understand the bill. This is quite

likely, given some of the remarkable comments made by the members for Hamilton East and Scarborough-Agincourt about Mississippi and the death penalty. So as I promised earlier, I'll explain to them

again what this bill will allow Legal Aid Ontario to do.

To ensure that the interests of justice continue to be served, our government is proposing to amend the Legal Aid Services Act. That's what this bill is

about.

As you have already heard, the purpose of this bill is to achieve a balance in the way legal aid services are provided in this province. The legislation would,

if passed -- and again, it's still being debated -- place various tools or options at the disposal of Legal Aid Ontario. These options would include hiring more staff lawyers, expanding the role of

duty counsel and contracting out work to private lawyers and law firms.

Legal Aid Ontario, the provincial agency responsible for administering legal aid services, established a pilot project two years ago in which family law staff

offices were opened in Thunder Bay, Ottawa and Toronto. The evaluation of the pilot project has determined that the mixed system is a success.

In Canada, legal aid is provided through separate legal aid plans in each of the provinces. Though each province and territorial government has developed its

own legal aid scheme, three general models have been adopted: a staff system, a judicare system and a mixed system. Several provinces either rely almost completely on staff lawyers or on a mixture

of staff and private counsel.

I would like to use this time to remind members of the opposition who claim that this bill will lead to an Americanization of the Ontario justice system -- I

guess this is why they like to talk about Mississippi and death row. This is simply not the case. If the Liberals and New Democrats would employ their researchers to do something more useful than

sorting through cabinet ministers' trash, they would know this. Let me explain what other provinces are doing so that they can see where Ontario's going and how our direction compares to legal aid

plans in other parts of Canada.

New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta are the only provinces that have primary judicare or private bar, although there are circumstances where there are staff

lawyers available. Other provinces make use of what is called a staff system. Under a staff system a legal aid plan directly employs lawyers to provide legal aid services. Newfoundland and

Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have adopted this approach.

In staff systems, the private bar may still be used when circumstances warrant; for example, if there are conflicts of interest or staff lawyers are

unavailable. A mixed system combines the judicare and staff systems and utilizes both private and staff lawyers in the provision of legal services.

The legal aid plans in Quebec, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon operate mixed systems of legal aid. In most of these jurisdictions, the

client has the right to choose counsel, either staff or private, from a panel of lawyers providing legal aid services. Quebec has made use of this type of system for decades. I think it's about 30

years.

The mixed models have a proven track record of providing high-quality legal aid services to clients, and this is the type of system that Legal Aid Ontario

would deliver if Bill 181 was passed.

So much for the Americanization of legal aid. In fact, this is more like the Canadianization of legal aid.

I would now like to describe the mixed legal aid system used with great success by Manitoba and Quebec in greater detail.

The Legal Aid Service Society of Manitoba was established in 1972 and is responsible for the administration of legal aid services in that province. Similar to

Ontario, it is an entity governed by an independent board of directors whose members are appointed by the provincial government. In mixed-service models such as Manitoba, the legal aid program

provides formal representation in the areas of criminal, family and poverty law. The program also represents groups in cases of public interest.

When a client applies for legal aid in Manitoba, they can request a specific private bar lawyer. The plan will usually send the certificate to that lawyer. If

the lawyer is available and willing to accept the certificate, he will so engage. If the applicant does not specify a lawyer, the plan will usually assign a staff lawyer.

Legal Aid Manitoba provides legal services to individuals who appear in court but do not have a lawyer acting for them. This service is available in criminal,

youth and some child welfare courts. Legal aid offers duty counsel services in approximately 50 communities in Manitoba. Staff lawyers provide 95% of these services. Staff lawyers, private lawyers

mandated by Legal Aid Manitoba, or paralegals provide legal services to individuals who are arrested outside of regular business hours. This service is usually provided over the phone and is

available from 4:30 pm to 8 am the next day.

The first legal aid services emerged in Quebec in the early 1950s as an initiative of the bar

section of Quebec City. During the following years, the Quebec

government and the bar of the province of Quebec signed agreements relating to the provision of legal aid services. In 1972 the Quebec Legislature passed the Legal Aid Act, which in turn

established the legal services commission.

The commission has the authority to establish legal aid centres, and currently has 11 regional and two local centres overseeing the delivery of services in 128

legal aid offices. Each regional and local centre is governed by its own board of directors whose members are nominated by the commission. The commission operates a mixed judicare staff model.

Clients can be represented by the private lawyer of their choice if they are available, just like the Manitoba system; otherwise they're represented by staff lawyers.

Legal aid is provided for a range of civil and criminal cases, including criminal charges involving an indictable offence, family cases, youth protection,

youth offenders and income security matters. Staff lawyers provide duty counsel representation at all criminal, administrative and family court locations across the province. Only

summary legal

assistance is provided through duty counsel representation.

Why is the opposition so afraid to debate this proposed legislation on an apples-to-apples basis by looking at the system used in separatist Quebec and

socialist Manitoba instead of constantly and inaccurately comparing the system contemplated by this proposed legislation with the American experience? Is it because they know we are doing the right

thing and don't want to admit it, or is it because they just can't make any reasonable criticism of the bill based on facts?

If the Legal Aid Services Amendment Act is passed, Legal Aid Ontario would be taking advantage of the strengths offered by both staff and fee-for-service

lawyers to provide effective legal aid services. As has been mentioned previously, the current legal aid system grants private bar lawyers a monopoly over the provision of legal aid services in the

areas of criminal and family law. The proposed legislation will help Legal Aid Ontario in ensuring the stability and sustainability of the system. This is a very important point. The legal aid

system must protect the rights of those in need. It must also be able to prevent disruption of the judicial system. The proposed legislation would allow us to meet our obligations and

responsibilities to ensure everyone's right to legal representation is protected. Legal Aid Ontario would be given the tools to achieve a balance in the way services are delivered, including hiring

more staff lawyers, expanding the role of the duty counsel, contracting out work, and reducing the nearly total reliance on the private bar.

As I noted at length earlier, the mixed model that uses staff lawyers is operating elsewhere in Canada and works well to ensure high-quality and cost-effective

services.

The private bar would continue to perform a significant part of service delivery in the areas of family and criminal law matters. Our proposed legislation

would simply expand the method of service delivery and broaden options available to clients.

We believe that a mixed system is the best way to achieve a balanced and sustainable legal aid system and provide the legal services Ontarians need. That is

why we are supporting this bill, and that is why we want to move forward with it quickly.

The Deputy Speaker: The floor is open for further debate.

Mr Bryant: I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince Edward-Hastings.

The Deputy Speaker: It will just rotate around and they'll get their turn in rotation.

Mr Bryant: To listen to the member opposite, one would think that we are bringing in a bill which permits the government to do something which

it cannot do right now. That is simply untrue. It is untrue to suggest that the government of Ontario does not right now have on the books a law that permits Legal Aid Ontario, an independent body,

to deploy staff lawyers in certain jurisdictions in the province. In fact, Legal Aid Ontario has a statutory mandate, under a bill passed by this government in 1998, to use creative means in order

to provide legal assistance. They have that power and they have exercised that power in the past. That is not what this bill is about.

This bill is not about creating new legal tools for Legal Aid Ontario; rather, this bill is about a dispute between the Attorney General of Ontario and

counsel, in particular in parts of southeastern Ontario. This partisan trump card of a bill is nothing less than a blank cheque to deliver a mortal wound to legal assistance in the province of

Ontario. It goes right at the heart and pierces the purpose of the very bill that this government passed in 1998 to empower an independent body to provide legal assistance in a flexible way.

Incredibly, notwithstanding the importance of that independence, and notwithstanding the importance of that law that this government passed, and

notwithstanding the rights at issue -- in some cases the liberty of individuals, in some cases the security of the person, both protected under

section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms --

and despite the fact that the Attorney General has special constitutional and statutory obligations to safeguard our Constitution and to safeguard the administration of justice, despite all of

that, we have here before us a motion to end debate on this matter.

I don't know if people who have either a passing interest in this subject or a keen interest in this subject understand what is happening here. This is not a

motion to hasten matters. This is not a motion to limit debate. This is a motion to kill debate. It's over after this. I don't know if the people involved in this issue across the province of

Ontario -- whether it be in Legal Aid Ontario, whether it be the bench, whether it be the bar, whether it be the academy -- understand that it's over with this motion, which will pass today under

the majority. It's over. The debate on this is over. Not only will there be no more debate on the bill after this; there will be no third reading debate; there will be no debate in committee.

The government purports to be providing amendments, we hear. We don't know what those amendments are. He has provided some assurances through the media, though

not in this Legislature, about those amendments, and we're not even going to get to look at them in committee. Why? Because we will have somewhere between zero and 30 minutes of committee hearings

-- if you want to call it a hearing -- after which it is over; the amendments shall be deemed to be passed. Second and third reading shall be deemed to be passed. It will all be over. Depending on

when the committee is meeting, it will be over by the end of this week -- no debate, no hearing, nothing; no public hearings, God forbid, no public hearings whatsoever. No witnesses will be called.

Even the critical amendments that I think speak to every aspect of legal assistance in the province of Ontario, we're not going to get to look at them, for zero to 30 minutes, because on a day when

the Legislature ends at 3:30, as we had today -- it was a little early -- we would have 30 minutes in committee hearings. Some days it goes much later. Committee hearings can't begin any earlier

than 3:30. The clerk is loath to call any witnesses before 4 o'clock under the circumstances. In this circumstance, we have to go through the amendments by 4 o'clock and they'll be deemed to

be passed, with no scrutiny whatsoever.

This motion is an affront to democracy and to due process, considering particularly the rights at stake, the minister who is making this motion and the bill

that's before us now. What rights at stake am I talking about? Well, don't take my word for it; I know government members wouldn't. Take the word of the former Chief Justice of Canada, the Right

Honourable Antonio Lamer.

Section 2(

b) of the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel. The Supreme Court of Canada has addressed that issue and determined that in all likelihood that does not

include the right to public funding of counsel. That said,

section 7 of the Constitution has seen, potentially, a positive constitutional obligation on every province to ensure adequate funding for

legal assistance. I'll get to that in a moment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a party by

article 11(d), provides a right to legal assistance without

payment by the person charged, if he or she does not have sufficient means to pay for it.

American jurisprudence is along the same lines. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its judgment in a case

called New Brunswick v G(J). It involved an indigent parent who was having her child, in an application in the hearing, come up for wardship. It was a case in which the parent might lose custody of

their child -- pretty important rights at stake, I think everybody would agree. She was denied legal aid. She couldn't afford a lawyer. The court said that the security of the person was implicated

by the proceeding to remove her children, therefore the principles of fundamental justice would be violated if she were not represented.

Section 7 of the charter was breached. The court held that

what happened in that case was not a reasonable limitation under

section 1.

Chief Justice Lamer said something that I am sure woke up every Attorney General in the country, federal and provincial. He said that although there is no

obligation under

section 10 to provide state-funded counsel, "that doesn't preclude an

interpretation of the Constitution that imposes a positive constitutional obligation on governments to provide

counsel in those cases when it is necessary to ensure a fair hearing."

So, obviously, one would think, post-1999 every single opportunity that arose in every single province across this country to amend legislation involving legal

aid, involving legal assistance generally, would try to ensure that our system in Ontario is aligned with this fairly dramatic finding of the Supreme Court of Canada. So, are we debating whether or

not the new legislation is aligned with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? No, we're not. We're not doing that, because the debate is over after this afternoon.

Are we having public hearings? Are we hearing from Legal Aid Ontario? Are we hearing from Professor John McCamus, who

wrote the blueprint on the present system? Are we hearing from those in the legal clinics who might be affected by way of collateral damage or reward perhaps? Are we hearing from any of the parties

involved in the dispute? Are we hearing from any of the elected representatives of the people involved in the profession itself; in other words, the regulatory body, the Law Society of Upper

Canada? Are we hearing from any of the countless experts who have spoken to and studied this, some of whom were cited in support by the government during their debate? Are we hearing from any of

those people?

Are we hearing from any of the people who are going to be affected by this? Are we hearing from the people who currently cannot afford counsel and are not

being represented? Are we hearing from any of them? We're hearing from none of them, because there are no public hearings. This motion kills the debate. It's an affront to democracy but also to due

process because this bill means we won't have the opportunity and ensure that in fact the present laws of Ontario and the potential laws of Ontario align with this finding of the Supreme Court of

Canada in 1999.

The dean of constitutional experts in Canada, the person who has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional issues more than anybody else, who

is right now also the dean of Osgoode Hall, Professor Peter Hogg, said in his tome on constitutional law in Canada, in assessing this particular finding of the Supreme Court of Canada, "Obviously,

there is now a very broad basis for the judicial review on constitutional grounds of denials of legal aid, and every province will have to examine the design, funding and staffing of its provincial

legal aid plan to see if it meets the new standard."

Are we doing that here today? No, we're not. We're not doing that. We are not debating this. We are not seeing if the design, funding and staffing of the

Ontario legal aid plan meets the new standards set by the Supreme Court of