HERITAGE BAPTIST COLLEGE AND HERITAGE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT, 1994
NAMDHARI SANGAT CANADA (SOCIETY) ONT. ACT, 1994
LIONS CLUB OF KINGSVILLE ACT, 1994
ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION OF HAMILTON INC. ACT, 1994
AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS
BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES
ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO
DONATION OF FOOD ACT / LOI DE 1994 SUR LE DON D'ALIMENTS
AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'EMBLÈME AVIEN
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FOR ST ANDREW-ST PATRICK
Report continued from volume A.
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I would like to proceed with some private bills that are currently on the order paper and, with consent, include those private bills that were reported from the standing committee on regulations and private bills today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have agreement? Agreed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Curling, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
HERITAGE BAPTIST COLLEGE AND HERITAGE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Winninger, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr60, An Act to incorporate Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
NAMDHARI SANGAT CANADA (SOCIETY) ONT. ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr110, An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ont.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
COUNTY OF LAMBTON ACT, 1994
On motion by Mrs MacKinnon, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr113, An Act respecting the County of Lambton.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
TOWN OF ORANGEVILLE ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Tilson, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr119, An Act respecting the Town of Orangeville.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Dadamo, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr122, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
TOWNSHIP OF SEYMOUR ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Curling, on behalf of Mrs Fawcett, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr124, An Act respecting the Township of Seymour.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
LIONS CLUB OF KINGSVILLE ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Curling, on behalf of Mr Crozier, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr125, An Act to revive the Lions Club of Kingsville.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION OF HAMILTON INC. ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Abel, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr126, An Act to revive Electrical Construction Association of Hamilton Inc.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
TOWN OF DRESDEN ACT, 1994
On motion by Mr Hope, the following bill was given second reading:
Bill Pr127, An Act respecting the Town of Dresden.
The bill was also given third reading on motion.
1600
Hon Mr Philip: In the absence of Mr Mackenzie, I move third reading of Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry.
The Acting Speaker: These are the rules pertaining to Bill 91 third reading: That an hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendments.
We are now under time allocation.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought we had an arrangement whereby the Solicitor General's new bill was to be dealt with at this particular time. If we could ask for unanimous consent to allow us to proceed with the bill introduced by Mr Christopherson, the Solicitor General, I think it would help our work a great deal.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Bruce has requested unanimous consent. The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Hon Mr Philip: We'd certainly be open to seeking unanimous consent for Bill 91, An Act to regulate the Purchase, Sale and Provision of Ammunition.
The Acting Speaker: This is not Bill 91. We are now dealing with a bill that was introduced today by the Solicitor General.
Hon Mr Philip: Bill 119, I'm sorry.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed. The Solicitor General, under unanimous agreement we are now dealing with your new bill.
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Do you need a motion or are we moving into comments?
The Acting Speaker: We would like you to move second reading and then proceed with debate.
AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS
Mr Christopherson moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 181, An Act to regulate the Purchase, Sale and Provision of Ammunition / Projet de loi 181, Loi réglementant l'achat, la vente et la fourniture de munitions.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is unanimous consent to proceed with this bill although it has been introduced inside the last two weeks of the session, and we're prepared to proceed on the basis of unanimous consent from all parties with second and third reading today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 181? Agreed? Agreed. We do have unanimous consent. Solicitor General.
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I also understand that we have reached an agreement that there will be an opportunity for very brief remarks on the part of each of the parties, a few moments. I'm getting different signals.
I would make just a few remarks at this time. First of all, I want to begin my comments, as I did when I introduced the bill, by again acknowledging and thanking all members of the House for the cooperation and support that all have shown on this public safety issue.
From the outset, the offer of discussing this matter and others at the legislative committee level was offered by the official opposition in a non-partisan way. Although I would say that question period from time to time gave that a little bit of a bumpy road, the fact remains that at the committee level and ultimately here now as we deal with the result of that work we have seen a very rare showing of unanimity on the part of MPPs from various parties, different philosophies, who all agree that the issues of public safety, community safety and police officer safety are all priorities for us. I think hopefully when we see this bill enacted today we'll have given real meaning to a lot of the comments that are made here around the issue of public safety.
1610
Let me also take a moment to comment that I think we also in this Legislature are many times dealing with the issue of the perception of crime and how bad are our streets versus the reality. My sense of it is that much of it depends on what part of the country we're talking about, what part of our province in terms of the rates. I certainly don't believe crime is as horrible as some of the glaring headlines suggest, but I also do not believe for a moment that this is not a significant issue for us and that in certain areas there are increases in violent crime and that we as legislators have an obligation to deal with those real issues.
This government, I believe, has been taking a very proactive approach to the issue of crime and crime prevention and public safety. Last fall, the ministry I am responsible for initiated the public safety and violent crime project which sets out a two-year plan of a series of standards and priorities that would assist police in uniformly and in a comprehensive way responding to the major types of crimes people are concerned about in our province at this time and helps prepare police to deal in the kind of fashion that they want to.
Also, in response to a health and safety issue that directly affects police officers in this province, the issue of the firearm that they have had for many years now, this government saw fit to respond to a health and safety directive from the Ministry of Labour and enacted the legislation that would allow police officers to move from the .38-calibre revolver, which was deemed to be unsafe in some circumstances, to the far more efficient and safer 9-millimetre or .40-calibre semi-automatic. This was done solely in recognition of the public safety of our officers and their need to have the tools of the job so they can give the service they commit themselves to and provide it at a professional level, which I believe every officer in Ontario is thoroughly committed to doing.
A number of other initiatives with regard to the specific area that we're talking about today: gun control and ammunition control. Recently, I announced the creation and formation of the provincial weapons enforcement unit, which is a dedicated, joint forces task force made up of officers from all the major police services across the province, headed up by the OPP with support from other police services as the work of this unit takes them across the province. The unit was put together to respond to the growing concern of the number of illegal firearms in Ontario that are smuggled in across the border with the country to our south. Also, unlike other contraband issues this government has also responded to, such as when there was a joint operation out of Cornwall with the RCMP and working again with our colleagues there, there needs to be a recognition this time with this piece of contraband that we're not talking about something that gets consumed once. A handgun can wreak havoc at any time, at any place in this province and it can do it many times over.
One of the purposes and mandates of this unit is to not only stop the smuggling of illegal weapons into this province but also to seek out the distribution networks that currently exist and seek out those individuals who are involved in the sale of these deadly items that are in our communities. I was very, very pleased and very proud that at the launch of that unit, Chief William McCormack of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force was with me. The commissioner of the OPP, Tom O'Grady, and the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Hamilton-Wentworth Police Chief Bob Middaugh, were also present for the sole purpose of signifying to the people of Ontario that this was an effort of cooperation on the part of the government and police leadership, but that also it was an issue of such significance that they wanted to show to the people of Ontario that they were behind this effort 100%.
I'm very, very pleased that we were able to put that package together. The government of Ontario is the major funder of new money to allow this unit to do this important job that has been set out for it. I'm pleased that we were able to do it I think very quickly, very effectively. The planning and the up-and-running aspects of that particular unit are well under way as we speak. That's another piece.
Another piece to this, of course, was the amnesty program that I announced a few weeks ago that is in effect right now, which allows Ontarians to remove handguns and weapons and ammunition that they don't want in their homes any longer, to know that they can bring it to their local police service and not be charged with a possessions offence. They don't have to worry about the red tape of: "How do I go about this? What's going to happen? I've got this revolver from the Second World War. I inherited it from Uncle Harry. I don't know what to do with it." It's just so much hassle, so they leave it buried in the garage or buried in the closet.
This will allow them to bring that forward. It has the effect of taking that weapon out of circulation, because so many of the crimes that we see that involve weapons involve stolen weapons. This amnesty allows Ontarians the option to easily and effectively, over this three-month period, turn that firearm in and remove it as a potential danger on the streets of Ontario.
Lastly, because we do want to be brief, this piece today I think adds to that whole comprehensive approach that this government has taken, that other governments are taking, that we're now seeing the federal government take. I think what makes this particularly special is the fact that as a result of receiving the recommendations of the committee only a couple of days ago and realizing the end of this session was upon us, the only way we could take action would be to receive unanimous consent. Indeed, we were able to do that. I want to say, as the person who did the talking around, it was done with a minimal amount of difficulty, no partisan politics. Everybody was trying to find a way to get to yes.
There are some pieces of this that everybody wanted. We're all in agreement, I believe, that we want to move the age from 16 to 18 in Ontario, even though the federal government's law says 16. We all agree that we want individuals to produce proof that they're 18 years of age before they can purchase ammunition in Ontario. Thirdly, we want to ensure that we have a record of those transactions so that we can be absolutely assured of compliance with these important public safety initiatives.
Those three initiatives, while no one is suggesting, I don't believe, that this is a panacea of any sort, that this is going to solve all of the problems, are seen by MPPs in Ontario to be a significant initiative with significant steps that will make a difference. If there's a way that we can do this before we rise, we ought to seize that moment.
That's what's happening here today. You're seeing all MPPs agree on an issue in a non-partisan way, willing to set aside the usual rules to permit these particular laws to come into place and provide at least this measurable amount of added protection and improvement to the safety of the people of Ontario, which I know that we're all dedicated and committed to here in this place.
In closing, I want to take a moment to pay particular attention to and give thanks to the staff of not only my office but of my ministry. Some of them are here today in the gallery. Literally, they've worked around the clock, along with the other lawyers and constitutional experts in the Ministry of the Attorney General, so that the will of this place could prevail. I think we know probably better than anyone that without the professionalism and dedication of people like this, we wouldn't be able to do the job that we want to do. I want to extend a personal thanks to each of you, those who are here and those who are still in their offices working away on this and other issues.
Lastly, I want to end, again, on the most positive of notes by thanking my critics, the party leaders, the government leader -- the Premier -- and the House leaders for the work that they have done in ensuring that we could come to this moment and put in place at least these steps that we think will make a difference in Ontario and leave on the note that this job is undone. There's more that has to be done in this area, but Ontario has gone as far as we can under the Constitution.
We now, by virtue of agreeing here today unanimously on our law, I think send a powerful message to the federal government that it now has not only an obligation but from Ontario a mandate to finish the job that needs to be done. On that note, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address this and offer my personal thanks to all the members who are here today to allow this bill to become law.
1620
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to thank the minister for his comments. I would call this a rather progressive piece of legislation. I know how concerned the police officers in our community are, the fear at their jobs about guns and ammunition in the wrong hands. The fact is that sometimes moving legislation that is progressive is difficult, as he stated in the House, unless we get the cooperation of all.
As I have spoken to many police officers out there, they are saying that each day when they do get up, how fearful they are because there's no control out there. This type of legislation is only a start, as the minister stated. As a matter of fact, sometimes laws alone cannot help us in situations like these, but continuous cooperation, the continuous way of supporting our police officers out there to make sure that the ammunition that is in the wrong hands is controlled and the criminals who do have it will be apprehended and make sure they are given the proper sentences.
I want also to make a comment in regard to the minister, and I hope the speakers will keep the kind of -- sometimes racism creeps into it and who should have that. What it does is it takes away from the focus of what we really want to do in this issue. It's about individuals who have had illegal weapons in their hands, regardless of colour, class, sex or so. If they are criminals, regardless of what sector they fall in, they should be apprehended and chastised according to the law.
I just want to say how I welcome this initiative. It's only the beginning for us to make sure that we have a safe community and a community that can be enforced and our police officers can carry out their duties in the best way they can.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I attended the funeral yesterday of Constable Todd Baylis. For the millions who watched that funeral on television, we know what a statement was made by the attendance of thousands of police officers from across the North American continent. The statement that was made is that something must be done.
I hope that this government will support and pass the resolution that is being placed by my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville this afternoon. This resolution would go a long way to addressing the concerns of those policemen and women yesterday who attended that funeral. I personally am very proud of each and every one of them.
The resolution reads as follows:
"The Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, sharing the public's concerns about the level of violent crime in our society and to support our law enforcement officers demands that the federal government of Canada amend the Immigration Act to provide for the automatic, non-appealable deportation of any landed immigrant or refugee who is:
"(a) convicted of a criminal offence involving violence where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more;
"(b) convicted of a criminal offence involving the use of a weapon or the possession of an illegal weapon where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more; or
"(c) has more than three criminal convictions."
This resolution would go a long way to trying to deal with the problems that our society faces today, and in particular those men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to protect us from the problems that society has developed. I hope that this resolution will be supported by this Bob Rae government.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): More in the form of a question to the minister with regard to the legislation, I think all of us here in the assembly can support the intent of the legislation when it comes to making sure that we have a system that makes people more responsible when it comes, first of all, to the purchase of ammunition, but more importantly, once you've purchased the ammunition, that you're responsible for the usage of that ammunition. In the event that something was to happen, having a registry system of who bought ammunition and where it went I think is a good idea.
But to the minister I want to ask this question: In northern Ontario, as you would know, and in rural Ontario and southwestern and eastern Ontario, a number of people utilize weapons for hunting. You are able in this province to get a hunting licence at age 15. Many people in my riding go out and get their hunter safety program, they get a hunting licence, they're out responsibly with an adult in supervision, going out to hunt for partridge or whatever it might be at the time during the particular season. They are able to utilize weapons to go out and hunt. Would this legislation preclude a 17- or 15- or 16-year-old individual from going out to participate in hunting activities with an adult at hand?
I think I would agree that you have to limit the sale of ammunition to people over the age of 18, but I want to make sure, before I vote in favour of this legislation, that we're still going to have the ability as young people in northern Ontario to be able to accompany adults when it comes to going out hunting and that if we are able to get a hunting licence under the age of 18, as is presently the case, that you'll still be able to do so and that the legislation will not hinder that ability.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I'd like to take a few minutes just to talk about what the minister has said and about Mr Runciman's resolution. I noticed that the minister took great delight in saying that we had all three parties' support on this. There may not be as much support as he thinks there is when we're trying to help him out in a situation, and then our member has a far better resolution than his bill will ever be and makes more sense. I would like to see that they would give us unanimous consent also in seeing that this resolution, which was brought in by the member for Leeds-Grenville, gets passed today.
I certainly know that we still have second and third reading to go on his bill, or third reading anyway, and I'm having serious thoughts as to whether I can support that if we can't seem to work together in this House. They talk about working together.
If you would look at Mr Runciman's resolution, which is just a resolution, and I know we've had other resolutions in this House that have been passed and they're not always followed, but if the minister would look at this resolution again and give us some indication that he would support it and give us all three parties' support -- because I'm sure the Liberals would support this resolution. It makes common sense.I don't think they'd have any problem and they certainly would.
If the minister would look at the member for Leeds-Grenville's resolution, tell us that it does make common sense and tell us that he'll support this, then what I'm thinking here may change. But if not, I'll have to seriously consider whether I'll support him on third reading.
The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. Wrapup by the Solicitor General.
Hon Mr Christopherson: I want to thank all the members for their comments, most of which I agree with, not all. But I think that's what's so significant about what's happening here today, that we do have agreement on the pieces of a bill that will provide for safer communities and safer Ontarians. That is as a result, of course, of the committee work that was done, where there was a lot of time to look at the issue and to review it and bring in hearings. That's what led to the unanimous consent. I certainly would hope no one's trying to equate that with any other suggestions.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge the questions asked by the member for Cochrane South when he asks about those who are under the age of 18 in Ontario but who are lawfully entitled to own and use and operate a firearm by virtue of federal legislation. Will this new law have the effect of allowing someone to own and use a firearm under a federal law, but by virtue of a provincial law deny them the right to access to ammunition?
1630
I can say to him with a great deal of certainty that the bill has been structured in such a way that it would allow and ensure that those who are under the age of 18 but have a legal right to own and use and operate a firearm will have access to ammunition, either by direct purchase, if they're 16 or 17, and since the federal legislation cutoff is 16, by virtue of its being provided to them by an appropriate person, if they're under the age of 16, whereby that person has to ensure themselves that they are indeed qualified, and if that happens, then the Ontarian will have maintained the same rights that they had before.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): As our party's co-critic of the Solicitor General, I'm glad to participate in this debate today and add my voice to this rare chorus of unanimity.
I want to give a sense to those who might be watching at home and those in the chamber of the history of how we got to this point. As many will remember, there was an unfortunate drive-by shooting in Ottawa some weeks ago, as well as the unfortunate shooting death at the Just Desserts restaurant here in Toronto.
Arising out of that was a set of concerns that came from the fact that what we saw in those shooting incidents were illegal weapons but store-bought bullets. Out of that concern my leader, Lyn McLeod, myself and others raised with the Solicitor General the concern about that fact that illegal weapons and store-bought bullets were being used in criminal actions in this province and that we thought that by regulating the purchase and sale of ammunition we could start doing something about that problem.
I was pleased to be able to introduce Bill 149, which was the first stab at doing something about this. Then the member for Ottawa West, my Liberal colleague for justice matters, introduced Bill 151 a few days later and he brought it to second reading where it was passed and referred to the justice committee for consideration there.
We had at that same time asked that the justice committee be empowered to consider a broad range of things: community policing; the statistics surrounding crime, to distinguish between the real and perceived amount of crime in our community; plea bargaining, parole and bail; gun and ammo control; and crime prevention.
It's unfortunate that the committee's mandate got reduced to crime prevention initiatives and ammo control, because I think that the spirit of cooperation we saw around ammo control might have broadened and allowed us to do much in those other areas that I think needs to be done.
As I mentioned earlier in question period, I represent a riding which includes, for example, Regent Park, which includes also St James Town, Cabbagetown and the Corktown area and Seaton, Ontario, Berkeley and a number of areas within 51 Division, 52 Division and 53 Division in the city that have a problem with crime, much of it obviously connected to the drug trade but very much crimes of violence, crimes involving guns. As I've mentioned in this House before, in a period of six months from July to December of last year, within 51 Division there were 461 weapons offences, in that one division alone. We need to do something.
One can purchase, for example, illegal handguns in parts of my riding at two for $125 in a matter of minutes by walking into stores which I won't name but which the residents in a certain part of my riding, and the police, are certainly aware of.
This is not a panacea, this is not a cure-all, this will not solve the crime problem. But we have as legislators the responsibility to take those steps that we can quickly and to take those steps that we can slowly with responsibility, with a sense of trying to do what's right rather than creating a greater burden.
Our first cut at the ammunition bill may have been too restrictive. We listened, for example, to those who made representations to us on behalf of farmers, also those who made representations to us on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, a native community, young people in the north and others, and as a result of those representations, we in our party said that we should modify the bill to accommodate those concerns.
I was pleased to send a copy of the bill many, many weeks ago out to 150 chiefs of police across this province, to get a sense of what the police officers in this province felt, and the responses I got back were unanimous in their approval of proceeding in this way. They also mentioned two things that they thought were important to be added. One of them was photo identification and the other a log being kept by the seller of who bought the ammunition. I'm very pleased to see both those provisions in here, although I think we should be clear about what this bill is.
All we are doing with this bill is (1) regulating the age of those who can purchase ammunition to ensure that it's people 18 years of age and over unless certain special circumstances apply and (2) keeping a log of the purchases.
Whether or not we can go further, my sense from what we heard from the constitutional experts in the justice committee was that we might have been able to go further, we might have been able to regulate the purchase of ammunition more closely, that it would not have infringed on the federal authority. But on this we have agreement in what we're doing today, and I think it's a good thing that we have agreement to go this far.
There may be other things that we can do and other things that need to be done, and I don't disagree with that, but this is a step in which I think there can be agreement. My sense is that it responds to the concerns of the Federation of Anglers and Hunters and farmers and others to provide them with the protection they need.
I think too about the other things that we can do in the riding that I represent, and what we clearly need is an expansion of the foot patrols. I'm very much concerned about cutbacks in that area arising from the social contract and other pressures on revenue and expenditures, but the visible presence of the police in communities in my riding would be of great benefit to reducing the level of crime.
Gun control is another area. I have talked to some constitutional experts who think in fact that provincially we may even be able to take some steps in the area of gun control as a province. I hear some members of the Conservative Party talking. My concern about gun control is obviously that we do that which stops criminals from having access to guns, and I think that's the appropriate thing to do.
I think too about the matter of border restrictions. We have an enormous quantity of weapons coming into this country from across the border and we need to ensure and give the border guards the power to inspect and seize. We need also to amend some of the Criminal Code provisions to provide minimum sentences for the possession of weapons and to increase the penalties in other cases.
I see the Attorney General here. We also need to ensure that we don't plea-bargain away weapons offences in cases other than just section 85 offences under the Criminal Code.
There is a lot that can be done now, not just this bill, and I hope that the Solicitor General and the Attorney General will listen to the demands of the people in my community, who are saying: "We live in fear. Crime is going up. We want some action."
I think, for example, about those in my community who live in Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority buildings. I have people in my riding afraid to leave their apartments, afraid to walk through the housing developments at night. They're the residents and they want this government to help them, to improve the eviction rules, to talk to the taxi companies and the licensing commission about stopping them from being the way that drug dealers and drug purchasers come to the community. They want better lighting, they want better security and better maintenance. All these things should be provided, and I hope they will be.
I want to take a moment, if I can, to talk briefly about police officers in Metropolitan Toronto and across the province. When I was growing up, I had an opportunity to get to know quite a number of police officers, as my father was a crown attorney, and saw many of them at the dinner table. I heard about and saw the very difficult job that they did on a daily basis, had people I know who were shot in the line of duty.
The ones I did know who were shot managed to survive, but it was none the less a job that we ask police officers to do that we would not do ourselves, to face the daily dangers that they do. I think, frankly, that the police officers don't get enough respect, sometimes from us as legislators and sometimes from the media and the public, but they do deserve our respect for doing a hard job in difficult circumstances. By far, most of the time, they do it in a way that reflects integrity, hard work and a desire to do the best thing for public safety and for the people for whom they provide service.
1640
I want to wrap up by saying that I think it is a credit to the members of this Legislature that we were able to come to an agreement as quickly as we were on the outlines and on the details of this bill. I too want to join with the Solicitor General to provide credit to the members of the justice committee staff -- the committee clerk, the researcher -- as well as the members of the staff of the Solicitor General who obviously worked hard to get the details of the bill done. It's not perfect, but it is an excellent job done in a short period of time and they deserve credit for that.
I want also to thank the member for Ottawa West for all his efforts in bringing this issue forward; the leader of our party, Lyn McLeod, who raised this issue in the Legislature a number of times; the Solicitor General for agreeing with us and recognizing that sometimes the fount of all knowledge is not on that side of the House, that we too have good ideas; and the third party for cooperating with us in the pursuit of a goal that is not a cure-all, is not a panacea, but is a small step to helping make our towns, our cities and our province safer.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Murdoch: I listened to the speaker for St GeorgeSt David and it was a nice, passionate speech that he made about all the wonderful things this bill will do, but personally, I think all we're doing is really masking the real problem here, and the real problem is that we don't enforce the laws that are out there.
We have bleeding-heart judges on the benches who won't give the penalties to people who break the law in the way they should, and I really don't think this bill will do a lot to stop it. People are going to buy ammunition. If they have to do it this way, fine, but if they want illegal ammunition, they're going to be able to buy it out there. The bad guys are still going to buy ammunition.
What we're doing here is trying to pat ourselves on the back and saying we're trying to do something about a serious problem, but what we're doing is putting a Band-Aid approach to this, and I'm afraid this is what the member was talking about. It's fine and I agree with him that our police forces should get a lot of recognition on things they do, but I don't think this bill goes far enough.
If you look at the resolution Mr Runciman put into the House, that has some teeth in it. It tells the federal government what it has to do --
Interjection: The resolution doesn't do anything.
Mr Murdoch: The member says the resolution doesn't do anything. That may be true, it doesn't have the law, but it does tell the government what we feel about things. This is just a Band-Aid approach and it won't stop the criminals from having ammunition.
If the criminals want to buy ammunition, they're going to be able to buy it. I understand there's a serious problem in the large urban centres and I understand their problems, and this bill hopefully may solve some of their fears; I understand that. But we have rural Ontario also, and it won't make the difference out there. I think rural Ontario is going to see this bill as a bill against them, unfortunately. I know it's not meant that way, but that's the way it's going to seem.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): This issue has come up fairly quickly in the House and I understand that all parties have come to a fairly quick agreement, and for sure, nobody condones violence and we all want to do our best to stop violence. In our area, we had a young woman cut down in the prime of her life due to a very violent act with a gun. We all have that in our minds.
But there are a number of people who have brought up a number of issues. The minister has answered some of those regarding the issue of the 15 factor, because you can have an FAC and ability to buy ammunition. That's going to help me to better understand that in my community, because this bill has moved forward so fast.
But there is the issue for the store owners where they sell ammunition. The issue I raise is around the paperwork issue and how they're going to process that. So often such well-intended ideas come forward and then all of a sudden we have a ton of paperwork, and really it throws out the whole intent of what we want to do.
My suggestion very clearly, and my two cents' worth, is that the paperwork be done at a very minimum, that we really ask the owners who sell ammunition, because they too want not to have a problem here. They too are against people buying ammunition and creating violent acts, and I really think that needs to be put across. We have a lot of good people out there who are just as concerned and they want to be part of the solution, and I want to raise that to the House.
I understand they're going to be dealing with this over the next few days, or whatever. But I want to say very clearly that there are a lot of good people out there who sell ammunition who want to be part of the solution and I urge the minister to really listen to them and to make sure that whatever this form of registration is to keep track, that it be done very simply and very easily so that if someone does create a violent act then the police can move in very quickly and follow the paper trace. Then that really does help to put criminals away, and I certainly want to make that on the record.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I've listened to the member from Grey and I hope the Tories are not voting against this. This is one small step for men and women and children in trying to curb violence in our community. I spent 30 years practising criminal law in this province, and I can tell you that most of the guns are stolen and they've had the serial numbers filed off them. They put not just the community at risk but police officers who are on the front line. I can't believe there is any person who legitimately wants to shoot a gun for sport or who is in the agricultural community who is not prepared to meet the contents of this bill.
One thing I'd like to put out is an idea that perhaps could be picked up, not maybe by this House but more specifically by the federal government. Surely today, with the technology we have available to us, guns that are sold could be sold with a type of serial number on them that could be identified under a particular type of technological source, as opposed to being simply beaten into the gun like we used to do, since the days of Billy the Kid.
If we had that type of thing, criminals would not be able to saw off or hack down the serial numbers of guns, and guns that were stolen would be identifiable to the people who had had the gun originally, and we would be able to control them.
I don't think for one minute that this is the panacea, but it is certainly a step that this Legislature has the jurisdiction to do and I commend my colleague from Ottawa West and also the Solicitor General, this entire House. This is a historic event where we are prepared to take the step, on the initiative of this party and our leader, in terms of trying to deal with the question of violence in this community.
I urge, if anybody from the federal government is watching this, surely we have the technology to put on a gun a serial number that cannot be filed down so that we can ensure that guns are not used in violent acts in this community.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I too sat as a member of the justice committee with the member for St George-St David and other colleagues, and I was struck with the constructive and collaborative approach that all members on the committee took towards developing recommendations on ammunition control and community-based crime prevention.
The first step we had to assure ourselves on was whether this legislation could be constitutionally valid if it were introduced by the province. We had the benefit of Bill 151 and the review and remarks by expert witnesses such as Katherine Swinton from the University of Toronto and Peter Hogg from Osgoode Hall, who indicated to us that such a law would be constitutionally defensible.
We also had some very specific comments on the bill put forward by the member for Ottawa West and they allowed us to ensure that when we introduced our own government legislation, it would not only be constitutionally valid but would also be practicable and enforceable.
That I think is why our Solicitor General, in the legislation he puts forward today, had three major focuses. One was to ensure that minors under the age of 18 would not be able to legally purchase ammunition unless they held a sustenance permit to do so.
Second was that they provide photo identification, because we want to ensure that the people purchasing are legitimate purchasers of ammunition. Also, importantly, we wanted to ensure that there would be records kept by the vendor of the ammunition to ensure that if there is later a police investigation, accurate records are available as to when the ammunition was sold and to whom.
I thank the Solicitor General for bringing this forward.
1650
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for St George-St David has two minutes to wrap up.
Mr Murphy: I want to thank the members for the comments and questions. To the member for Grey-Owen Sound, one of the issues that this bill does address is obviously those crimes of opportunity where people buy illegal guns on the black market or in the store. But they're not often buying bullets, and they go right across the street into a store that sells the bullets. They don't need to show anything currently. They buy the bullets and off they go. In fact, the issue was raised in the House a couple of months ago with a pack of bullets bought in a store in my riding.
My understanding from discussions with the Solicitor General is that there are something like 1,200 ammunition sellers in this province who are currently never inspected and there are another 1,200, approximately, who are firearm and ammunition sellers together who are inspected somewhat regularly.
There are a large number of people who are selling ammunition, and I think it is not a great onus to require those sellers to keep some kind of record, given the kind of device that's being sold. It's an explosive device under the federal act. It is a dangerous device. It is a device that kills people, hurts them and maims them, and requiring a record is not an onerous burden on sellers of ammunition. Obviously, if it can be done in a way that reduces the amount of paperwork and unnecessary paperwork, that's the way it should be done.
I want to thank the member for Brampton South for his comments. I think his idea about a way of ensuring that you can't file off the registration number on guns is a good one, and perhaps that's the project for the next unanimous consent we can do.
In my last few seconds, there are a number of issues in the crime field that we all agree on and we should seek action on those together as quickly as we can.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I've said publicly in media scrums yesterday that I think this is essentially a symbolic measure, that it's not going to have any significant or meaningful impact on crime in the province, but it does send a positive message, I think, to people who want to see and hear their legislators and their elected officials at least attempting to do something to deal with what they believe to be the increasing levels of crime in this province. So it does indeed indicate that on occasion, regrettably rare occasions, we can, as politicians, pull together and try to do something.
There has been a significant amount of self-congratulation here this afternoon, and in terms of our getting together on a measure, I guess that it's warranted, but in terms of this having a meaningful impact, I don't think that message should be conveyed to anyone, that anyone should be left with that interpretation of this legislation.
During the justice committee hearings, we had the chief provincial firearms officer testify before the committee, and I think it's appropriate to put some of his testimony on the record in respect to this legislation, in respect to what the reality is out there in the province and in the country.
He indicated, for example, that anyone without a licence or without an import permit may bring 5,000 rounds of ammunition into this province; no restrictions whatsoever. That's the reality. That's something this legislation will not deal with. That will continue. There's no effort or no way of stopping, across provincial borders or indeed across national borders. The chief firearms officer indicated to us that if anyone wanted to come in from Buffalo with 5,000 rounds of ammunition today, they can do so quite legally, and this legislation will have no impact in terms of deterrence on a host of areas.
Another interesting matter that was brought before us was that the official indicated there were between 50,000 and 80,000 reloaders in this province. These are people who take the empty shell casing and reload the bullet. Many of these reloaders, 50,000 to 80,000 of them in the province of Ontario, sell that reloaded ammunition. As long as they sell that reloaded ammunition for approximately the same price as it costs them to do that, they require no licence. How significant they are in terms of the underground economy in ammunition in this province no one really knows, but they are significant players and, again, this legislation does not deal with that and in fact cannot deal with that.
In the province right now we have approximately 325,000 people with firearms certificates. We have about 20,000 permits for restricted weapons. These are primarily handguns with target clubs and security guards. I also want to mention that we have about 739 retailers in the province selling ammunition without guns and approximately 1,200 retailers selling guns and ammunition.
How is this going to be enforced, the modest efforts that we're undertaking today? Again, in the testimony before the committee, Mr Henry Vanwyk, the chief provincial firearms officer, indicated, "We only have time to deal with the firearms and ammunition dealers." He indicated later on during questioning that there were about 1,200 of these people. I asked him how much staff he has to deal with 1,200 firearms and ammo dealers in the province. He indicated, "We have 10 people to deal with 1,200 firearms and ammo dealers." Set aside the 739 other legal ammo dealers -- 1,200 firearms dealers.
I asked him how effectively they are doing the job. He gave me an example. He said there's one firearms dealer in the Ottawa area where you could conceivably take two officers there and take one week to conduct an inspection. So we have 10 officers and it's going to take two of them one week in Ottawa alone to look at one store to ensure that it's complying with the federal legislation.
The reality is that we simply don't have the personnel, the people, to do the job currently. Then, when you look at all of the other elements of concern out there in terms of the reloading market, in terms of a host of other areas, these concerns are not going to be addressed.
I want to say we also regret very much the fact that in some respects this bill is passing so quickly and the fact that we are all hearing from people who are concerned about the legislation. They're not going to have an opportunity to be heard. It's traditional around this place to refer a bill out after second reading for the public to have input. By agreeing to quick passage of this legislation, we have set aside that process.
The member for Grey-Owen Sound has been expressing those concerns, certainly within our caucus and in interventions here today, that he's hearing from many in his own riding and, I think, all of us, especially those of us who represent rural ridings. We've heard some interventions from NDP members as well who represent rural ridings. We're getting the same kinds of responses.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm hearing them as well.
Mr Runciman: My colleague from Simcoe East is here and telling me he's hearing those concerns as well.
This is in some respects a media-driven exercise, but we know, again, that we have to send out the right messages, especially following the death of a police officer. That's an attempt to do that, but a very modest one indeed. I don't want anyone to suggest otherwise.
In this spirit of cooperation, I introduced and tabled a resolution today which deals with a very significant concern of police officers, policemen and women in this province and, I think, the public at large, but perhaps especially the public in Metropolitan Toronto. Certainly my colleagues who represent the Metro area can confirm this. It had to do especially with the shooting death of Constable Todd Baylis.
The individual charged in Constable Baylis's death, it was indicated following his arrest, had been in this country illegally for two and a half years. He had been ordered deported after a series of criminal convictions and was still in this country and apparently involved in the shooting death of a police officer and the wounding of another officer. That angers not only police officers but everyday citizens. It really angers us that this sort of thing could happen. I think we have a role and a responsibility as legislators to convey that anger, that sense of frustration among police and people in this province, to the federal government.
1700
Immigration, unlike some of the responses that we heard today, is a shared responsibility. Like agriculture it is, under the Constitution, a shared responsibility provincially and federally. But we have a role here in encouraging the federal government to be more active in addressing the concerns of police officers and we can do that.
The minister himself said in terms of the ammunition bill that we're dealing with today, "This sends a powerful message to the federal government." I think we can send a much more powerful message that represents the true feelings of Ontarians and police officers through the quick and speedy adoption of my resolution. I want to read it into the record again, because I have extreme difficulty in any member of this Legislature opposing speedy passage of this. The resolution reads:
"The Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, sharing the public's concerns about the level of violent crime in our society and to support our law enforcement officers demands that the federal government of Canada amend the Immigration Act to provide for the automatic, non-appealable deportation of any landed immigrant or refugee who is:
"(a) convicted of a criminal offence involving violence where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more;
"(b) convicted of a criminal offence involving the use of a weapon or the possession of an illegal weapon where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more; or
"(c) has more than three criminal convictions."
In other words, three strikes and you're out of this country.
Again, I have to ask the members of the governing party, why in the world could they object to the wording of that kind of a resolution? It is indeed only a resolution. It's not a piece of legislation; it's not a bill; it's simply sending a message conveying the anger and frustration of police men and women in this province and Ontarians generally.
We still have a few hours of sitting time in this House, and I implore the government members, I implore the Solicitor General and I implore the government House leader in the spirit of cooperation in respect of the bill we're dealing with to take a look at this resolution, consider it carefully.
I see nothing offensive in this, although it's originating with an opposition member. Maybe that's the only thing that's offensive to government members; I don't know. They don't want to give any opposition member credit for being the sponsor of a specific message conveyed by this assembly. I hope that's not the case. I hope that kind of partisanship is not playing a role in the decision-making process in respect of this resolution.
I simply once again, in winding up, want to indicate we are supporting this legislation. We support the principle. We do agree that it is a small message of hope. For that alone, we are going to support it and hopefully encourage the government to take more substantive and meaningful measures to deal with crime in the very near future.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I thank the member for Leeds-Grenville. Questions or comments to the member?
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I heard the resolution that the member talks about and I think one of the reasons he may not be as happy as he'd like is because there is a time to introduce resolutions in this place. Right now, we're talking about a very, very important bill that the minister has introduced. I think the member needs to realize that when he stands up and says, "I want everybody to recognize my resolution and this should supersede," is what he's saying, "any bill that's in front of us."
Mr Runciman: We had this bill given to us a day ago. We had that bill this morning. Give me a break. You don't know what you're talking about.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Mammoliti: The other question that I would like to pose is, where was this resolution three years ago, when there was a Conservative government at the helm?
Mr Runciman: We had that bill this morning.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Mammoliti: There was a Conservative government at the helm, and a Conservative government could have very easily changed the policy that this member is asking for in this resolution. So when he stands up here and he plays politics and says, "We want the federal government to change policy around this issue," I pose the question: Where was this resolution when Mulroney was in power? Where was the resolution when there was a government that he in particular got along with?
That's not to say that I don't agree with some of the context, that I don't agree with the fact that the Liberals at helm, perhaps, federally should be changing some of that policy, but again, this has to be dealt with in the appropriate way. Right now we're dealing with a bill. Right now we're discussing and debating a bill. For you to stand up and say, "My resolution should supersede the bill," is absolutely ludicrous, in my opinion.
Mr Callahan: I think to bring this back to a level where we're all going to support it, because I think we are hopefully, I just spoke with the minister and, as you know, under this, you could use certain types of identification with a picture on it, to identify you, to allow you to buy ammunition.
I'm suggesting and have suggested privately to the minister, and I think he'll follow it, that under the regulations, perhaps a photostat or some replication of the photograph of the person buying the ammunition should be kept. That would certainly assist the authorities at a time where they may find that these bullets, through ballistics, have been used in a heinous crime. It may give them the opportunity to be able to track down the would-be assailant.
The other thing too is that this entire bill and the debate around it has perhaps raised the issue in Ontario as to there having to be a redefinition of powers of particular legislatures. We find ourselves crafting a bill, albeit the best bill that we can craft in terms of our legislative authority, but maybe there is an opportunity now, be it by way of designated jurisdiction from the federal government, to allow us in fact to bring our province into good order.
I know in the United States there's a great deal more power in the states that have been allocated to them under the American Constitution, and in fact we have a problem. We have a problem that's not unique to Ontario; it's growing evermore throughout the provinces of this country. If you don't have the power legislatively to deal with an issue in its fullest content, as opposed to attempting to clip around the edges, that doesn't do a great deal for the safety of the people of this province, for the police officers who have to enforce the laws of this province. So one would hope that we would get some type of enabling legislation to give us a broader depth of jurisdiction.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I think we should clearly outline what the member for Leeds-Grenville is asking this House to do today. The member is asking this House to pass a resolution that would be forwarded to the federal government, a resolution that would announce to the federal government the concern and outrage of the citizens of Ontario with respect to the shooting that took place a short time ago.
This resolution is not legislation. It's merely sending a message to the powers that be that they should in fact enact a resolution similar to this or look at legislation similar to this in order to protect the people in this province, and specifically in the urban centres.
What we're asked to deal with today by the Solicitor General is a piece of legislation that requires three readings and becomes law. This is not a resolution that they're asking us to deal with; it is in fact legislation. This piece of legislation, I say directly to the member for Yorkview, was received by our caucus at 10 o'clock this morning. In the spirit of cooperation and non-partisan politics, we have dealt with this fairminded, aboveboard, and hopefully we'll get this through, unprecedented in most instances, for three readings today.
The member for Leeds-Grenville is asking this Legislature to do even less than that. He's asking this Legislature to express the concern that the people of this province have with respect to the police shooting that took place and deal with the issues through a resolution. I don't think he's asking this Legislature to go out on a limb that's too far or asking it to defend and debate something that is not defensible. I think it's a reasonable request and I think the people of the province of Ontario will think it to be a very reasonable request that the member for Leeds-Grenville is asking us to support.
1710
Mr Winninger: I listened very carefully to what the member for Leeds-Grenville had to say and I think he does appreciate that provincial legislation to control ammunition sales is indeed a significant step forward. He also recognizes, however, that there is a very important federal responsibility in this matter to control the importation of ammunition from outside the country, both legal importation and also smuggled ammunition, I might add. Also, he recognizes the interprovincial aspect that, again, the federal government must declare jurisdiction over.
At the same time, though, he puts forward a resolution -- and I haven't studied it carefully, but he's read it a couple of times now -- and I'm struck with the fact that it fails in some respects to pay heed to the kind of discussion that I and perhaps other members in the House heard on Metro Morning this morning: that if a person enters Canada either as a refugee or as an immigrant, as a young child, for example, of an immigrating couple or family, if the person came into Canada at the age of two months or two years or even at the age of eight, whose problem is it if that individual adopts a life of crime over the next number of years during his or her formative years of life? Wouldn't it be better, if one were to give credence to this resolution, to have it address the person who enters Canada as an adult and then embarks on a life of crime? Wouldn't it be better to study this situation a little more carefully rather than asking the Legislature to adopt this resolution forthwith?
The Acting Speaker: And now the member for Leeds-Grenville has two minutes to respond.
Mr Runciman: I gather what the member for London South is saying is that under his suggestion the individual charged for Constable Baylis's death would not be deported from this country. He's in essence saying that he would disagree with that kind of deportation order.
Mr Winninger: That was already ordered.
Mr Runciman: That's what you're saying. We're talking about a resolution here that expresses the frustration and outrage of the people of Ontario and the police officers. Just go back and talk to your own community.
You also mentioned in your comments that the member for Leeds-Grenville recognizes that this is a significant measure, the bill we're dealing with today. I do not recognize it as a significant measure. I recognize it as a symbolic gesture. It's a message of hope to many people in the province, I do agree with you, but I certainly do not recognize it as a significant measure.
The member for Yorkview went on at length about procedural correctness in this House. I want to reiterate, simply to set the record straight, in terms of cooperation and willingness to try to get things through this House, that we had a bill placed before us at 10 o'clock this morning, the first time we set our eyes on that bill. We've come into this House and we've agreed through unanimous consent to do away with the compendium of legislation, which is normal process in this Legislature. We've agreed to all of that, and not to have public hearings. We're hearing concerns from many constituents about this, but we've agreed not to have public hearings on a piece of legislation.
All I've asked you today is to convey the concerns of Ontarians through this assembly to the federal government to take a look at this problem, because Ontarians want it looked at. They want their concerns addressed. They can deal with questions like the one you've raised, but let's deliver the message to the federal government that it has to take action on this. Ontario is no longer going to sit on the sidelines and see other police officers killed because of their inaction.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 181? Would the Solicitor General care to make some final comments?
Hon Mr Christopherson: To use my opportunity as the minister to wrap up, I would like to first of all acknowledge publicly the role played in particular by my critics, the two co-critics from the Liberal Party, Mr Tim Murphy, the member for St George-St David, and Mr Robert Chiarelli, the member for Ottawa West, both of whom played a significant role in working with me to determine where the ground might be, given that it was Mr Chiarelli's bill that was first in the Legislature in addressing this issue, and talking through what model of legislation we may look at. I found nothing but cooperation and a desire to put the needs of the public interest first as I dealt with both those very honourable members, and I do want, publicly and for the record, to thank them for the integrity they've brought to this process.
I would also like to bring the same personal commendation and thanks to Mr Robert Runciman, the member for Leeds-Grenville, with whom I often have disagreements philosophically on a number of issues that relate to matters I'm responsible for, but on this and every matter that relates to public safety and particularly that can relate in any way to officers' safety, he's always the first one to acknowledge that partisanship needs to be put aside. In fact, he was the last member I met with two nights ago, very late into the evening, and we spent some time in his office as I took to him the positioning that was starting to develop, and he offered very generously his time and his comments, both formally, ultimately, but informally and off the record, all in a desire to bring us to this point.
I don't want to detract from all our responsibilities to be partisan; that's what makes this place work. But when we can set that aside on issues like this, individuals, particularly those in opposition, need to be given the credit they're due when they're given an opportunity to show leadership, and they have done that in this case.
Because we haven't had a lot of time to deal with this, there are a couple of matters that have come up and I'd like to take just a couple of minutes to comments on them, because I think it'll help members and help the public if I can put a couple of things on the record.
One is with regard to the amount of paperwork and what's being asked of retailers. The bill deliberately does not set out the format, it does not set out what kinds of forms, in triplicate, and mailed anywhere. The bill as it stands now only requires that certain pieces of information -- and there are four of them -- be recorded and be available upon request of inspection by the chief provincial firearms officer or his designate to ensure that there has been compliance with the bill we have here today.
There are regulatory provisions, however, to allow the minister of the day to go further, if necessary. If that doesn't do the job, the regulations will allow that the form can be stipulated and sent out.
But we're not starting there. We're starting by saying that as long as you have that information and you can show it when it needs to be shown -- many retailers have computers that will do this quite easily and we want to make it as simple as possible for retailers. There is some responsibility on their part, and I understand no one appreciates more paperwork, but I think the member for Leeds-Grenville has acknowledged that in this case, the extra effort is required in the interest of public safety.
The last point is that with regard to inspection, there is an entire review of the OPP operation so that the kinds of inspections that need to happen are taking place.
Let me close by saying that we would've been wrong to leave this undone today and I think that's why we're coming together. I say again, there's now responsibility for the federal government to pick up where we've had to leave off constitutionally, and do the job in its completed form and do that on behalf of all Ontarians and then, as legislators, I think we can all feel at all levels of government that the job that needs to be done has been done. But this modest effort at least does improve the issue of ammunition control and possession in the province of Ontario and will help to make our streets safer, and I can't think of anything more important.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Christopherson has moved second reading of Bill 181, the Ammunition Regulation Act, 1994, An Act to regulate the Purchase, Sale and Provision of Ammunition. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Madam Speaker, I think there was unanimous consent earlier that all three stages of the bill be dealt with, so the minister will call for third reading.
Hon Mr Christopherson: I move third reading of Bill 181, An Act to regulate the Purchase, Sale and Provision of Ammunition.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Christopherson, would you care to make some remarks? Are the members ready for the question?
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. I declare the motion carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
1720
AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE
Mr Cooper, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): At this point I want to remind everyone of the agreement that one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.
Mr Cooper, some opening remarks?
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): As everyone knows, Bill 91 was first introduced to this House last July 29 by my colleague the Minister of Labour. It is an important bill for thousands of farm workers who, up until now anyway, have been denied basic rights enjoyed by almost all other Ontario workers. Bill 91 remedies that situation. It will put Ontario on a par with almost every other province in the country. These provinces years ago realized that farm workers deserve rights that virtually all other workers had enjoyed for decades.
Yet it is obvious that the agricultural sector is a unique part of the Ontario economy that needed special consideration. That is why our government has developed this bill from start to finish in a consensus fashion. That's why we opted for a separate labour relations act for agricultural workers. That's why we have accepted virtually all of the recommendations of the bipartite committee overseeing this bill. And that's why we're going to pass a bill that will allow workers to organize and bargain but not strike, and we're going to pass a bill that upholds the right of family members to work their farms at any time.
So this bill is not about unionizing the family farm. If ever there was a false battle-cry, it was that slogan. That slogan rang hollow, because all the stakeholders were on side and ready to proceed with the orderly introduction of labour relations into the vitally important agricultural sector.
I'd like to go over the bill briefly one more time for the members of this House, and I hope members are struck by the degree of consultation, agreement and common purpose that has characterized the development of this bill. All the stakeholders in the agricultural and labour communities deserve a vote of thanks for showing that labour law reform can be attained without resorting to excessive rancour or rhetoric.
The prime vehicle for the bill before the House today has been the newly established Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee and its predecessor, the Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force. Both groups helped develop a package that is very progressive for workers, but also one which recognizes the uniqueness of agriculture, its products and the need for constant animal care.
Members may recall that under the original bill, agricultural workers received the right to organize and bargain collectively, but not to strike. In place of the right to strike, a structured process of negotiation, mediation and arbitration was agreed on to settle disputes. This is a recognition by the government of just how vulnerable this sector is to work stoppages of any kind.
The proposals also set out clear principles guiding access to farm property for the purposes of union organizing. Safety and sanitary conditions will be paramount considerations. The bill also establishes the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee, otherwise known as ALMAC, to which I just referred.
At second reading, the government announced that it was accepting several amendments to improve the bill. These amendments were the result of further discussion and refinement by ALMAC members. Again I would ask House members to note the consensus at every step.
The most important of these amendments have to do with recognizing the distinctiveness of the new act from the Labour Relations Act; recognizing the distinctiveness of the agricultural sector of our economy; creating an expert agricultural division of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to adjudicate disputes in the agricultural sector; and finally, extending the review period of the dispute settlement mechanism to five years from three. These recommendations have all received strong support from the labour and agricultural stakeholders.
A small band of people opposed to these reforms has tried to spread misinformation about Bill 91. They have failed. The consensus on Bill 91 is holding firm.
Bill 91 does not propose anything that has not been agreed to by the various parties affected by this bill. This is not the end of the family farm. There will be no strikes, and agriculture will continue to be a strong and cherished sector of Ontario's diverse economy.
Bill 91 has been a model of reasonable and rational labour law reform. That's why it enjoys the support it does, and, if I may say humbly, it is worthy of the full support of this House as well. Thank you.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am extremely pleased to put a number of points on the record on third reading. My leader and colleagues are very disappointed that the government did not cooperate with the two opposition parties to allow at least one week of hearings on this very controversial legislation. If hearings had taken place, all three parties would have had a learning experience, the same as we did when the hearings took place on the stable funding issue.
Last night in the Legislature, we heard some speeches about who was in first opposition to this legislation. I just want to say that on June 29, 1992, our leader, Lyn McLeod, asked a question that clearly demanded that the agriculture exemption be maintained. That's almost two years ago.
I am somewhat disappointed that the Agriculture minister and the Minister of Labour could not give us one name of one person who supports Bill 91. This government will have to deal with the anger some of the members of the task force they appointed have at the moment. Bill 40 took away the farm exemption under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Bill 91 would not be necessary if the NDP had not removed the farm exemption from the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
Our caucus will continue to listen to all involved and to work to restore the agricultural exemption under the Ontario Labour Relations Act so that agriculture will have one less headache and will be able to continue to prosper in these changing times. We had had a number of amendments to the legislation, but there was only one we wanted, that the exemption in Bill 40 be restored for agriculture.
1730
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just want to speak briefly on Bill 91 for third reading. I want to thank my colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, who has carried this bill for our party and who has had a lot of input with regard to this legislation.
I know the government members have been very forceful in seeing that this is brought to conclusion by closure, one of many closure motions this government has used to put legislation through that it feels is important.
I've got to say that there are not many farmers in my area or in my riding who support this legislation. As a matter of fact, I don't think there are many farmers across this province who support this resolution. The minister could not name one farmer out there, when he was asked, who wants it.
When this was brought in in June 1992, a report was endorsed by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Buchanan. The task force submitted a second report to the minister in November 1992. The report attempted to establish the content parameters for the new agricultural labour relations statute.
Recommendations advanced in the second report included:
-- A new Agricultural Labour Relations Act should establish access rules to farm property for the purpose of organizing.
-- A structured 120-day negotiation, mediation, and arbitration by final-offer process.
-- The placement of seasonal workers in a separate unit, and allowing the government the authority to draft regulations on seasonal workers.
-- The establishment of a bipartite committee to monitor agricultural labour relations.
-- A preamble to the act which reflects the extension of collective bargaining rights, which also recognizes the unique characteristics of the industry.
-- A definition of "strike" and "lockout" that clarifies that work stoppages are prohibited.
-- A provision that no trade union or collective agreement can prevent members of farm families from performing work on the farm operations.
We really need this legislation to give the farm workers bargaining rights. The preamble in this states, "It is in the public interest to extend collective bargaining rights to employees and employers in the agricultural industry."
I was a farmer for some 30 years, and in the community where I live, I don't know of any farm family or anybody in the agriculture industry who is interested in unionizing. It's the government that wants to unionize. The OFA and other farm bureaucrats argue that the agriculture community had no choice but to negotiate unionization with the NDP, but we believe there was a choice. Ontario's farms have always been exempt from unionization, and we believe that the OFA and other farm lobby groups should have demanded that farms remain off limits to unions.
The leaders from the agricultural organizations, however, felt unions should be extended to family farms by the ministry. We don't agree with that. The task force had many members from the community on it. Some of the members who were on that task force, such as Grant Smith, who used to be on the Ontario Milk Marketing Board -- Grant and some of the others said, "We had no choice but to do what the government wanted." You know why? The agriculture exemption from the Labour Relations Act was taken away. Now Bill 91, the agriculture relations act, will apply to this.
There's no need for this legislation in the first place, in our opinion. I remember my colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville speaking on this extensively. We had, last night, hundreds of resolutions to amend this piece of legislation, which the government did not see fit to carry. This is a piece of legislation that was brought in by the Minister of Labour dealing with the agricultural industry. If this was so important to the Minister of Agriculture, why did he not present the legislation? Why is it the Minister of Labour who is dealing with it?
The responses we have had to this have been tremendous from the community I represent. They don't want it. They don't need it. Bill 40 and Bill 91 are all part of labour organizing. I can tell you that when the government changes and we come into power in Ontario, these two bills will be withdrawn.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): The member for Cornwall indicated that there had been public concern, and I did receive a letter of public concern. It was from a person in my riding, with a non-political affiliation, by the name of Phil Shaw, who writes:
"Dear Randy:
"I'm writing because I don't know if you are aware of a recent mailer sent to the farmers from Lyn McLeod. She has your name highlighted, by the way. As a farmer, I find this type of thing disgusting. It's only one example of political brinkmanship which farmers don't need.
"The Liberals were completely bankrupt of good agricultural initiatives when they lost the last election. From this mailer, I see they are still. This letter is for your information and I plan to let Lyn McLeod know."
The member for Cornwall went on to say that the agricultural community doesn't need this. What the agricultural community of Ontario does need is for the federal Liberals to quit playing politics with the ethanol issue and move forward and put corn into major production, which will produce a lot of economic growth in rural Ontario.
To the member who wishes to send flyers of this nature, which I received a letter about from a colleague in my riding, from the town of Dresden, he'd better pay attention to the leaflets being handed out by his leader, disturbing the farming community, and get on the federal Liberals to move the cabinet forward to give the exemption on ethanol so we can start producing the corn in another commodity which will put economic growth into our community and throughout this province.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I was very interested in the remarks just made by the member for Chatham-Kent. I think he made a slight slip when he said that letter was from a colleague, because I didn't think a farmer would dare write that kind of letter. The Liberal Party has always backed farmers from the word go. We had two very excellent ministers of Agriculture when we were in government and they brought in some extremely good legislation that farmers needed and wanted. Then unfortunately, because of the dire straits this government got into, a lot of those good programs had to be stopped.
I really think this is a sad day for farmers across the province, because they will not have any chance to put forward their thoughts and concerns about Bill 91, the farm labour bill. This is because, as we all know, the government, with its time allocation motion, has shut down the right and ability to speak.
Yesterday, for example, in committee of the whole I asked several questions of the parliamentary assistant and the ministry staff, and because of the time allocation motion time ran out, so there were absolutely no answers or explanations I could pass on to the farmers, who have been asking me time and time again the number one big question: Who in the farm community asked for this legislation? They don't know of anyone who wanted this legislation. We wonder, was there some sort of deal we don't know about, a backroom deal that brought this legislation forward in some kind of tradeoff?
Also yesterday, I know the third party asked the government House leader to please give at least a week of public hearings. The government House leader said no, there was no way one week could be granted. Then I asked, would the government House leader entertain at least two days of public hearings -- which they were willing to give -- at least two days where the farmers could voice their concerns and try to get in here, even if it was in Toronto?
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): What happened?
Mrs Fawcett: "What happened?" the member asks. The Tories, the Conservatives, would not agree to that. So we lost even the two days that would at least have given the farmers a chance to put something on the record.
Mr Murphy: The Tories didn't want to hear from farmers.
1740
Mrs Fawcett: I guess the Tories did not want to hear from the farmers. We were very disappointed, because of course we would want a week, if it could be granted, but at the very least we would have taken the two days. But no, the Conservatives turned it down.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. We would like to hear the member for Northumberland.
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm being put in the unfortunate position of having to reveal what your House leader actually said. I don't want to do it, but I don't want to let that go unchallenged.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mrs Fawcett: So here we are at third reading of a bill that would see the unionization of the family farm. The government assures us that this will not cause any undue harm in the farm community, and we are supposed to take this giant leap of faith and trust the Minister of Labour. One wonders, where is the Minister of Labour these days? This is a very, very important bill, and with all due respect to the parliamentary assistant, who is trying to do a good job on his behalf, I would have thought the minister himself might be present for this.
We are asked to trust the minister, we are asked to trust his judgement on this. You know, it's very difficult to do that, because without consultation the minister withdrew the agricultural exemption from the Labour Relations Act, and I can't believe he had the farm community on side for that decision.
The minister says, "Thirty-five farm organizations agree with Bill 91." I've said before and I say again, of course they will say they will agree with Bill 91 if that's the only thing they've got. If the agricultural exemption has been removed from the labour relations bill, then naturally they need some kind of protection, but it is not the kind of protection they want.
I know the minister is putting forward this bill with what he believes is the backing of the farm community, but I do not agree that he has the backing of the farm community. We, the Liberal caucus, are asking the minister once again to withdraw this bill and put back the agricultural exemption into the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Peter North (Elgin): I would like to have an opportunity to speak to this bill as well. Bill 91 has caused a great deal of debate in Elgin county. I'm sure you would know that Elgin county is basically rural. It's very diversified: tobacco, orchards, fruits and vegetables, commodities of all kinds. We've had a chance to have pretty broad discussions with regard to this bill.
I would say to the member across the floor that there are some concerns with regard to agricultural workers and the way they're dealt with in the agricultural community. Some question the need for advancement of agricultural workers; certainly we've heard that discussion, and I think it's well understood.
But in terms of what the government has said and government members have said, with no deference to them, this is a bill that is being accepted rather than supported. People I've talked to as recently as a day ago have told me very clearly that they're in the position that they simply have to accept this bill, that they really have no choice with regard to something different or something they would much rather have, which is the exemption. I classify it more as acceptance rather than support.
I will tell you that no one has asked me for this bill. Of all the people I've spoken to with regard to this bill in the agricultural community, in fact before this bill was discussed, no one has come forward to me and said: "We need a bill like this brought into the Legislature. Would you proceed with that?"
The member for Kitchener-Wilmot mentions the fact that there will be no strikes. We spoke earlier at some length about strikes, and perhaps the concern is not that there would be a strike on a family farm, but there is the opportunity for strikes at a different level which would have some effect and some impact on family farms. If you can't market your product, if you can't put your product forth into the market and have a sale of your product, then it is impacting the family farm. That is of some concern.
The other aspect of it is that in the event that there are no strikes -- and the member says there will be no strikes -- we now have to go to arbitration. I don't know that people in the agricultural community have dealt with the situation of arbitration at length or to any great degree. I understand it to be a very costly and time-consuming situation, and it does create a load of paperwork for the person who would be involved in it.
Another thing that's been brought to my attention is that, coming back to the definition of "agriculture," I know it was something of a sticking point for the people who worked together to try to come to some resolution on this bill. I don't know, in my own mind, that I can honestly say that the discussion with regard to the definition has clarified the situation of the definition of "agriculture." I bring that point to the floor today as well.
Governments over the last 10 years have had opportunities to bring the issues of rural Ontario forward, and although the member who spoke before me said the Liberal government has done great things for rural Ontario in the past, I would beg to differ with that statement. I don't see that to be the truth and I don't understand that to be the truth when I speak to members who are out there in the rural community and who have spoken to me. Agricultural legislation has not come forward to any great degree, as was discussed and suggested. I don't accept that and I don't think the people in agricultural Ontario or rural Ontario accept that either.
There has been recently, and in the past, a loss of programs in terms of research and development, in terms of land conservation programs and in terms of agricultural education facilities. There has been, to a certain degree, a loss in terms of agricultural education facilities. I know the minister wrestled with that issue as recently as a year or so ago and had some difficulty with it. That impacts rural Ontario, because agriculture in Ontario is an industry that's aging, and we need renewal in rural Ontario. We need renewal, we need regeneration, we need younger people to come into the agricultural industry to keep that industry going so we can feed ourselves here in this province.
When programs are taken away, when research and development dollars are taken away, when all those things are impacting agriculture all at one time, then to bring in the suggestion that perhaps the people who are involved in agricultural labour are not being treated properly, or that a bill has to come forward to ensure they're treated properly, makes it very difficult for people who are farmers and agriculturalists.
What we need in agricultural Ontario is legislation that's supported by and works for farmers and farm workers. We need to work towards that goal and I would support that goal. Opportunities exist in rural Ontario to do things in a better way.
A lot of people have discussed with me legislation that would pertain to the right to farm. The words "right to farm" have been mentioned to me a number of times in terms of legislation. People feel very strongly about it in rural Ontario, and it's something they would like to see brought forward. That would be an interesting debate for this House to have, and I would enjoy participating in that debate.
Again, what's best for rural Ontario and what's in Ontario's best interests is a strong and vibrant rural community where there are young agriculturalists and farmers and people in the research and development areas of agriculture coming into the industry and renewing and regenerating that industry for us.
I'll close simply by saying that it is a disappointment that we can't take this particular bill out to a committee and discuss it, not just here in Toronto for a couple of days but across the province for a week or so and get a general consensus and a general interest of what's happening out there across the province and what people's true and honest views are of this particular piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, I want to allow other people to have their time to speak as well, so I'll close simply by saying that the people of Elgin county, to the best of my knowledge, do not support this bill and I will not be supporting it either.
1750
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I was not going to rise today, but I have to reply to the member for Northumberland. What really happened is that the government House leader and the two opposition House leaders met, and at one point -- we've always asked for two weeks of public hearings across Ontario -- the Liberal government House leader said, "Maybe we could settle for two days of hearings in downtown Toronto while the Legislature is sitting." That is what occurred. We said: "No, we will not accept two days of committee hearings in downtown Toronto while the House is sitting because that is not sufficient and the farmers of Ontario deserve to fully discuss 91."
Mrs Fawcett: Of course not, but it's better than nothing.
Interjection.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Get your facts straight. You're making up facts, and you know it.
Mr Villeneuve: I backed off and asked for one week. I asked for one week yesterday.
Mrs Fawcett: And I said it would be good.
Mr Villeneuve: Two weeks? We asked for one week, still not able to get it, but the truth of the matter, and it had to be on the record, was that the Liberals were ready to settle for two days while the House was sitting in downtown Toronto.
Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I just want to take a couple of minutes to say a few things in response partly to what's been said today and what was said perhaps last night and at earlier times.
First of all, one of the things that's been said is that farmers don't want this. That's because a lot of the farmers are not going to be affected by this. In talking to the unions that I've talked to, which is not a group that I often meet with but I was talking to some union folks recently, I said, "What is the smallest size that you would consider to organize in terms of a job location?" They said, "Well, 20 is kind of the break-even." Anything less than that they're not interested in.
I want you to know that there are 126 farm operations in Ontario that have 20 or more full-time employees. I don't know that they would be family farms. In my view, they would be something quite different, but there are 126 such operations in the province. Two of them are dairy operations, and I don't know where those dairy operations are. My suspicion is that they're not really farms; they're dairies which are attached to farms, fairly large corporate farms. So the people who will be affected by this, as employers or farmers, are probably 126 or less. So let's get that clear. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of farmers out there who will not affected by this and they're not concerned about it, and that's important.
The other thing is that there are several thousand farm workers who do work in large agricultural operations, and we happen to believe that they have a democratic right to collective bargaining the same as we have in other sectors, providing that it does not interfere with the orderly marketing of the produce from that operation, and that has been worked into this bill through amendments and through the original task force.
We crafted this bill by working with farmers and trade unions and government people working together. There was one cut at a draft. Then the farm groups took that to lawyers and to their members and said, "There are problems with this original bill. We'd like some amendments," and they listed them, 11 of them in fact. People sat down and agreed to make those amendments. We've shared them with the opposition.
The farm groups actually took those amendments even back to a second legal opinion to make sure they were getting everything they had expected, and they said to us: "Yes, we have everything in there that we want. There's agreement on this piece of legislation." At the same time they said to us, "Don't start playing around with it. Don't start changing words, because we believe that we've crafted something here that we can live with on both sides," both the unions and the farm leaders. They thought we had a piece of legislation that they could live with, that was acceptable to them.
At the same time, because I heard one of the claims was that farmers are not familiar, and that's true, we're going to have in place an ongoing group which will provide support and education for farmers and farm workers in terms of what their collective rights and duties are under this legislation. So we will be providing, and some of those people will be from the Ministry of Agriculture, to work with farmers if they do encounter a group that decides to organize.
The other thing I would say is that we very strongly believe in the rights of farmers to come together as well, not just farm labourers, workers, but farmers. We believe very strongly in supply management where farmers can come together and bargain collectively for the produce they sell, supply management through marketing boards. We believe in trying to empower the farmer. If I thought for one minute that this piece of legislation was going to hurt the family farm, I would be opposing this and would have been opposing this from day one. This will not hurt the family farm. We would have never reached this day, this process would have never gotten this far if I felt that this was going to hurt the family farm.
I respect, though, the rights of the opposition members who have raised concerns around this legislation, which is their right and their duty, and I respect them for that. There are a number of members from rural Ontario on the other side of the House who have represented agriculture and farmers very well in this House on this bill and other bills, and that's their duty and I respect that. But I want them to take a look at this in terms of the family farm. This is not going to affect the family farm. This will give collective bargaining rights to farm workers on larger operations, which, quite frankly, I don't necessarily consider family farms.
I think, since we have a number of other bills we'd like to pass this evening, I will stop there and urge all members to support this very reasonable bill.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm going to be very brief. The minister stood up and said this is not going to affect the family farm, but I want everybody in Ontario, every farmer in Ontario, to understand that the bill does not say that, unfortunately. It does not say that you have to have 20 employees before this bill comes into effect.
If the minister would have included that in the bill, then the kind of opposition which he is now facing from the opposition, from the Conservative Party, from the farming community, would not be there. So I ask the minister, why doesn't he take it back and say that you need to have 20 employees before this legislation comes into effect?
The problem here that we're talking about is, the vast number of farms in Ontario do not have that number, and quite frankly, if the minister is correct, then there's no harm in inserting such a provision in this bill and excluding the great number of family farms in this province.
We can only come to one conclusion: that in fact, because that provision is not there in the bill, the bill is meant to affect the family farm, it is meant to affect farms that have two or three or four employees. If not, why is the exclusion not there?
Secondly, I want to say this, that because of the incompetence of this government, both in terms of Bill 40 and Bill 91, this government has evoked a reaction among both opposition parties and if either one becomes the government after the next provincial election, Bill 40 and Bill 91, as I understand it, are gone.
I want them to take the responsibility for every agricultural worker, every employee of every farmer, for the mishmash, the incompetence of bringing forward a piece of legislation which does not fit the agricultural landscape of Ontario, and as a result, you have put the efforts and the work of people who are trying to promote the benefit of those employees across Ontario -- you've put the work of people who have tried to improve their lot back a decade.
1800
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I will answer the question that the honourable member brought forward just now: Why isn't there a number in the bill? In fact, when we negotiated, we put forth at the ministry level -- I was at the table and sat there and said, "Why don't we put down a number -- 10, 20?" The farm community said: "No, no, we don't want any numbers. We do not want to set up any classes of farmers. We don't want to have a class of farmer with 20 employees versus one with four. If we're going to go forward, we want no numbers."
Far be it from this humble member not to listen to the farm community; far be it. I put it forth. I was at the table and they said no to numbers. If that is why, I can understand why the honourable member didn't know that. I appreciated him asking. He could probably have asked his very worthy colleague Mr Noble Villeneuve, who probably could have answered for him, but I'm glad to get that on the record. And further, as the Minister of Agriculture said, this government is totally supportive of farm families. We work with the farm families. I have the same respect, that if I thought for a second this was going to harm the family farm, it wouldn't have gone any further.
In fact, that's why we consulted; that's why we put forward that the labour committee would be listened to and the Labour minister listen. Many in the farm community have been quite pleasantly surprised that a minister, with all the pressures, could work the way the Minister of Labour did and work with the rural members of this caucus and, I must say, with the support of all the caucus, because you need to make sure you have many behind you. This caucus stood behind the rural members and said what they wished to have in this: "Mr Minister of Labour, you should listen." It was a prime example of what this government has done on behalf of the family farmers in this province. Again, why are there no numbers? Because the farm community did not want numbers, that's why. We listened to them on every account and we continue to listen to them.
We also support, as the minister pointed out, in the orderly supply management sector -- because farmers need to make a living. The family farm can only make a living if it's making money at the farm gate. There was a group called Ontarians for Responsible Government and they were an organization that came out against the stable funding bill. I listened to their arguments and many, many farmers said: "Where was this group before? I never heard of this group at all." They said that bill was wrong; they said it was not what was needed. We went forward.
Yes, I agree, there are farmers who don't all want to join an organization and that's fine. That's why it's refundable. But it's right for people to think about joining an organization and to get involved in an organization. Just as sure as the Ontarians for Responsible Government, who didn't know anything about agriculture, said that bill was wrong, they were wrong about that bill and I believe, as this goes on forward -- just like in all the other provinces, where the family farm is not attacked by the right for workers to organize, this will be the same that will happen in this bill.
I will close. I appreciate all the members in this House who brought forth their concerns, because that helped us in drafting a bill which did respect the family farm and I appreciate that, I really do. But I really also want to say that we did what we promised to do. We would listen to the farm groups and the farm groups have been listened to. That's why, in my county, the federation and many individual farmers have come up to me and said, "If you are going to follow what the recommendations were of the labour committee, then I have no trouble with this because, as a person who's in supply management, like in dairy, we needed government to listen and to follow through and to promote." They see no more difference in that than in this bill.
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): The obvious question some may ask is, what does an urban member of this government know about what essentially is an agricultural bill? I want to tell you that I've had the opportunity to meet with some of the workers who live in my riding who are employed, not on a family farm, but are employed in the agricultural sector and work for what I think really is an agricultural factory. That's what this bill is trying to address, those workers who are employed, not on a family farm, but in an agricultural factory.
When I met with these individuals -- I won't be long -- and this by no means makes me an expert, but they did tell me about the needs they have in the workplace where they're currently employed. They're currently employed in an egg-producing factory that is classified as agriculture, and they told me about their working conditions. The working conditions, let me tell you, are absolutely horrendous. If I could believe only 50% of what they related to me, I don't think there's a member in this House who would allow their son or daughter to be employed under the working conditions they have to toil with day in and day out -- absolutely no benefits, none of the provisions of a workplace that I think we come to enjoy and expect in 1994. My friends are quite correct when they say that when it comes down to organizing any type of agricultural factory the numbers have to be there to make it viable in order to do so. In the case of the workers in my community who are employed in these agricultural factories, the numbers certainly would be there.
What we're hearing is that agricultural Ontario is going to come to a grinding halt later this evening and for every day onward if this bill is passed. We heard the same thing about Bill 40 and what is interesting, when you do the comparison between this bill and Bill 40, is that the opposition said, "Bill 40, is going to have dire consequences for the province -- not today, but a year down the road."
It is a year down the road and take a look at what's happened. The unemployment rate in this province has dropped a full percentage point a year later. That's one of the things. Nine out of 10 jobs created in this province are now full-time jobs rather than part-time jobs. That's one of the dire consequences that's occurred. Forty-seven thousand jobs have been created through the Jobs Ontario program, notwithstanding Bill 40, and it is well past a year later; another, I would say quite cynically, dire consequence. And for the first time in a long time for this province, and in relation when you look at other provinces, the social assistance case load is starting to drop because of Bill 40.
Madam Speaker, I'm not a soothsayer and I don't have a crystal ball here, but what I can tell you is that every worker in the province of Ontario, I believe, is entitled to some basic enjoyments in the workplace, reasonable working conditions, reasonable payment for a reasonable day's work and some reasonable benefits. I think they expect no less than that and they are demanding no more. This bill is but a vehicle to ensure that this happens, to ensure that they will be treated much the same that we would expect any of our family members to be treated in the workplace.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I was not going to speak to this bill in any way because our Agriculture critics have done a tremendous job, but after hearing the member for Kitchener make some of the statements that he has, I must rise from my seat and speak very briefly.
The member for Kitchener has said that he's talked to farm workers. I would like to point out that the member for Kitchener has a number of farms in his area, in the city of Kitchener, and I'm not sure whether they're in his riding or not, but some very active, excellent, producing Waterloo county farms in the city of Kitchener, but adjoining his riding. I would have hoped that he would have talked to one or two of the farm owner-operators as well as just the farm labourers.
I want to put on the record what I find with farm owners and operators. Let's take dairy farmers or any type of farmer who produces produce that's got to be collected, harvested at a certain time. They indeed treat their workers very well, and I'll tell you why. If they don't treat them well and if they don't pay them proper wages and if they don't pay them any benefits, they won't have them, because people will not put up with that.
What I have found on many, many occasions is that farmers pay above the going rate and do extra things to provide benefits for the workers on those farms in order to keep them, because that is the name of the game of agriculture in the province of Ontario. If you don't do it right, you don't have people helping you and you don't have people working for you. I just wanted to put that on the record because I feel so strongly about it.
Now that I've gotten into that, what I would have preferred is that instead of the advisory committee having the composition it did, I would have had farm workers and farm employers work it out together, instead of loading it with labour representatives in addition. I feel very strongly about that. I think it could have been done much differently and we could have had --
Interjection.
Mr Eddy: Mr Hope, the member for Kent, is interrupting me, Madam Speaker. Would you --
Mr Hope: No, I'm not; I'm talking to Noble.
Mr Eddy: It could have been done much better, and I think we could have had a much better result.
1810
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'll just speak very briefly. I just listened to my colleague from Brant-Haldimand, and I'm sure he's correct. Having an important agricultural community in my riding, I'm sure he's correct in what he says about how farm owner-operators treat their employees. I just would say that if working conditions and pay rates are as good as he believes them to be, which I would concur with, then farmers have absolutely nothing to fear from this legislation.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I thought I'd start my very short comments by saying that I believe all of the farm owners as well as farm workers in the riding of Oriole are opposed to this bill. That's facetious because of course there are no farm owners or farm workers -- certainly there are no farms in Oriole. Whether there are owners or workers, I doubt there are very many.
But I've listened carefully to this debate and on behalf of the constituents in the riding of Oriole, I want to express their concern. Their concern is that this government is not listening to the critics from the opposition parties who are saying to them that this is yet another labour bill which is not wanted. It is not needed. It is not contributing to economic prosperity and development. It is not creating jobs in this province.
At this time, what my constituents in the riding of Oriole want is for this government to focus on creating the kind of environment which is not anti-business, the kind of environment which is going to encourage job creation in the private sector and not take the time of the Legislature bringing forward legislation that is not wanted and not needed.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for taking the opportunity to join the Premier in meeting with over two dozen agricultural leaders in the riding of Durham-York. Two weeks ago, this minister came to my riding and sat down at the table, a bearpit session. He's done this a couple of times, not just once. This is about the third or fourth time that the Minister of Agriculture has come to the riding of Durham-York for a bearpit session with the people from the agricultural community, the leaders, including the regional chairman, and what not, who's a farmer.
You know what wasn't raised as an issue? Bill 91 wasn't raised as an issue from any one of those farm leaders, because they are very well aware that the Minister of Agriculture has gone through a very full and extensive consultation process.
I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for coming to my riding and sitting down with all those agricultural leaders from my riding, because it's a very important step in communication, that he goes right out beyond the group that he had the opportunity to meet with from the umbrella, larger groups, like the OFA, to go right to the local federations, meet with those reps, meet with all the different commodities from my riding and have that one-to-one dialogue.
I appreciate the opportunity to support him on this bill. I know he is very committed to the family farm, to agriculture and to rural Ontario, and I support him in his support of Bill 91.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Since everyone else is getting into the debate, I might as well and speak on behalf of the farmers in my area and also in the area of Scarborough for my friend, Mr Curling, there. He was mentioning that the farmers in his riding were having a tough time with this bill, so I thought I'd speak on them also.
But here we are again. We've only got around seven minutes to debate a bill that they've rammed through this House again, one of these bills where they had to bring in closure. They wouldn't want us to talk too much about something because we might disturb something they've come up with. Another bill; no consultation with the farmers again.
The member over there spoke about his bearpit sessions. I wonder who was at the meeting. He mentioned a few people, but obviously it must have been a barbecue he was having and he forgot to talk about the issues.
In the farming community, no consultation: This is the big thing about this bill. They want to ram it through. They've got to put this bill through. I'm glad to see now that the Liberals have also decided that if they somehow might get in power, they will get rid of this bill also. It's nice to see that they've finally committed themselves to this. Hopefully, they'll do the same with Bill 40 when this happens.
Here we are in here with now only six minutes left to go, having another bill rammed through the session near the end. "We've got to pass this. We don't want to go out and listen to the farmers," because they might tell them they don't like this. They might go and tell them they don't like this, and they wouldn't want to hear that.
As I've said many times, I think the minister felt alone sitting over there because he had some friends and none of the other ministers had any friends. So he said, "I've got to think of a way of getting rid of my friends." This is one of the reasons he's done this, I'm sure, because it doesn't make any sense to unionize our family farms. It doesn't make sense.
They get up there and talk about the bigger farms, and I heard the member from Kitchener talking about the poor conditions and things like this. If they're there, then our labour laws should look after that. We don't need unions to come in and take over.
I notice the member from Kent, near Chatham. He's getting quite excited. I'm sure he's going to support this, because he doesn't know for quite sure what he supports in the farming community. He has trouble supporting stable funding. He didn't support that, so I don't really think he supports the farmers anyway.
Unfortunately, our Minister of Agriculture is starting to let go too, and that's really unfortunate because he had done a very good job up until this point. It's just too bad because I'd say that in the farming community the farmers did like the Minister of Agriculture, but now he's trying to ram something down their throats and they don't go for that. I'm afraid the minister has got off his track. He got the new appointment of Rural Affairs and I don't know whether that went to his head or not, but somehow he came up with this bill. Maybe he also wants to be the Labour minister; I'm not sure about that.
It's just too bad that the Minister of Agriculture has let the farmers down and will not send this bill out to committee. It's unfortunate. All we asked for was one week so that they could hear what the farmers really thought about this, but they said: "No, we're a socialist government and that wouldn't look good on our record. We've pretty well ruined the rest of Ontario, and we might as well try to ruin the farming area too."
This is what will happen. Now we'll have our family farms unionized. It may be more money in their coffers -- I don't understand it -- but it would have been nice if they'd had some democratic process and allowed this one out to committee.
The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate?
Mr Cooper, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, has moved third reading of Bill 91. 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 1818 to 1823.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Would members please take their seats. Mr Cooper, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, has moved third reading of Bill 91.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Arnott, Beer, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, North, O'Neil (Quinte), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.
The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 64, the nays being 32, I declare the motion carried.
I would invite members, if they are about to leave, to please leave the chamber. We would like to proceed with the business of the House.
1830
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Chair: According to the order paper today, and section 37(d), there was a private member's bill that was not part of the order paper period today and I had no knowledge that it was coming forward. They asked for unanimous consent to present it for second and third reading in my absence, and it was never discussed, it was just brought forward today.
I was wondering if we could just have unanimous consent, according to 37(d) of the standing orders, so I could debate that private member's bill, or at least have an opportunity to vote against it.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you for raising the point. There was agreement at the time in the House, and we have to proceed on that basis.
Mr Stockwell: I know that, Madam Speaker, and I don't deny that. I'm sure there was unanimous consent. But seeing as how I didn't know it was coming forward, it wasn't listed on the order paper agenda, I'm just seeking unanimous consent to allow that to be opened.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member to participate. No? Unfortunately, there is not.
BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 160, An Act to amend certain Acts to provide for certain Measures referred to in the 1993 Budget and for other Measures referred to in the 1994 Budget and to make amendments to the Health Insurance Act respecting the Collection and Disclosure of Personal Information / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant des lois pour prévoir certaines mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1993 et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1994 et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé en ce qui concerne la collecte et la divulgation de renseignements personnels.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Opening comments?
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): We had quite a bit of debate on second reading. Just to remind folks, Bill 160 includes a number of amendments to specific acts to implement initiatives in both the 1993 and 1994 Ontario budgets. Briefly, here are some of the key amendments: alterations to the Employer Health Tax Act --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat? Members, it is impossible to hear the member who is speaking. We do have to be able to hear the member who has the floor.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Speaker. I'm sure some of my colleagues would find it hard to believe that it would be hard to hear me speaking.
However, the bill includes alterations to the Employer Health Tax Act which will help to encourage small and medium-sized Ontario businesses to hire more workers. I notice in today's paper that one of the things the chamber of commerce is calling for in their plan to create a million jobs nationally is an exemption for a year on payroll taxes. So I'm glad to see that we were ahead of the chamber of commerce in making this move.
Also, we have the access to capital plan, which will provide changes that increase investment opportunities for loan and trust companies, cooperatives and labour-sponsored investment funds. This too will help small business to grow and create jobs.
Of course, another important part is the separate pension plan for members --
Interjections.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I cannot hear the speaker who has the floor. There is a lot of turmoil, a lot of noise in this House at this point.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Mississauga South. It is indeed my duty to ensure that people can speak in this House and can be heard.
Mr Sutherland: As I said, the changes to the Employer Health Tax Act will help to encourage small and medium-sized Ontario businesses to hire more workers, which is similar to an initiative the chamber of commerce has been asking for in their plan nationally to create one million new jobs.
We also have the access to capital plan, which will provide changes that will increase investment opportunities for loan and trust companies, cooperatives and labour-sponsored investment funds. This too will help small businesses to grow and create jobs, because they'll have better access to capital, which is a problem for small business in this province.
Another important part of this legislation is the separate pension plan for members, which will be established through the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act. I know that concerns have been raised about this and I would ask anyone who has those concerns to refer back to the comments of the Chair of Management Board on second reading debate, where I think he addressed many of the concerns that I've certainly heard expressed in the debate by members from the opposition.
In addition, an innovation tax credit is also allowed in the bill to again encourage and support companies that invest in research and development in Ontario.
This bill is primarily implementing the 1994 budget initiatives about supporting the continued economic growth in this province, more of the efforts to get people back to work, more job creation and more support for small business in the province of Ontario, which I think all members in this House believe are the right directions that any government, and particularly this NDP government, should be following at this time.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions or comments to the member for Oxford? Seeing none, further debate?
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This is third reading of a bill which I think is unprecedented in this House and which will in fact set a precedent for future budgets and future governments. We have an omnibus bill that contains all of the features and all of the provisions implementing the Treasurer's budget. Contained in this legislation there are some features which, if they were presented to the House on an individual basis, I as revenue critic and my caucus could support. There are some that we would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss before we would offer support, because we're not sure they will achieve the objectives as stated.
The one I would give as an example is the employer health tax. I'm not convinced that the way the government has gone about implementing the decrease in the employer health tax and the one-year holiday on payroll increases will lead to greater employment. I would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss that with the ministry officials to see how they're going to be accountable for the result, which is increased jobs. If it does increase jobs, I support it. If it doesn't increase jobs, then I have some concern that the government is not doing enough to encourage private sector job creation.
I would point out there are now 16 sections of this bill; one has been withdrawn. But each one of those 16 sections deals with a different act and a different part of public policy. Some of those public policies are very, very significant and we truly have not had the kind of debate and discussion on some of those issues that I think they are deserving of. The fact that the government has refused public hearings on Bill 160 I think sets again a very important negative precedent in dealing with budgetary measures and fiscal policy of the government.
The other particular policy issue that I am very much opposed to and would like to put on the record at this time is the inclusion of health policy in a fiscal document. It is unprecedented to see the kinds of changes in residency definition and to put in there the ability to collect copayments from patients in psychiatric hospitals. To have that included in a bill like this, which is a fiscal and economic policy bill, I think is a shame. It's a shame to the Minister of Health that she would have gone along with not insisting that this be part of health legislation so that it could be debated within the context overall of health policy.
There are many other provisions of this bill that are not worthy of support, and there is another one that I would like to point out because I will be meeting with members of AMAPCEO, who are the excluded group. They are the public servants, thousands of people who work for the Ontario government but are not members of OPSEU. They are the management class of employees and they have chosen to form a separate bargaining agent and they call themselves AMAPCEO.
They are very upset that the government has moved unilaterally without consultation with them, betraying promises and commitments to them to both consult as well as protect their interests in their pension plans. This government has not even permitted the kind of public hearing debate following second reading that would have permitted them the opportunity to come before a legislative committee and in public express their concerns.
While there are some features of Bill 160 that are worthy of support, that could be worthy of support if they had public scrutiny, there are many features within Bill 160, among the 16 provisions in the separate sections of Bill 160, that do not make it supportable. I would like to highlight --
The Acting Speaker: To the member, just a moment. There seem to be quite a few conversations going on in the chamber. I would ask you to refrain because it interrupts the member who is making her comments. The member for Oriole.
1840
Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Given the number of public policy issues which are contained in Bill 160, given the attention of this government to a command-and-control method of governing which we see has not only not worked but has been tremendously undemocratic, and the enormous precedent which I predict will be used by future governments because the precedent has been set and established to deal with budgetary matters flowing from the provincial budget in one piece of omnibus legislation, I believe democracy and the precedents of this House are such that we will look back on this day and see this precedent as not having been a positive one.
I thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We will not be supporting Bill 160.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I just wanted to address one part of the comments that the member for Oriole made, and that was with respect to the pension part of this bill in our dealing with both the creation of the new OPSEU pension plan and the residual plan, the OPS plan, and the questions that have been raised during this debate about the viability of the two plans.
I'd like to just very quickly reiterate that all of the actuaries that have looked at the work we did around this pension plan split, all of them, excluding none, agree that the two plans that are being created in this legislation are both viable, both sound, that the members' pension benefits are protected, and in that respect we believe that this day marks an historic occasion, a landmark occasion in public sector labour relations.
I'd like to take a few moments to simply thank a few people who put a lot of work into this aspect of a bill that is being criticized by the opposition, and say to those from the OPSEU negotiating team, Fred Upshaw, Heather Gavin, Len Hupet, Paul Lane, Grant McGillivray and their legal counsel, Murray Gold, that this is an historic occasion in terms of public sector labour relations. The kind of historic agreement that we've reached here is one that we can also reach with all of the other partners eventually in the remaining plan, and we should strive to do that.
I'd like to also thank my negotiators Richard Lundeen, Phyllis Clarke and Angela Pesce and all of the rest of our negotiating team for a lot of excellent work on this project.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's quite interesting that if you had really stood by the interests of all of the parties who were involved in that one plan, you would have developed a strategy to discuss the entire plan with all of the people who are included in it. The people who are part of the plan whom you didn't talk to are left to accept what you decided to leave there, not what they were allowed to determine for themselves was going to be sufficient for their members.
You have done something that is really unusual in my view. OPSEU has actually abandoned people who were retired before January 1, 1993, into a separate plan. They are carrying forward anybody who was member of their organization after January 1, 1993, but I tell you, it's kind of a strange world that you've created. One group of people got to negotiate whatever they thought was appropriate and move on to another plan, a brand-new plan under their conditions. It seemed that you should have dealt with the rest of them.
I don't have any concern that people who are involved in a plan should have a role to play in discussing it, but how can you talk to one group, segregate their money and then forgo speaking to all of those who are kind of left behind? It seems to me that what this is all about is to try and grab as much money as they can to soften the blow of their poor fiscal planning. They have made a deal around the social contract which, in my view, is unconscionable. It will lead to costs which are deferred well into the future and it is, from my standpoint, not a very upfront type of an agreement. We will all live to regret your connivance and your fiddling around with this plan.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the member for Oriole may reply.
Mrs Caplan: I do want to reply to the comments made by the Chair of Management Board. I would remind you, sir, that you have the obligation, as a minister of the crown, to take into consideration both the public interest and the interest of all of the employees in the Ontario public service. By singling out a special interest and dealing with them in a way which may not be to the benefit of the public as well as the other members of the public service, you are doing a disservice and, in my view, you're not living up to your responsibilities as a minister of the crown.
One of the things that we're very concerned about is the additional cost by splitting the two plans, and that's one of the things that AMAPCEO is very concerned about, the fact that they are now going to have duplicate administration costs for their plan.
Secondly, the future costs and the future cost implications by the deferred payments and the fact that this actually was a negotiation which resulted in, in my view, a result that was not in the public interest and the fact that you did not include in your discussions and negotiations all of those who had an interest in your plan is a disservice not only to the employees of the Ontario public service, it is a disservice to the public of Ontario who receive services from all of those employees.
It is not an example of the kind of human resource relations, management-labour relations, and unfortunately, I have to say that it's not the kind of response that I would expect from any government, particularly one that purports to speak fairly on behalf of workers.
I am very disappointed that the Chair of Management Board would rise to congratulate people who participated in something which clearly may not be in the interests of those people who feel excluded and clearly is not in the interests of the public of Ontario who are going to have to foot the bill.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Don Mills.
Applause.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): They don't seem to share your enthusiasm on the other side of the House.
I'm just going to pick up on --
Interjection.
Mr David Johnson: The member from Durham can't quite seem to coordinate there.
I'm going to pick up on that theme because I believe the member for Oriole and the member for Bruce are bang on, or spot on, as the Minister of Finance is fond of saying.
Interjection: Used to say.
Mr David Johnson: Used to say, yes. He's not spot on any more, is he? No.
But what's happened here is that an undertaking was given to all of those involved in the pension plan, including AMAPCEO, which stands, I might say, for the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario, the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ontario Association of Correctional Managers, that if the plan was split, they would have a say in terms of the actuary who did the valuation.
I wish the Chairman of Management Board was here, because I am told by all of these organizations that they had no say, that the undertaking that was given to them that they would have a say in the actuary was broken by this government; this government broke it.
A year ago, part of the deal with the Ontario Provincial Police, through the social contract negotiations, was that there would be no split of the public service pension plan. That was part of the arrangement of the social contract. That was in writing. That has been broken.
Two promises have been made to the members of this pension plan; two promises have been broken and I wish that the Chair of Management Board would come here and address both of those issues. He did not respond -- there he is. Good.
Mr Chair, I hope in your two-minute response you will address those two particular issues: your broken promises to the Ontario Provincial Police that you would not split the pension plan, and secondly, that you would allow the other members of the plan to have a say. You've broken both of those promises.
1850
You've done that for the reasons that the member for Bruce has pointed out, that this will generate about $1 billion. I've heard the parliamentary assistant use the word "save," that this government is going to save $1 billion. That is complete hogwash.
This money is going to have to be paid. There's about a $2.5-billion unfunded liability in the public service pension plan that remains to be paid as we sit here today. If this money, about $1 billion, because of this fiddling of the books, had been directed to that unfunded liability, then the unfunded liability would have been paid off, according to the Finance staff.
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm just amazed at a Tory talking about the unfunded liability. This pension plan existed for years.
The Acting Speaker: Order. One member has the floor.
Mr David Johnson: The member wants to talk about old history again. We go back into the early 1980s, 1970s. I don't know how far back she wants to take me.
Let's talk about today. You had an option of what to do with this money, and you've chosen to cook the books of the province of Ontario to the tune of $1 billion over a three-year period. I think you have a lot of answering to do for that. It's going to put the books of the province in a very awkward spot after this period expires.
I might say, it's not just the opinion of myself and the members of the Liberal government. I have a letter from the Ontario Association of Correctional Managers with regard to the public service pension plan. This letter is addressed to the Honourable Brian Charlton, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet.
Hon Ms Lankin: Signed by George Simpson, right?
Mr David Johnson: It's signed by Mr Simpson.
Hon Ms Lankin: What a surprise.
Mr David Johnson: It matters who signs it.
He's representing the Ontario Association of Correctional Managers. It's dated June 14, and he says to the Chairman of Management Board:
"You stated that the government has offered to meet with the remaining members of the public service pension plan to discuss how that plan should continue to be administered. To date, we have not yet received such an invitation."
They have not heard from you, Mr Chair. I assume that in the near future, after the bill has been passed, after third reading of the bill, then they will hear from you. Isn't that wonderful.
They go on to say: "When our association learned of the secret negotiations and agreement with OPSEU to split the pension plan, we wrote to your deputy minister on April 21 to express our dismay and frustration with the failure of your government to abide by its commitments and stated principles to treat all employees fairly and equally." This letter is addressed to you. "To date, we have not yet received a response."
I think that's very shoddy treatment of people who have served this province of Ontario.
I've agreed to limit my time, but I will say that not only is the Association of Correctional Managers upset but the members of the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario are upset. They're taking you to court, as I understand it. The members of the Ontario Provincial Police are upset. You have broken all your promises to these people, to these employees of Ontario. I wish you'd stand up and tell us you did not break those promises that you made a year ago. I'll wait for that response.
I might also say just quickly that this party, the Progressive Conservative Party, stands in opposition to the corporate filing fee which is contained in this bill. The parliamentary assistant has indicated that he's hoping to create jobs, and this is how he creates jobs: by charging the businesses a filing fee. Presumably we don't know exactly what it will be. I think they're thinking in terms of a $50 fee and all the paperwork associated with that.
If there's one thing that I have heard from the businesses in Ontario it is that in this day and age of a recession, when businesses are struggling, small businesses, large businesses, don't add any more taxes or fees on top of what they're paying already -- they're already paying too much -- and secondly, don't add any more red tape and paperwork.
I'm being instructed to wrap it up.
We stand in opposition to the corporate filing fee.
My last point is in terms of the education component. I think we should have permitted public hearings, not only to hear from those members in the public service pension fund but to hear from the public school board and the separate school board. The formula is being changed with regard to assigning municipal taxes to the two school boards.
I have a letter from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association specifically asking that you not proceed with this bill, their component of this bill, and that you have public hearings and hear from all sides on this issue, and you've turned them down. You have rejected their request simply for a public hearing. There was no urgency on this matter and you've denied them that opportunity to speak.
With those comments, Madam Speaker -- and I might say, Madam Speaker, you look excellent in that particular chair. You're doing a fine job and I think this is perhaps a taste of the future, is it? We all hope so.
Hon Ms Lankin: I'm not going to participate in the full debate -- I know that we're moving through a number of bills this evening -- but I do want to take two minutes in response to the member's comments, just to make a couple of points.
First of all, he did point out during his discussion that I was raising points about the past and I think they're valid points. I think they're points that should be acknowledged by the member of the Tory party in that for years in this province -- 42 years of Tory reign -- during the period of time in which there was a pension plan, in fact, it wasn't a fully funded pension plan. In fact, there was no defined benefit plan at all. It was a plan that was funded through the consolidated revenue with deemed interest accruing to members; no investments on behalf of the pension plan members' contributions at all. It was not until a separate pension plan was created in the mid-1980s that an unfunded liability was assessed.
As a result of the social contract and other measures that have been taken over the last couple of years which have changed the assumptions with respect to salary increases in the years, there has been a change in the actuarial assumptions and we have a situation where people and parties are benefiting jointly from that. That's a saving to the taxpayer in terms of contributions that would need to be made, bringing the deficit down quicker and in terms of interest payments that we would be paying on the borrowed moneys right now.
I also want to point out that for 42 years of Tory governments, and for Liberal governments, the pension plan was not negotiable. Under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the pension plan -- employees' contributions and the employers' contributions for deferred employees' wages -- was not negotiable, the terms of investment and the terms of that plan.
It wasn't until we changed the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and gave rights to people who have bargaining rights under that legislation to negotiate that this kind of negotiated deal was possible. I think it is entirely appropriate and I would entirely defend the right of the government to negotiate with individual parties under that legislation with respect to their members and their pension plan contributions.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There's no doubt, if we're going to go back in history, that during some terms of some governments, pension plans weren't fully funded. It was a mistake. Those governments made a mistake during those times. I don't agree that you're not going to fully fund pension plans, because you're just passing off responsibility to future generations.
Having said that, this government has taken this to a new level. Maybe the accusation can be made about some governments not fully funding pension plans, but I look to the Liberals, and I know in this party, never have we taken money out of a pension plan. Never have we gone into a pension plan and taken hundreds of millions of dollars, literally, out of a pension plan. You have deferred your pension responsibilities to the teachers to the tune --
Hon Ms Lankin: You do not know what you're talking about.
Mr Stockwell: -- of billions of dollars, plus --
Hon Ms Lankin: It's not true that you never went into pension plans.
Mr Stockwell: Is that not true? Of course it's true.
The next point is, this Treasurer went into the teachers' pension plan with this supposed negotiation and extracted money out of the plan and put it into general revenue.
We can be accused of maybe not fully funding pension plans in another life. I understand that. But this government has taken it to a new level by not just not funding them but by actually taking money out of them; reducing not only their commitment but taking money back and putting it into general revenue. Let's be clear: When it comes to fiscal propriety in the private sector when they were in opposition and companies went in to fully funded pension plans and took money out, you people went ballistic. Now you do the same thing and suddenly you're saintly and it's okay because government's a major responsibility and it's a major cross that you now must bear.
1900
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Thank you. Further questions and comments. Does the member for Oxford wish to make a summation?
Mr Sutherland: No, the member for Don Mills.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Don Mills.
Mr David Johnson: And you were doing so well up to that point too, Madam Speaker. But we still love you and we still think you're doing an excellent job.
I do thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine who has risen on behalf of the Chair of Management Board, who had ample opportunities -- walking out of the room now -- to rise and address my two questions about the promises that were made, one to the OPP that was broken, and a second one to all the members of the public service pension plan that they would have the right to participate in selecting the actuary who did the valuation.
As a result, the evaluation has been done and the Chair of Management Board says it's a good one, but I can tell you, the problem is that the members of AMAPCEO don't think it's a good one. Since they have not had the right to be involved in the first instance, that lingering doubt is there, Mr Chair of the Board, and there is an unhappiness. Unfortunately, we have many long-term employees of the province of Ontario involved who are unhappy with the results of their pension plan. I think that's a very sad state of affairs.
The member for Beaches-Woodbine makes the comments going back through history and the member for Etobicoke West has rebutted those very well. The point I would like to make about today, though, is that the opportunity was there, number one, to be fair with all the members of the pension plan; number two, if there is a surplus in today's terms, that surplus could be used, for example, to pay down the unfunded liability, which at this point totals about $2.5 billion. The staff of the Finance ministry has indicated that rather than taking 40 years to pay it off, as it will at present, that could have been reduced to 15 years, and the people of Ontario would have been the winner in that sort of scenario.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Hon Mr Charlton: Before we move to the member for Oxford, I believe there's an agreement to see a division when this debate finishes and to limit the bells to five minutes.
The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr Sutherland: I want to thank those who participated in the third reading debate. I know much of this discussion talked about pension plan issues. Again, I would remind all members, including not only members here, but in terms of the groups the members have spoken on, to go back to the second reading debate and look at the remarks of the Chair of Management Board, who very fully talked about the process that was involved in terms of going through to get this agreement and how not only were there government actuaries, not only were there OPSEU actuaries, there were other independent actuaries who were brought in etc. I just want people to remember that when they're discussing this with whomever, they keep those comments in mind and realize that those actuarial statements are available. I thank the members for that and I will leave my remarks at that.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. In the absence of Mr Laughren, Mr Sutherland, the member for Oxford, has moved third reading of Bill 160. Is it the pleasure of the House that third reading of Bill 160 proceed?
Call in the members. It will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1906 to 1911.
The Acting Speaker: In the absence of Mr Laughren, Mr Sutherland has moved third reading of Bill 160. All those members in favour of the motion will please rise one by one.
Ayes
Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the vote will please rise.
Nays
Arnott, Beer, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Henderson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, McGuinty, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), O'Neil (Quinte), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.
The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 63, the nays 25. I declare the vote carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Mr Charlton: Just before we move to the next order, the next order will be Bill 159, and I think we have an agreement to deem a division on this bill and to have a five-minute bell.
The Acting Speaker: Is there agreement? Agreed.
ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 159, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Projet de loi 159, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Is there any debate? Is it agreed that we take the same vote? Agreed.
I declare the motion carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This morning, following private members' hour, the member for Ottawa South, who introduced Bill 170 and which received second reading, asked for unanimous consent from this Legislature to have it passed for third reading through committee stage. At that time, we had not had an opportunity to consult with our caucus vis-à-vis that bill. We have now had the opportunity to consult with our caucus, and we would give unanimous consent to passing that bill on third reading today and waiving whatever notices are necessary in order to do that.
The Acting Speaker: Is there now unanimous consent? Agreed.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): For the purpose of getting this correctly on the record: By unanimous consent, it is agreed that the order for the standing committee on social development on Bill 170, An Act respecting the Donation of Food, be discharged and that the bill be ordered for third reading.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
REVENUE AND LIQUOR LICENCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DIVERSES LOIS FISCALES ET LA LOI SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 161, An Act to amend various Taxation Statutes administered by the Minister of Finance and to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi modifiant diverses lois fiscales appliquées par le ministre des Finances et modifiant la Loi sur les permis d'alcool.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Any debate? Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
1920
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)
Mr Duignan moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Any debate? The member for Etobicoke-West.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm glad we broke that accommodating string we had going.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could we have order, please. We'll ask the member for Etobicoke West to wait a minute or two until we have a little more decorum in the chamber.
Mr Stockwell: Can I get a point of clarification, Mr Speaker: Did the member for Halton North speak?
The Acting Speaker: He has moved third reading.
Mr Stockwell: He had no opening comments?
The Acting Speaker: The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although it's a private member's bill, it's a very important precedent we're setting with this legislation. It's all well and good, on the final day of the Legislature, to try to reach compromises and acceptable agreements between all parties so we can stick to the legislative calendar. But I've chosen to speak to this piece of legislation, not so much because I disagree with the piece of legislation -- I do -- but because of the actual terms and conditions and clauses within this piece of legislation.
This piece of legislation, begun by the member for Halton North, is designed for one purpose, and I think even the member himself would agree that the purpose of this legislation was to stop a landfill site being located in his riding. I understand the processes he wanted to use to stop this landfill site from being sited in his riding; it's an acceptable approach to take, as a private member, to try to do things your constituents want you to do.
As a representative of this Legislature, I have some real concerns on two fronts with this legislation. First, I lived through a period of time in this House when Bill 143 was being debated. The prime focus and thrust of Bill 143, brought forward by this government, was an act to legislate fairness and equity within the siting of landfills in the province of Ontario, "landfills" being garbage dumps.
There was a prolonged period of debate, the IWA was struck, and $60 million or $70 million was spent by the government to have a fair and open process where all sites would be put on the table in order to site a garbage dump.
This government, led by a number of members, insisted that this be an equitable and fair program. They had 30 or 40 sites on the original table and whittled it down to some three sites, and expanded dump sites that were presently in place to take more garbage in the interim. All sites were made available and put on the table.
What we have here flies in the face of that particular legislation. What this legislation does is take away the fairness and equity in any siting of landfill sites. What this legislation does is that it says everybody should have their riding, their community, their location, on the table and eligible for a landfill site -- except Halton North.
The guise that was used was the NEC. I understand and appreciate the Niagara Escarpment Commission, but I believe fundamentally this was done simply to stop this landfill site. But let me say to you categorically, and I want to say this to the government itself: If you vote in favour of this piece of legislation, you should expect the member for Simcoe West, the member for Wellington, the member from Oakville, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, myself and all the members in this Legislature to come forward next session and say, "Because I represent a community that either has farm land distinctiveness or historical sites, we also should be exempted and not have a landfill site." That is equitable and that is fair according to the new provisions set down by the member for Halton North. I look directly to the Minister of Environment and Energy and say, Mr Minister, these are your new terms and conditions for siting landfill sites in Ontario.
When the members of the Liberal caucus stand up when someone starts talking about a landfill site, they'll bring in a piece of legislation that says, "Not in my riding, because there's historical or farm land" etc. This is crazy planning. This is crazy environmental planning. This would never have been accepted by this party in opposition. The Minister of Environment, who's in charge of this program, sits in his place today, and I don't know how he can vote in favour of this legislation from the member for Halton North exempting that whole area from a landfill site, yet tell people in jurisdictions close by, with the best farm land in this province, with historical sites nearby, with all those things they use in their community that they may say makes them distinctive and important, that they have to be on the table and must go through an environmental assessment for a landfill site in those areas.
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): They haven't been internationally recognized by the UN.
Mr Stockwell: What we have is the minister saying if it's nationally recognized by the UN. Apparently this is the new criterion for whether you get a dump or don't get a dump. But that wasn't the case all the time, in my opinion. That's why this government member could never come forward and say, "The Ministry of Environment and the minister support this piece of legislation," because it absolutely defies logic that this government could pass Bill 143 and then, not two years later, turn around and pass an exemption like this, which is nothing more than crass politics instituted, as I understand, by the local member.
Now we see the inequity in the system. Let's delve further into this. We know the member introduced this bill to stop a specific site, a quarry, a quarry that was scarred landscape no doubt, but a quarry, where previously an allowable process to recondition that site would have been a landfill, under the old terms and conditions. You could have made a landfill out of this site without any further approval, just recondition this quarry. Now we have this member bringing this legislation forward.
Let me tell you about this landfill site. The people who are developing this landfill site have spent some seven or eight years going through processes established by Liberal and NDP governments to open allowable, legal, acceptable dumps. They've lived within every law and every rule this government has set down. At the 11th hour, before going to a joint board, they've decided to abandon that fairness and they've decided not to allow this to continue.
I say to the Minister of Environment directly, Mr Minister, not only did you not allow this to continue, you've also told these people who have spent $7 million or $8 million living within the laws that this minister set down: "Even though we have treated you unfairly, even though we are changing the laws, even though we are moving the goalposts, you have no right under this legislation to seek compensation, not for the lost opportunity, not for the money you could have made. You have no right to seek compensation for the money you invested, making your way through our laws, under our environmental assessment process and under our rules and terms of condition. You may have spent $7 million or $8 million and we may have changed the rules, but you have no right to seek any kind of redress to get your money back."
1930
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is an extremely important piece of legislation and indeed a precedent is being set and yet I do not believe we have a quorum in this House.
The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if indeed we have a quorum present.
Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West may resume his participation in the debate.
Mr Stockwell: Let me just read this clause. I want the members opposite who maybe haven't formed a complete opinion on this or haven't heard the other side of the story to at least listen to this clause that has been inputted, jettisoned during the end of the committee process, into this piece of legislation, this amendment. Just listen to this, and you tell me if you think it's fair.
Subsection 1(4): "No proceeding directly or indirectly based upon the prohibition in subsection (2)" -- which means it can't have a landfill site -- "may be brought against the crown in right of Ontario, the government of Ontario, any member of the executive council or any employee of the crown or government."
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Sounds good to me.
Mr Stockwell: I don't know if it does sound good to you, if you understand the interpretation. I understand that you have the right to say to these people, "You can't have a dump there." I understand that right. I understand that you can change the rules; I understand that too. I understand that you can change the rules in your benefit or in the benefit of the community. I understand that you don't like the way this is going because you have a sitting member there who wants to hold his riding; I understand that too.
But what I cannot understand, what I cannot believe or buy into, is that a company in the province of Ontario, with shareholders and people who invested $8 million, potentially could go personally and businesswise bankrupt because you decided that you're going to change the rules and then not allow them to sue for compensation. That's what I don't understand.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Are they not confident enough of their own legislation?
Mr Stockwell: Of course they're not confident. You know you're not confident that they couldn't sue and win. It's just so plain. It's an act of fairness. You know they'd win this.
Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Once again, the Minister of Environment and Energy has left, even though this is a bill dealing with the environment, and the government doesn't think that this is important enough to hold a quorum, so I ask if there is a quorum in this House.
The Acting Speaker: Is a quorum present?
Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.
Mr Stockwell: I thank Mr Wiseman for getting in there and making quorum.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's not because I wanted to hear you, though.
Mr Stockwell: I don't think this is a terribly partisan issue; I honestly don't. I don't think this is divided along political lines, and I'm appealing to your sense of fair play. I don't think this is an issue that divides party from party and philosophy from philosophy. What I think this is, is fairness to a person, to a business; it's fairness to some business that's trying to make a living in this province. It's fairness and equity to a business and community that want to see action take place on their landfill site.
The Niagara Escarpment: They have a very good argument. I don't debate their argument that there shouldn't be a landfill site there. I don't fundamentally agree with the kind of planning that excludes it, but I understand why the community came forward and said, "We don't want this." I understand that. I understand why the member for Simcoe West's community, where there are nine sites, is going to come along and say, "We don't want those sites either." I understand that and I understand they're going to pressure the local member to bring in a bill like this. I understand that too.
I understand that your government has maybe decided, because it's the Niagara Escarpment, that you're going to agree with the private member, and I buy that. You're the government for heaven's sake. I know it. But what I can't understand is how you're going to let an individual who spent $7 million or $8 million, living within the law that you set down, lose all that money because you've decided to change the rules. What's the fairness? I look to the member from Chatham. What's fair about that? What's equitable? What are we doing here if we're not here to protect citizens and not here to protect businesses and not here to protect people from governments so you don't force them into bankruptcy? If we're not here to protect people against that, then what are we here to protect?
Mr Wiseman: The environment.
Mr Stockwell: We're here to protect the environment, the member said, and I say if you believe that, then vote in favour of the bill. I don't particularly agree with you, but I understand that you should vote that way. But explain to me this subsection (4). It says that this company lived within the rules, the laws that you laid out, and it's going to get pilfered for $8 million. Please stand up when I sit down, Mr Minister, and explain the fairness and equity in that.
Mr Wiseman: It was turned down three times.
Mr Stockwell: There are arguments that are going to come across to this side that say they've been turned down three times and they've been turned down this many times. Fine. If that's what you believe, then vote for the bill.
Mr Wiseman: I will.
Mr Stockwell: Then do it, but amend it so that you don't take money that was properly spent and invested under the terms and conditions of your laws away from people who just lived within the letter of the law.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: He says no. I don't understand that.
Mr Wiseman: It's been turned down three times. How many times does a community have to fight the battle?
Mr Stockwell: This site, as I understand it, has never been through an environmental assessment, this particular site, never been through an environmental assessment.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: No, this site has never been through an environmental assessment joint board hearing.
The member says it's been turned down three times. I know the member for Durham West sometimes gets under my skin, but he's done it again. He's just said they've been turned down three times. Once again, he's proven categorically beyond a shadow of a doubt that he hasn't got any idea what he's talking about. They haven't been turned down three times. But I know that you're going to say that, because that adds fuel to your argument, false as it may be, but it may add fuel to his argument. But still there's no debate or discussion on subsection (4).
Mr Wiseman: How many times does a council have to tell them to get lost?
Mr Stockwell: How many times do you have to tell them to get lost? I suppose when you go through an environmental assessment hearing and the environmental assessment hearing says -- you know what, the member for Durham West? How many times did people in York have to tell them to get lost and not expand Keele? How many times did the people in Peel have to say, "Get lost, don't expand the dump site in Peel"? You know what? They had to say "Get lost" a number of times until you voted in favour of expanding it, so don't tell me about telling politicians to get lost.
You've got a convenient memory, selective amnesia. You choose to remember what you want to remember about the environment and what you don't want to remember you pretend never happened. I don't need a lecture from this guy on landfill sites and where he stood before elections and where he stood after elections.
Clearly, you're not going to convince the members opposite and it's a shame, it's just an absolute shame, because the only thing that's going to happen because we pass this piece of legislation is that a business will go out of business. I will say it to you right now: A business will go out of business. People will lose their jobs, people will lose their livelihoods, people will lose $8 million that they invested in this, living under the letter of your law, agreeing to terms and conditions that you set down. Because you decided to change the rules and move the goal posts, they will lose whatever opportunity they had to go through environmental assessment and all the money they invested to get this far.
If you can say in your own mind that that's fair, then vote for this, because this is the furthest thing from fair, this is the furthest thing from democratic, and this used to be the furthest thing from socialists.
1940
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I understand the member's concern with this issue. I will say that I am going to be supporting the bill completely. I understand his frustration on the comments of the contradiction of this government with respect to trying to protect farm lands on neighbouring areas, and yet they're placing dumps on those farm lands, because this bill does contradict other pieces of legislation that the government has put forward.
The main gist of my friend's comments with respect to this bill seems to be with respect to the outstanding amendment. That is assuming that the individual is going to be successful in that application. That corporation may not be successful on an environmental assessment and that is one of the risks of proceeding on an environmental assessment. You may lose and you may spend millions of dollars on such an application.
Mr Jim Wilson: Shouldn't have to take that risk.
Mr Tilson: I'm sorry, but that's exactly what happens in this world. You spend big bucks trying to form big dumps, and you may win, you may lose. I can tell you that the laws do change and those people making those applications have to stand on those specific risks.
As much as I do respect my friend from Etobicoke West, I don't agree with him on his concerns with respect to his objections to the bill, nor do I agree with him with respect to his objections to the amendment. I encourage all members of this House to support this bill. We should fight with all our might to protect the Niagara Escarpment. We should continue to do that and this bill does just that.
Mr Bisson: I just want to comment quickly, because I was listening with some intent to the member from Etobicoke. He makes make a point I think needs to be responded to.
What we need to keep in mind are a couple of points with regard to what is being proposed in this bill. First of all, we have to recognize that anywhere in Ontario you fall under the Planning Act of Ontario, and the Niagara Escarpment, as you would know, is governed by its own planning act. So there isn't a contradiction. It's not as if we're doing things entirely differently than what would happen, because there are set differences when it comes to the rules on how they're applied in the escarpment from how they're applied in other places, by virtue of the Niagara Escarpment planning act.
The other thing I think I want to touch on -- it's a bit of an issue that comes back to the whole issue around Kirkland Lake -- is that we know those particular quarries are situated in lime. The geology there is lime, and one of the worst types of rocks as far as being porous and being able to carry water a great distance should there be seepage from the garbage is concerned is exactly that kind of rock. I don't think we want to be in a position of encouraging people to be able to go there.
The other thing is that it's against the stated policy of what we set out to do under Bill 143. Under Bill 143, we made a decision in this Legislature. The government, this New Democratic government, said, "We're against the idea of transporting garbage from one municipality to the other." Grant you, with this bill, what would happen under the proposals that are happening now, the one that you talk about with regard to the quarry you're talking about, is that garbage would be coming in from the States. Just on that principle, I don't think we should be getting into the business in this province of dealing with trying to get rid of the waste problem in the United States and dumping it into landfill sites here in Ontario. I think it's totally ludicrous.
Yes, I understand the member's argument and I wouldn't want to see this kind of legislation all over. But by virtue of the Niagara Escarpment planning act setting out already that the Niagara Escarpment is treated differently, I think this is very much in keeping.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to enter the debate very quickly. I agree with a lot of what the member for Etobicoke West has said, as well as the member for Grey-Owen Sound.
This is one of these difficult issues, when I come from a region where my town and my region have voted to support this bill. I spoke with the mayor going way back, I guess, in the town of Oakville when they voted on this, and quite frankly, I didn't think this bill was going to come forward. It came forward to keep quiet a special-interest group that was hounding the Premier of this province. That's why this bill came forward, and over the next little while we will probably see about 130 members come in and exempt their areas.
But I'll be voting for this because of the people of my region. The mayor has been very vocal in supporting this, as well as the Halton region unanimously, and I've spoken with the chairman.
I appreciate the points that were made by the member for Etobicoke West. They were very valid points. This makes it a very difficult situation, because what happens is that I come from a region that is going to exempt a particular property. I think the concerns he put forward were very correct, and some of the amendments that were put forward by our caucus I think were very helpful during the debates that went on.
This is one of these issues where the people of my region and my riding in Oakville are supportive of this bill, but I want to tell you that I have some very serious concerns about supporting this bill. I will be voting for it, but I think the members opposite, and particularly the Minister of Environment and the member who moved this, should think very carefully about what the member for Etobicoke West said, because he was true in exactly what he said in a lot of respects.
This is going to set a very dangerous precedent for the province of Ontario. I understand why the member for Halton North has introduced it, but I want to tell you, there are some very serious concerns among all members in this House on this particular piece of legislation.
I will be supporting this piece of legislation, but I hope the government of the day will listen to some of the comments that were made by some of the members on this side.
Mr Turnbull: I'm very troubled by this bill, because I believe it is important that we protect the Niagara Escarpment, but I have to say that since I've been in this House, I've learned a lot of things about the Niagara Escarpment from my colleague the member for Grey-Owen Sound, who's cast a new light on some of the activities of the commission.
The protection of the environment is important, but the troublesome thing about this bill is that the government is exempting itself from being sued in this bill, which seems unreasonable. If the government feels, in its wisdom, that it is confident this legislation that is being put forward by a private member is such that it can stand on its own two feet, then fine, pass the bill. But don't put in a clause which exempts the government, because basically you're undermining the whole process that we have, that businesses take normal commercial risks and understand that yes, they can lose their money, but at least let them lose it on their own terms. Don't have governments coming in after the fact and saying, "Notwithstanding the fact that you've complied with the letter of the law all the way along, you are now going to lose the ability to finally go back to the courts to arbitrate this." That seems highly unfair and that's a troublesome thing.
While I am very supportive of protecting the Niagara Escarpment, this bill does not meet the acid test of fairness, because businesses will be scared from investing in this province by this kind of bill. It sends out a very strong message as to what this government is prepared to do.
The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The member for Etobicoke West has two minutes to sum up.
Mr Stockwell: I'd like to thank all those members who took part in the debate. I understand why they are taking the positions they're taking and I understand specifically that if you're in this particular region, you're probably more pressured to take a position to support the bill than those who are not necessarily in the region. I understand that. I understand the politics of this issue.
I suppose the important thing, and it's incumbent on those of us who maybe aren't abutting this region or as close in proximity, is to ensure that an equitable and fair hearing take place. The problem with using the word "equity" when you're dealing with this government is that equity of course means equal and equal means equal to everybody. Whether they happen to share your political philosophy, your environmental philosophy, or any of the philosophies a government has, equity means you treat everybody fairly. This bill does not treat a business in this province fairly.
1950
If you truly suggest that you are an equitable and fair government, then you must stand and respond to this subsection (4), and you must admit in your own mind, as the equitable people you claim to be, that it's not fair. It's going to cost people money, maybe their livelihood, maybe their homes, but it's going to cost them. The equitable socialist government that you claim to be on all these fronts, if you're truly supposed to be fair representing the community, representing the member and representing those people who do business in this province, this bill would not exist in its present form. I think it's dangerous, it's precedent-setting and it sends the wrong message to a business community that is in as fragile a state as it is.
I'm going to vote against it, and I think if you thought about it you'd vote against it too.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I did have an opportunity to be taking part in the debate two nights ago on this Bill 62, and at that time I did ask some questions of the proponent of the bill, the member for Halton North. The questions that I asked him were focusing on the amended bill in subsection 1(4), which was an amendment that was made as part of the bill during the committee process.
That subsection 1(4) of the bill is the one that reads, "No proceeding directly or indirectly based upon the prohibition in subsection (2) may be brought against the crown in right of Ontario, the government of Ontario, any member of the executive council or any employee of the crown or government."
When I asked that question the other evening, what I was asking was whether that would also protect the members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. When I asked the member for Halton North the question I said, and I'm reading from Hansard: "Could you explain why you didn't include members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission? They are going to be very vulnerable in the execution of this bill, and I'd like to know why you're not protecting them."
Mr Duignan's answer: "I want to point that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is an agency of the crown."
My comment went on: "We're in committee of the whole House. If you wish to give those board members the protection that you want to give your own staff and your own executive council -- namely, cabinet -- then I ask you why you won't amend this and add the Niagara Escarpment Commission, because they are the people who are going to be responsible for the application of this bill."
Mr Duignan's, second answer was: "Again, obviously we have an area of disagreement: I believe that in fact they are covered; the honourable member for Mississauga South believes they're not."
The reason I raised that question was because it is a very serious matter. Although this is "only" a private member's bill, once it is proclaimed into law in this province it becomes as powerful as any other statute that exists today. Every word in this bill has to be perfect, defensible and have only one meaning and only one interpretation.
In the case of this section, it is a section that is prohibiting any referral to the courts. So it's even more imperative that everybody who's party to this bill is protected in the bill, because it says there will be no proceedings against certain parties.
My concern is that since I have spoken to a number of people and I have received a number of phone calls since I raised this question the other night, I've received a number of phone calls from lawyers who, to be honest, were impressed with the fact that I was able to focus in on this particular concern. I guess part of the problem is that when private members' bills are drafted, they don't receive the full circulation that government bills do. They do not receive the full inspection that government bills do. Even though they go to committee, these bills are treated differently than government bills.
The advice that I have had, including from our own legislative counsel, is that in fact this section of the bill does not provide any protection for the members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. This provision does not protect them from liability. None of the categories that are in subsection 1(4) -- namely, the government of Ontario, the executive council, the employees of the crown or government -- are categories under which the officers of the commission fall. So I think it's very important that everybody understands that.
I am in favour of this bill. I will be standing in my place tonight to vote in favour of this bill. There has never been any question about my support for the intent of this bill. I am just concerned about the precedent that is being set by the fact that everybody who's going to have to work with this bill is protected except the executors of the action of the bill; namely, the members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
It may be that the Niagara Escarpment Commission carries its own insurance against actions against them, as board or as commission members. But the point is that if this member has gone to this much trouble to protect government employees, members of cabinet etc, I simply have to ask him if he would be willing, through unanimous consent tonight, to agree to add the members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission to this subsection 1(4). My concern is that if they are not protected when this section goes to so much trouble to protect everybody else, we are not going to find people who are willing to serve, because, frankly, who would want to serve on a government agency, board or commission if they are not protected?
In this case, the work of the Niagara Escarpment Commission is terribly important work. It's a very large responsibility that they have. We have an area with international recognition by the United Nations. The majority of us share the continued protection that was started when the Niagara Escarpment Commission was originally founded.
I ask Mr Duignan, the member for Halton North, if he will consider adding to subsection 1(4), by unanimous consent, the members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission for their own protection in their service on that commission.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When this debate around third reading is over, I think we have an agreement that the bell will be a five-minute bell instead of 30 minutes and that the division will be deemed to have been recognized.
The Acting Speaker: Is that unanimously agreed to? Agreed. Mr Duignan, in summation.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): First of all, I'd like to take the opportunity to say thank you to all those people who have participated in the debate, even the member for Etobicoke West, and I appreciate his comments.
I would like to first of all address the member for Mississauga South. Yes, the Niagara Escarpment Commission is included in "crown in right of Ontario" under subsection 1(4) of the bill, so the Niagara Escarpment Commission members are indeed covered.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people for all their hard work and effort which have gone into supporting Bill 62, too many to mention here tonight, but in particular I would also like to thank my staff, Norma Peterson and Kathy Taylor. They were the driving force, they were the people who did all the hard work in organizing, and again, I'm very grateful for that.
Bill 62 amends the Environmental Protection Act to prohibit landfill sites in the Niagara Escarpment area. I firmly believe that landfill operations are inconsistent with the purpose of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and they do not fit with the notion of appropriate development in an internationally recognized World Biosphere Reserve.
Over the years, the Niagara Escarpment has enriched and nourished not just the people of Ontario, but people from right around the world. We cannot and must not compromise one of the most significant, important natural assets of this province. Today I stand here and urge all my honourable colleagues to take that little step further to protect our environment and the Niagara Escarpment by supporting Bill 62.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Duignan has moved third reading of Bill 62, and by previous arrangement it will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.
The division bells rang from 2002 to 2007.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Mr Duignan has moved third reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to the Niagara Escarpment.
All those in favour of Mr Duignan's bill will rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.
Ayes
Abel, Allen, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Caplan, Carr, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Elston, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McGuinty, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Sterling, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Tilson, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Duignan's motion, please rise and be recognized.
Nays
Arnott, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Runciman, Stockwell, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 63; the nays are 6. I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)
Mr Turnbull moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of vital services by-laws / Projet de loi 104, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités en ce qui concerne les règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Will the honourable member please initiate debate.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Yes, Mr Speaker. My private member's bill, Bill 104, is permissive legislation which enables any local municipality to pass vital services bylaws if they so decide. The vital services that can be provided in this way are such as electricity, gas and hot water and can be provided to occupants of rented premises when the landlord fails to meet an obligation to provide them.
Bill 104 was introduced in response to an untenable situation for tenants in my riding at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East. All tenants throughout the province should have the kind of protection which has already been extended under special legislation covering Ottawa, London and the city of Toronto. I'm delighted that the government has seen fit, after a lot of prodding from me, to move forward with my bill.
I would like to particularly recognize and thank the help of Glenn and Kathy Stephenson of the tenants' association at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East for their support of this bill. As well, I would like to thank Bob Gosschalk, the president of the North York Tenants' Association, and Mary Jo Donovan, president of the East York Tenants' Association, for their support and efforts on this issue.
I'd also like to thank TAPSO, the Toronto Area Property Standards Officers, their provincial counterpart, the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers, OAPSO, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for giving support for this legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Questions or comments? Any further debate?
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I stand today in support of Bill 104, and I would like to put some comments on the record, if the Speaker doesn't mind.
I want to commend the member for York Mills for coming out with 104, the vital services act. Many in the Legislature will know I had a very similar piece of legislation. In fact, it was almost exactly the same as 104, identical in most parts. I think the only difference is that mine related to giving the city of North York the right to pass vital services bylaws, and of course the member for York Mills's piece of legislation covers the rest of the province, including North York. There are some differences, however, and I'll get to them in just a second.
Before I do that, I want to take the opportunity to wish Adrian Silipo, who's here visiting today, a happy sixth birthday. The Minister of Comsoc's child is here, and I just want to wish him a happy sixth birthday today.
In North York, in terms of some history, tenants have had a problem, as the author of the bill knows. Tenants have had a problem for quite some time now. In North York we have experienced very difficult times over the last few years in terms of what I call slum landlords who might neglect their buildings and tenants who, for one reason or another, take occupancy in a building and then find that their landlord, for whatever reason, decides to turn off hot water, cold water, or in the winter, if an elevator isn't working or if the heat isn't working, some landlords do take their time and of course the tenants do suffer. In North York, as I said, this has certainly been a problem for quite some time.
That's why on October 12, 1993, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs asked me to introduce a piece of legislation that would try and rectify the problem in North York, I was happy to do so. As a matter of fact, I had let go a resolution that I felt strongly about to do just that and I introduced a piece of legislation, Bill 95. Bill 95, as I said earlier, is almost identical to Bill 104, the one we're debating today and the one that we're going to pass today, with just a few differences.
As I said earlier, on October 12 I did introduce Bill 95. It then went to committee, and that committee was the standing committee on general government. During the debate in committee and the hearings, we as a committee had a number of individuals, both from my riding and of course the riding of York Mills, come to us and talk to us about what they believed was essential in the vital services act, Bill 95.
They certainly made it clear that they wanted a lot more included in vital services. Let me just explain for one second to the House what "vital services" means in the definition. "'Vital service' means fuel, electricity, gas, hot water, water and steam; ('service essentiel')."
Now, some might not know the ramifications if these essential services, vital services were to be turned off or neglected. Only tenants who experience this problem can tell you the ramifications of that.
They wanted some amendments as well. In committee we heard it elaborated that they wanted elevators included in that, and in the hearings for Bill 95 we managed to get the amendment that would include elevators. Bill 104, the bill we're debating tonight, unfortunately doesn't have elevators included in vital services, and I think that's a shame. I would ask the author of the bill to pay particular attention to that, and perhaps he can find some time to ask the House for unanimous consent to include elevators as a vital service for tenants in buildings.
I didn't get my way in committee. In committee, I was pushing for security to be a part of vital services. In North York there are many buildings that lack security, whether that's locks, whether that's fire protection, or that could even be an armed guard or a guard at the doorway.
I was pushing for it because many of my tenants in Yorkview believed very sincerely that because there is a problem with security and because they don't feel safe in their buildings, this should be a part of vital services. I certainly would ask again the author of Bill 104 to consider asking the House today before it passes for unanimous consent to include security as a part of this bill.
I must state again for the record that in committee many MPPs didn't believe that security should have been added to this. I still believe that security should be a vital service and I would continue advocating for that.
Of course, garbage in some of our high-rise buildings in North York has always been a problem, and many believe that is a vital service and should be included. When we talk about garbage, we talk about all of the problems associated with garbage and what that means to tenants, and of course the building, the hallways and the playground and the contracts that are given out to collect the garbage. That's certainly another area that we talked about in committee and another area that many MPPs in committee didn't feel was necessary to add.
I again would advocate that this, for me, is very important and I would ask the author to consider asking the House for unanimous consent to deal with this issue.
2020
During the debate on Bill 95, what some people call the slum landlord bill -- that was again my bill that I introduced -- I got much support for the bill pretty much all over the province. I got calls from different municipalities and they quite frankly asked why it didn't extend to the rest of the province. Of course, I had to tell them that the ministry wasn't prepared for it and the minister wasn't prepared for it and for that reason we had to settle with North York for now and perhaps we could include or make an amendment at some point that it would include the province.
When the debate had taken place, the discussion between myself and the minister took place and the minister at that point said, "No, we are just not ready for it as a ministry and we need some more time." So we went with Bill 95 based on that.
The amount of support, as I said earlier, was pretty much unanimous around this issue, even from landlords, even from property managers. They wanted to see the bill passed. I've got a number of newspaper clippings and editorials, for instance, within the community, within Yorkview, that clearly state that the community, the papers, the landlords, the tenants want Bill 95 to pass because they want to be a little more comfortable in their units. Even the Toronto Sun had done a wonderful article on slum landlords and how a bill like this could in essence save some of the tenants from heartache.
The support was there from pretty much everybody. I even got a letter from the minister himself, Ed Philip, who said very clearly that he supported Bill 95 and that he would try and expedite the passage of Bill 95. In discussion with the deputy House leader, for instance, it was pretty much given that Bill 95 would pass.
Seeing Bill 104 in Orders and Notices this week and today, I'm glad that while my Bill 95 hasn't passed, at least the tenants will get something out of the deal and they won't have to worry about a slum landlord, a landlord who doesn't care and will do anything to make life miserable for them, and that would include leaving the water off for a weekend or even a week.
Interjections.
Mr Mammoliti: I see many from all sides of the House asking me to cut debate. I understand that. But all of you need to understand, and understand very clearly, that while we have debated I've sat here listening to many bills that would mean a lot to those up north; the farming bill, for instance. I sat and I listened very patiently to some of those arguments and how that bill means a lot to a lot of people in the province.
Let me tell you very directly that this bill here means a lot to tenants. It means a lot to individuals in the city, for instance. If you can recall, last winter, 1993-94, many apartment buildings in Toronto suffered from landlords who didn't even live in the province. The water got cut off in Toronto, the heat got cut off in one of the buildings in downtown Toronto and the landlord was nowhere to be found. What options did anybody have?
Again I would say very, very clearly that if this bill had been introduced perhaps a year ago and was law in our books at this particular time, that wouldn't have happened. The suffering that those tenants had endured over the last winter would not have happened.
I think I'm satisfied in that after Bill 104 passes, not Bill 95 but Bill 104 --
Interjection.
Mr Mammoliti: I note that the member who just passed his private member's bill is encouraging me to continue. I would ask him to be as patient as I was for his bill. This bill is very important to some landlords and some tenants in my riding and I would ask that you allow me to certainly put some words on record and some statements on record.
Without taking up any more time, I would only say to the member, the author of the bill, that I want to thank him. I have to apologize to him, because I had made some comments to him when he first introduced the bill. I couldn't understand or believe for that matter that a Conservative really cared about tenants and wanted to pass something in the House to benefit tenants, but after working with him and after talking with him in committee, I am convinced that this individual clearly cares about this particular bill and wants to protect the tenants from some of those slum landlords.
I want to thank the author for the bill and I'll conclude my remarks with that.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Yorkview for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr Turnbull: I will just comment that I thank him for his kind words. I would suggest that as far as elevators are concerned, that can be covered within bylaws as they're passed by municipalities. As I said, this is permissive legislation which allows municipalities to be able to draft a vital services bylaw. I believe they'll be able to handle the question of the elevators and garbage without any problem.
The question of security guards is a different matter. I believe that unless the Ministry of Housing were to change its policy on rent controls, it wouldn't be realistic to ask landlords to take on new responsibilities that they're not reimbursed for. The fact is that the tenants are reimbursing landlords for heat, light, water, maintaining the building in a clean state and maintenance of elevators, but to add further services would require that the ministry would have to find some funding mechanism so that those could be added. That might be a debate you might want to undertake with the Minister of Housing.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Yorkview has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Mammoliti: In terms of elevators, I would encourage the member, the author of the bill, to ask for unanimous consent, if that's possible, to include --
Mr Turnbull: It's already covered.
Mr Mammoliti: I'm not sure it's covered. He would argue that it would be covered. I'm not sure it would be. Bill 95, which was my bill, had that amendment built right into it. I'm afraid that over the next two or three minutes we're going to lose this option to include elevator service as a vital service. If we do that, that's a big loss to tenants. As to the assumption that elevators would be covered with a bylaw, again it's just an assumption. It's my understanding that with unanimous consent we could add that amendment tonight to Bill 104 and get it over with. I don't think anybody in this place would disagree that elevator service is a vital service and should be included in the act. I think it's something we've missed out on and I would certainly encourage the author again to ask for permission to do that. I'll give him 40 seconds to do that.
The Speaker: Is there further debate?
Mr Turnbull has moved third reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of vital services by-laws. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Orders of the day.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'm not sure what the order number is, but it's the bill we dealt with earlier this afternoon, Bill 170, and gave unanimous consent to move it to third reading.
2030
DONATION OF FOOD ACT / LOI DE 1994 SUR LE DON D'ALIMENTS
Mr McGuinty moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 170, An Act respecting the Donation of Food / Project de loi 170, Loi concernant le don d'aliments.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have any opening comments?
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Just a few brief comments, given the lateness of the hour and the time constraints we're operating under, Mr Speaker.
I want to begin by thanking all the members of this Legislature for their cooperation in bringing this bill forward in a very timely manner. It's going to address, in a small but at least very concrete way, some of the problems associated with feeding our hungry people who attend at food banks in order to obtain food.
Passage of this bill will show that we are both supportive of people who donate food in a charitable spirit to our food banks and to the volunteers who work there in the same spirit. But above all else, passage of this bill will show our willingness to assist those people who, through no fault of their own, must attend at food banks to obtain food to feed themselves and their families.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Ottawa South for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate?
Seeing none, Mr McGuinty has moved third reading of Bill 170. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, under the 76th order, I'm seeking unanimous consent for the order for committee of the whole House on Bill 147 to be discharged and the bill referred for third reading.
The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.
AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'EMBLÈME AVIEN
Ms Murdock moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 147, An Act to designate an Avian Emblem for Ontario / Projet de loi 147, Loi sur l'emblème avien.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL
Mr Wessenger moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have any opening comments?
Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): No, I have no opening comments, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Is there any debate?
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I rise to speak to Bill 21 and would point out that there are several problems with the entire process that's been followed around this matter, first of all the failing on the part of the government to hold proper and broad public hearings around this matter. Two days of hearings on committee are wholly inadequate for the changes that have been made regarding Bill 21 and the impact this will have on land-lease communities. All the stakeholders were not invited to these hearings and subsequently the process that followed was fraught with changes that went well beyond the original intent of the bill. As it turned out, by the time public hearings were held, there were 25 amendments to the bill in 26 sections; the bill contained 26 sections.
The entire process was not inclusive enough to bring in the stakeholders who are very much affected by this bill and get their input about needed changes, and subsequently following up on those changes. I would point out that although Mr Wessenger, the member in whose name the bill was introduced, made efforts to have informal meetings and subsequent other meetings, not all the stakeholders or significant numbers of them were involved in those meetings. Consequently, what came out at the end was a piece of legislation that did not reflect adequately the broad views of all the stakeholders.
At the end of the day, some 35 changes in total were made to the legislation. By the time this bill was brought to committee of the whole, and that was several days ago, additional substantial changes were made and there was again a lack of public hearings around those changes.
If the government fully intended to make this legislation, that the ministry at some point decided to support and suggest it would become government legislation, I can't understand why the ministry would not have taken additional measures to bring the stakeholders together, because there were significant elements of this bill that did not fit together and will lead to various problems. These have been pointed out in committee repeatedly and I won't spend too much time dwelling on those.
But provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act will be very difficult for tenants who live in these land-lease communities. It will also be difficult for owners of these land-lease communities to make necessary repairs to such things as water and sewage lines. At the end of the day, the complications of the complexity of this bill have not been looked at thoroughly enough to understand the real impact on these land-lease communities.
When all is said and done, I think we will have a series of unfolding disasters in many of these communities because this bill fails to address those very difficult, complex questions. It's fine to bring in these communities under the Rent Control Act in the name of protecting tenants, and I believe that was the full intent of this legislation from the beginning, but to not understand the consequent impacts of that and the rental housing protection on these very unique communities, not addressing those things in the legislation, leaves those communities with many, many complications for the future.
It's very unfortunate that the government rushes this bill through -- it's the end of the session, the last day of the session, the last night of the session -- without having held the proper hearings that legislation very much needs when it is a complex piece of legislation such as the one we're dealing with. Proper public hearings are necessary for legislators to get the full and broad spectrum of views on every piece of legislation, and the government failed to do any of those consultations in advance of those hearings.
2040
At the end of the day, it is a private member's bill, that the government and the minister indicated they would support, and here we have them dealing with government legislation that will become law after this third reading is passed. I concern myself about the impacts of this legislation and I think we're going to have a lot of fixing up to do with this legislation down the road.
I simply say that as the bill stands, we have a great deal of difficulty supporting it because there are too many aspects to this legislation that were not dealt with and that made this legislation in the end very unworkable.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Lawrence for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate?
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am happy to rise to speak on Bill 21. I am certainly pleased that the Liberals have shown up to speak tonight, because they have been nowhere on this bill. They did not prepare any amendments to try to improve the bill. They were in attendance at the one and a half days of public hearings, but they have not participated since that time in trying to improve this private member's bill.
I realize it's very difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, to use an old-fashioned expression, but my office has, in the period we've been dealing with this bill since it was first tabled on May 19 a year ago, probably by now received in excess of a hundred telephone calls and my executive assistant has spent an inordinate amount of time doing research and trying to answer questions for the many, many people who called who have a lot of concern with the bill.
As I said at second reading earlier this week, the major concern I have had from the beginning is that this bill, because of the fact that it's a private member's bill, has not received due process. When we have a government bill, it goes through an entirely different process than does a private member's bill.
Even in the drafting itself of a private member's bill, the private member gives an outline of the bill to legislative counsel and they draft it. A government bill goes through legislative counsel and ministry counsel, the ministry that is responsible for that bill. Bills then go through cabinet, benefit from the full scrutiny of the cabinet. They are circulated to other ministries, so that if a government bill impacts in other ministries, there is a check and balance system to deal with that.
Also, with government bills the government spends a great deal of money advertising its bills, so the public pays attention, the public understands what is meant by a government bill. Of course, the bottom line is that the history of private members' bills certainly isn't a very positive one, because in the past very few private members' bills have been passed into law. Because of that, the weight and importance of private members' bills has been very light.
What is very unfortunate with this bill is that the subject matter itself needed the full scope of a government bill. It isn't that it's a matter that doesn't need legislation; this matter has needed legislation probably for the last three or four years. It's a matter that needs full scrutiny by every aspect of government in this province, and this bill simply has not had that.
Land-lease retirement communities are an emerging lifestyle choice. They're very popular. As I've said previously, it is a growth industry. It's a growth industry the same way that condominiums were when they were first introduced as an alternative form of housing. When condominiums came on the market and investors started making that investment choice, the Progressive Conservative government was in power in this province. We brought in legislation to address the unique and particular needs of condominium investors.
What the land-lease retirement community investors need is the same kind of protection. Land-lease retirement communities have particular and unique needs. Unfortunately, this bill lumps together a number of forms of living accommodation. Some of it isn't permanent living accommodation, it's seasonal. It may be from May to October, it may be for 12 months a year, it may be in a trailer park, it may be in a mobile home park and it may be in a land-lease community, but under this bill they're all together. There is no recognition of the differences and the need to have special legislation for land-lease communities.
Although constituents of both the proponent of the bill, Mr Wessenger, the member for Simcoe Centre, and another member of the government, the member for Durham East, Mr Gordon Mills, asked in our public hearings for changes to be made to the bill, those changes were not made. The briefs, which I have spent a lot of hours re-reading in the last three weeks, told us time and time again that there is a need for this bill to address land-lease communities as a separate entity. They asked time and time again that the bill amend the Planning Act to address land-lease communities.
The reason that request was made is a very important one. Presently, when land-lease communities are developed, they do not have to meet any municipal standards under the Planning Act. Therefore, when these land-lease communities are constructed, they meet a standard only as good as the investment that particular developer wants to make.
2050
So we have to ask why land-lease communities can be built differently than any other form of land development. We think it is wrong that people who invest thousands of dollars in a land-lease development home do not have the protection under the Planning Act that they should have. We think it's wrong that we have on the one hand municipal standards for every other form of land development, so that when people buy a house in a standard subdivision in a municipality they know that the roads, the water lines, the sewage treatment systems, the pipelines, the electricity, all the services that go into that subdivision meet the municipal standard under the Planning Act. They know that. They don't have to worry that the road is going to cave in or that the watermains are not going to last a reasonable length of time. They don't have to have a concern with that, because there exists a municipal standard.
But this bill doesn't address the concern that in the land-lease community when people buy a home, they have none of those guarantees. They invest thousands of dollars, if it is a modular home or a mobile home that they put in a land-lease community on that leased lot that they invest thousands of dollars in. They have no guarantee about how long the services to that lot will last. They may, in many circumstances, have to share in the costs of the replacement of those services and the upgrading and the repairs and maintenance. While this bill is supposed to address the protection of people in land-lease communities, it really doesn't do that.
I think what bothers me most about the bill is the fact that people have been misled over the debate of this bill. People have been misled during this debate on this bill because they think this bill gives them a security and a protection that it simply does not. They think that if they have problems with their rent in terms of rent control appeals, this bill is going to solve it. It will not. They actually believe that the proponent of the bill tried to get more days for hearings of the bill, if they received a letter from Mr Wessenger, the member for Simcoe Centre, saying that he would ask for more hearing days because he felt one day of hearings was insufficient. He also promised people that he would make sure that the committee travelled. He never once asked the committee or the subcommittee of general government for that committee to travel, and he did not ask for additional days of hearings.
One of the reasons that we asked that it be a government bill was because we wanted to fully explore the kind of legislation that we felt was needed. A full exploration of a government bill would certainly not have been limited to a day and a half, and on this subject particularly it wouldn't have been limited only to a day and a half in Toronto, since none of these land-lease communities is exactly right on the doorstep of Toronto.
The other question that is still outstanding that the government members on the committee refused to acknowledge and do anything about is the question of Bill 120 and its impact on land-lease communities, the question of land-lease communities being able to have basement apartments and additional units if they're the ones that are on septic tanks. If they are on a sewage system they can still have basement apartments in a land-lease community.
Finally, the other concern we have with the bill is the Rental Housing Protection Act, which in the long run will impede those investors in those land-lease communities. One thing that I really think neither Mr Wessenger nor Mr Mills, the member for Durham East or the member for Simcoe Centre, would have wanted but which I have drawn to their attention and they still have not addressed, is that while we all agreed that by removing the landlord's first right of refusal at 95% of the value of an offer for purchase and making that change from 95% of the value of the offer to purchase to 100% of that offer-to-purchase figure, in order that somebody selling their property would get their full purchase price even if the landlord had the first right of refusal on that purchase and sale, one of the things that has resulted is that existing leases that have a first right of refusal in them, that state 95% of the offer-to-purchase price, now become null and void. This bill, in negating those existing leases, means that everyone who now thinks they have the protection of the first right of refusal at 100% of the value in fact has no protection at all, because this bill will negate their existing lease. This means that these home owners are going to have to very quickly go out and have their lawyers draw up new leases, because their lease is actually worthless as it now stands.
I would have hoped that the member for Simcoe Centre, who is a lawyer, and I am not, would have seen that tremendous problem that the bill creates, because there would have been a way, in the drafting of the bill, that this concern could have been addressed.
The member for Simcoe Centre brought in 35 amendments to his own bill, which tells you something about how poorly drafted the bill was in the first place. It's just unfortunate that, in cleaning up the bill, the major concerns by the tenants around this province and by the property owners have not been addressed.
Obviously, the final outcome of this bill has yet to be known. Obviously, this Bill 21 will be passed tonight by a majority in this House held by the government, the NDP government. The majority of the members in this House, in the government, who pass this bill do not know what the bill contains.
The concern that all of us have is for the inequity that exists in this province for people who have made tremendous investments both in real estate and in buildings. We have asked for more time to be spent on the bill. We also had asked for this bill to be withdrawn as a private member's bill and for the government to bring in the proper legislation that this subject requires.
2100
Land-lease retirement communities are, as I said, an affordable form of housing. It's a direction for the future. It's a wonderful choice for thousands of people, but today they are not protected in a provincial statute as they should be.
Whether or not this bill is ever proclaimed we have yet to find out. If the government passes it tonight -- and I say this to everyone who's listening who thinks, "It's passed; we can relax" -- this government moved closure on a bill in this House on employment equity six and a half months ago, even to the point where they rushed it through before Christmas and, as I say, moved closure so that nobody else could debate the bill. That bill still has not been proclaimed into law almost seven months later, so who knows whether Bill 21, as a private member's bill, will ever be proclaimed into law.
Personally, I hope that it will not, because I hope that the government will see its responsibility to the thousands of people who choose this kind of investment, this kind of environment in which to retire and live; of course, not all people in these communities are retired. I hope the government will see its responsibility, as we did, and bring in an act to protect the investment for people in land-lease communities.
Since we are not the government, I am powerless to do anything more on this bill. I am happy that at least my staff and I have been able to make the effort that we have in trying to bring the concerns to the attention of the government in the hope that they would make amendments to make this bill acceptable, make it work and do a job to protect the interests of everybody. There is an important question of equity here and there is an important question of investment in land on the one hand and investment in buildings on the other. There are rights of both of these parties that are not being addressed by this bill and that Bill 21 will only complicate.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak again on third reading. I hope that all the land-lease communities won't suddenly blossom and flourish into double occupancies with basement apartments and accessory units as a result of this bill, which could have exempted land-lease communities.
In spite of the fact that the government finds that comment of mine amusing, there is no lot size requirement in Bill 120. It doesn't matter how small your house is or your lot; there is no size requirement in Bill 120 for an accessory unit or a basement apartment. Therefore, if it's a trailer park or a mobile home park or a land-lease community, it is not exempt from 120. So if the government finds that humorous, it obviously doesn't see the responsibility it has to thousands of people in this province who have made this kind of investment.
I will guarantee you that when we become the government in the next 12 months, one of the first pieces of legislation we will bring to this House will be legislation to protect land-lease communities and the people who invest in them.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Mississauga South and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member for Simcoe Centre has moved third reading of Bill 21. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe the Lieutenant Governor awaits royal assent.
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
Hon Henry N.R. Jackman (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present meetings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:
Bill 18, An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder / Projet de loi 18, Loi permettant aux malades chroniques d'installer leur propre téléviseur ou leur propre combiné téléviseur-magnétoscope à vidéo-cassette
Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail
Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara
Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole
Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of vital services by-laws / Projet de loi 104, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités en ce qui concerne les règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels
Bill 27, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail
2110
Bill 113, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act / Projet de loi 113, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les alcools
Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à empêcher la fourniture de tabac aux jeunes et à en réglementer la vente et l'usage par les autres
Bill 134, An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services / Projet de loi 134, Loi révisant la Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions et modifiant d'autres lois relatives aux services financiers
Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les juges de paix
Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail
Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations
Bill 147, An Act to designate an Avian Emblem for Ontario / Projet de loi 147, Loi désignant l'emblème avien de l'Ontario
Bill 159, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Projet de loi 159, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor
Bill 160, An Act to amend certain Acts to provide for certain Measures referred to in the 1993 Budget and for other Measures referred to in the 1994 Budget and to make amendments to the Health Insurance Act respecting the Collection and Disclosure of Personal Information / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant des lois pour prévoir certaines mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1993 et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1994 et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé en ce qui concerne la collecte et la divulgation de renseignements personnels
Bill 161, An Act to amend various Taxation Statutes administered by the Minister of Finance and to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi modifiant diverses lois fiscales appliquées par le ministre des Finances et modifiant la Loi sur les permis d'alcool
Bill 170, An Act respecting the Donation of Food / Projet de loi 170, Loi concernant le don d'aliments
Bill 181, An Act to regulate the Purchase, Sale and Provision of Ammunition / Projet de loi 181, Loi réglementant l'achat, la vente et la fourniture de munitions
Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton
Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa
Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto
Bill Pr53, An Act to revive The Canneto Society Inc
Bill Pr60, An Act to incorporate Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary
Bill Pr70, An Act respecting the Town of Napanee
Bill Pr95, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener
Bill Pr96, An Act to revive The Hamilton and Region Arts Council
Bill Pr98, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa
Bill Pr99, An Act to revive Eden Community House of Toronto
Bill Pr103, An Act respecting the County of Essex
Bill Pr105, An Act respecting the Township of Tay
Bill Pr106, An Act respecting the County of Victoria
Bill Pr108, An Act respecting the County of Essex and the Local Municipalities in it
Bill Pr110, An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ont
Bill Pr111, An Act to revive Oaktown Property Management Limited
Bill Pr112, An Act respecting the Town of Picton
Bill Pr113, An Act respecting the County of Lambton
Bill Pr114, An Act respecting Hamilton Community Foundation
Bill Pr119, An Act respecting the Town of Orangeville
Bill Pr122, An Act respecting the City of Windsor
Bill Pr124, An Act respecting the Township of Seymour
Bill Pr125, An Act to revive the Lions Club of Kingsville
Bill Pr126, An Act to revive Electrical Construction Association of Hamilton Inc
Bill Pr127, An Act respecting the Town of Dresden
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.
Au nom de Sa Majesté, l'honorable lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.
His Honour was then pleased to retire.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, the member for Leeds-Grenville had asked for unanimous consent earlier this evening to deal with a motion that he wished to propose. Unanimous consent was denied at that point. I understand there has been an agreement reached and I seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Leeds-Grenville to present his motion and, without debate, to have it voted on.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
VIOLENT CRIME
Mr Runciman moved:
That in the opinion of this House the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, sharing the public's concerns about the level of violent crime in our society and to support our law enforcement officers' demands that the federal government of Canada amend the Immigration Act to provide for the automatic, non-appealable deportation of any landed immigrant or refugee who is
(a) convicted of a criminal offence involving violence where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more;
(b) convicted of a criminal offence involving the use of a weapon or the possession of an illegal weapon where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more; or
(c) has more than three criminal convictions.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there debate on the resolution? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that the resolution carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 2118 to 2123.
The Speaker: Mr Runciman has moved a resolution which stands on the order paper in his name.
All those in favour of Mr Runciman's resolution will please rise, one by one.
Ayes
Arnott, Carr, Eves, Jordan, Marland, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Witmer.
The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Runciman's resolution will please rise, one by one.
Nays
Abel, Allen, Beer, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Duignan, Elston, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Lankin, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The Speaker: The ayes being 12 and the nays 46, I declare the resolution lost.
INTERIM SUPPLY
Mr Charlton, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved government notice of motion number 31:
That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing August 1, 1994, and ending December 31, 1994, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the government House leader have any opening comments?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I believe the parliamentary assistant has.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to speak to the motion for interim supply. I think most people in this House understand by now the need for an interim supply motion to be passed so that transfer payments, including payments to hospitals, doctors, municipalities, family benefits recipients, school boards, suppliers accounts and civil servants' salaries, can be paid and statutory payments can be made, including interest on the public debt, loans to the ODC and all payments from special purpose accounts.
As I say, given that this gives us the authority to pay all these accounts, I'm sure all members wanting to provide some comment will definitely want to be supportive of ensuring that this motion passes.
The Speaker: Is there further debate on the motion?
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'll be brief.
Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Relatively speaking.
Mr Stockwell: About an hour, give or take. I'll give them notice that if they want to go down and figure out what they just voted on, they can.
I personally would like to start off talking about Mr Runciman's resolution having a place in interim supply. I'm very disappointed actually that neither the government nor the Liberals could see their way clear in expressing the concerns of the people of the province of Ontario. It would seem to me that probably one of the most important if not public debates that is raging today in the province of Ontario is immigration, crime and the lax, unenforced programs that are in place that turn out to be disastrous. It turns into disastrous consequences.
I think the member for Leeds-Grenville's motion was a motion that was designed to bring attention to this issue from a major body in the province of Ontario, the Legislature. It was designed to bring attention to an issue which, I'd like to say and express, the member for Leeds-Grenville has brought to the floor of this House on any number of occasions.
Five or 10 years ago if you had tried to debate this issue, you would have been branded a racist, no doubt in my mind, if you wanted to talk about immigration and the lax enforcement. It was generally closed off by those on the left of the political spectrum. They closed the debate off in I think unfair fashion a lot of times.
Today the problem has become so severe and so pronounced, highlighted again in the very recent shooting of the police officer in Metropolitan Toronto, that we as a Legislature in the province of Ontario have got to send a message to the federal government in Ottawa. They have, in my opinion, appeared to be bungling this particular issue from the word go. They have ministers saying one thing, and the next day the union officials come out and say something different. In fact, I heard on the radio yesterday that there are something like 40,000 outstanding deportation orders in Metropolitan Toronto alone.
2130
Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Of course, it's only accumulated in the last few months.
Mr Stockwell: I know. I'm not suggesting it has only accumulated in the last few months. I never suggested that at all. I'm saying the system has been broken and it's broken badly, and I think it's up to us to let the federal government know that we believe the system is badly broken. If there are 40,000 outstanding deportation orders in Metropolitan Toronto alone, I think the people in the province and those in the federal government would understand that this system needs to be repaired.
I think the motion of Mr Runciman, the member for Leeds-Grenville, was a fair motion. It expressed the outrage in the province, it brought forward some criteria from which the federal government could work to try and figure out how it would go about dealing with this issue, and it expressed an all-party concern that we have with respect to violent crime and criminal activity. The three, (a), (b) and (c), are very straightforward, and I'm not really sure how members opposite would disagree with these kinds of specifics put into his resolution.
I'll read it. The body of the resolution goes:
"...the federal government of Canada amend the Immigration Act to provide for the automatic, non-appealable deportation of any landed immigrant or refugee who is:
"(a) convicted of a criminal offence involving violence where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more;
"(b) convicted of a criminal offence involving the use of a weapon or the possession of an illegal weapon where the conviction results in a sentence of six months or more; or
"(c) has more than three criminal convictions."
The problem, I think, the government members expressed with respect to this is, they were concerned about "without appeal," but we have to understand what the "appeal" means in "without appeal." What we're speaking to in this resolution when it says "without appeal" is not the conviction itself. That certainly is appealable. What we are speaking to when we say "without appeal" is that if you're convicted you must be deported. There's no appealing the deportation. Once you're convicted, that's it. Automatically kicking in is the deportation action, and it gets done and secured and sent wherever immediately upon release.
Why we need this kind of resolution or in fact legislation at the federal level is that, as I said previously, some 40,000 deportation orders are outstanding in Metropolitan Toronto today. I found that number absolutely staggering. The union that is supposed to search out those who are avoiding deportation claims that it does not have the manpower, the facility or the inclination to begin to search people out. They say that if you turn yourself in you'll be deported. If you don't turn yourself in you never get deported. That's how the system works today.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Are we debating the resolution?
Mr Stockwell: I know the member for Durham Centre doesn't want to heckle me now. I know he doesn't. I'm sure he doesn't.
That's how the system works today and that's the kind of thing that I've heard at my constituency office in talking to people in my riding for the last two or three weeks, and specifically leading up to the case after the policeman was shot.
I just wanted to comment on that briefly, to get it on the record and to ensure that the people understand what the government members and the Liberal members voted against. What they voted against, I think, was a very reasonable resolution. It wasn't to become law; it was a resolution to be sent to the federal House to allow them to take it in, understand the concerns of this province and hopefully enact this kind of reasonable and sensible and practical law that the people in this province, I believe, not unanimously but clearly a majority, would support, and I say a vast majority. I will say, the majority is on the upswing. More and more people are talking about this specific issue, and more and more people are talking in these kinds of terms. They're talking this way because of the complete breakdown and inability of the immigration department to deal with the problem that has been created by probably a few governments, including Conservatives and Liberals. So I was profoundly disappointed, considering the events today, that this couldn't be done.
What this government did do is pass a piece of legislation that talked about the sale of bullets or, I suppose, ammunition. I myself don't think this is the most important piece of legislation if you're going to deal with the guns and the violent crime today. I don't honestly think that anyone who's going to commit a violent crime would have any difficulty buying bullets legally or illegally. I think it's a bit of window dressing. I think it's important to try and get a message out there that we're grappling with the idea, but in the reality of the street crime and the violent crimes on the streets today, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, I don't think it's going to have too much of an impact, if any impact at all, on that issue.
I speak to these issues on interim supply because I know at my constituency office the most important issues I hear from constituents about are still jobs, economics, taxes and those kinds of things. But what my constituents are speaking about more and more is crime. What also they're speaking about is safety. A lot of constituents are coming to me today -- having been elected in this metropolitan area for 12 years or so -- which they didn't do 10 or 12 years ago, and they're talking about the fact that they don't feel safe in this city any more. The safety level has certainly decreased, and they're concerned with respect to their neighbourhoods and the safety of their neighbourhoods and communities. That is becoming more and more important. As you see the recession, in my opinion, turning around and the economic forecast getting better, I think you'll find that the concerns with respect to law and order and safety and violent crimes will become more and more important when the economy moves off as the number one public agenda item.
So I spent all of my time debating those particular resolutions. I understand interim supply deals with the spending and allotment of spending dollars as far as salaries are concerned and so on and so forth. I spent a lot of time this session talking about the budget, the deficit and those figures. I thought maybe it was appropriate this time that we deal with one of those issues -- or I feel I think I should deal with one of those issues -- that is on the front burner in the public's mind and something that I think they're prepared today -- and I want to be very clear about this: The public today is very prepared to take a more proactive, progressive approach to dealing with crime in their streets. They're prepared to look at some different pilot projects; they're prepared to look at some different angles and alternatives that maybe they weren't prepared to look at 10 or 15 years ago.
I think what it comes down to is that the people feel they're losing their own neighbourhoods and streets, and they want them back. I think they're prepared to look at any avenue that it's going to take to get those things back and rightfully in the place where they belong, which is to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, the law-abiding citizens who are not violent criminals and are not causing these horrific crimes that take our city and our province and our nation by shock.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I actually wasn't going to speak in regard to this bill, this motion, at all, but as I heard our colleague from Etobicoke speak, I said, "Let me make some comments too."
I also would like to make some comments about some of the response, the way that this government has handled its affairs, coming up at the last moment to be asking for money to pay its civil servants, who have of course worked pretty hard. Maybe that's where their priority lies; maybe one of the last things on the agenda is to look at how we pay our civil servants.
2140
Let me just comment on the member for Etobicoke West, and Mr Runciman's resolution. Of course it's a democratic arena in which we can, as legislators, put forward a resolution and debate it, and it's lost. But my concern here, too, is how an individual could look at a resolution like that and almost blame immigrants for all of the crimes that are committed in the province, and to then say that if we do that, it will resolve the problems that we have, the criminal elements and the crime that's being committed in this province. It's a sad day, very, very sad indeed, that that's the way they look at that.
Of course, some of the incompetence of maybe the officers in carrying out their work or the system which did not report these individuals may have caused this, but to get into any debate on this is maybe not worthwhile because I don't think they would even understand. The fact is that you could have an individual who arrived here at age eight, from whatever country they're from, or age two, six months, have no connection with the country of their parents at all, and a crime is committed, and ask that individual to go back home, or what they call their home, and how that will be dealt with. I think that is something we should look at.
As a matter of fact, to even put the resolution before a House, when we are on the last day, when members would like to assess it to understand it fully, and expect everyone to support that -- the kind of remarks I heard from the member for Etobicoke West are not at all surprising coming from him, and sometimes many members of his party. I was very disturbed to know that they were to put forward that, and having lost the resolution, continue to debate it under interim supply, because he felt that it was more important than paying the civil service.
Again, I want to just touch on a couple of things that this government has done, as we wind up today. I want to touch on maybe employment equity, which they had before them almost three years and up to today, the last day, they're unable to even bring the regulation in. The Lieutenant Governor has come and he has gone and the bill is not yet proclaimed, because the minister, somehow, didn't have the skills or even the influence or the ability to bring forward this, which I feel was so badly done, the Employment Equity Act, or regulation, as it would be. That is not even here yet. And it is sad because, although I don't feel it to be as effective as it could be, the fact is that they don't even have the ability to bring it forward. That's a very, very sad situation.
I also watched as we voted on the loan act. This government came forward looking to borrow money at this stage in order to carry on its business after it's run this province into one of the worst deficit positions in history, and then turns back to blame it all on past governments. They also told us how well, if they had been given a chance, they would have done. You just have to step outside not too far and ask anyone in this province: "What do you feel about the management of this government? What do you feel about how they've handled the situation in the last four years?" They all will say, "We can't wait to get these people out because of the incompetent manner in which they have handled the situation here."
No wonder they have to come today and ask for all this loan to carry on their incompetence. With democracy as it is, of course, we have to continue in the fourth; the fifth year will come along, when they've got to surrender their responsibility. Or maybe they are saying to themselves, "We are just dying for that election day to relieve us, so some responsible individuals can take over."
We're going to be in a worse position. As the days go on, the deficit climbs. The deficit climbs on and on, and they keep on spending and spending. The fact is that today, who is going to be faced with that bill? Those citizens of our province, who will be facing this huge debt that they have accumulated on this province.
It's kind of sad as you see this happen, and they have their numbers over there to bully most of the legislation in here and ram it through, and we, understanding democracy, wait patiently for the day to come. We had hoped today that the Premier would have announced, having done his best, which is not good enough for the province: "Here is an election. Let's go forward and ask the people who they would like to run this province once again." With his confidence that he has, I presume he'd be relieved to know they would not vote that New Democratic Party back in power.
Some of their own colleagues come to me at times with pain in their heart, hoping that, "My golly, I just hope they take me out of this misery and let me go on somehow, maybe to try the municipal election, because some people may not recognize my name there," and few people vote and they may get a seat there, because they know very well people are just waiting for that day to take them to the poll.
If you feel they have dealt the Conservatives federally a blow, you will anticipate this blow that is coming to this incompetent government that has continued to send this province into one of the worst deficits we have ever seen. The pain about all this is that the citizens of this province have to carry that debt load for years to come.
I recall that they applauded, the happiness of the students of this province when the NDP was elected. They were so happy when they announced that tuition fees and going to schools would be free. Mr Sutherland, who just came out of high school, almost, said to himself, I could see: "If I was about four years back, I would have gotten free tuition fees, because my government has won. I would not have paid all these fees to my university."
Alas, Mr Speaker, what has happened? Do you think the fees went down or were eliminated? No. They went up, and not only that, the OSAP that the students were looking forward to to support them in grants was wiped out. The loans were reduced while the fees went up.
You should be so ashamed of yourselves. The young people of this province are also waiting. As a matter of fact, as they move up to 18, waiting for a vote, maybe they've said, "Somehow it gives me the opportunity to get rid of this incompetent" -- these people were promised all these things, and today have paid more for their schooling and more jobs have disappeared in this province. They brand everything Jobs Ontario, and no one is getting any jobs. They come in and they shout about that. No one is getting any jobs. We are going into a summer, and many students are coming to my constituency office tomorrow, when I'll be there, asking again: "I wonder if I could get a job. Could I go to one of the ministries and talk about their program? We called. We can't even get an answer, not even a response."
Talking about response, if I had the opportunity to pay ministers over there, they wouldn't get a red cent out of this interim supply, because they have not done their job at all. I can't even get a letter answered in two or three years from the Minister of Citizenship. If I write to her, I can't get the letter answered. Why should I be paying them? I am an elected member who speaks on behalf of thousands of people in my constituency, and I can't get a letter in response from the minister. If I had the opportunity, really, to pay those members over there, not a red cent would they have gotten, because they are so incompetent. They have let down the people so badly.
2150
Today my dear member had to move a bill in regard to food for the poor. You know, I recall that when they came here they talked about wiping out poverty and food banks, and I saw that dear Mrs Akande was appointed to that position. Her commitment about wiping out food banks, I saw it there and I really felt it, and I said: "What a commitment. Food banks will be wiped out." Guess who was wiped out? Mrs Akande. They cut her out of the ministry for less than what has been done by the Minister of Housing and a couple of the conflict-of-interest things that they are doing.
Today, Mrs Akande, a good individual, a good member, has decided: "I've given up. I can't be bothered with this party, their philosophy, because they don't jibe one bit at all." Her remarks? You know what her remarks --
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): You're still around, Alvin. That's good.
Mr Curling: I will be around long. As the member for Fort York says, I'm still around, and I'll be here for a long time. I will be on your back, you see. I'll be on your back until election time when you'll be out, because poverty is here and the people are lining up. The lines for food banks are longer under this socialist government. They said they were for the people and they'd eliminate these lines. They have not done so. If they were a part of this interim supply, where they should be getting paid, I wouldn't pay any one of them there.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): We're getting a lot of hot air in here.
Mr Curling: Of course, many of the members over there would respond and say, "This must be hot air." It is not hot air for the students whose fees went up. It's not hot air for those who lost their jobs. It's not hot air for those companies which folded up because of your terrible legislation. It is not hot air for many of those people inside this province who said to themselves, "What did I do on that day in 1990 when I put an X against the people who I believed in what they said?"
My golly, they're paying for it today in numbers. They're paying for it in losing their houses. They can't get their kids to school. They're paying for it in many factors. They're paying for it by lining up at food banks longer. They're paying for it because even the Ministry of Housing itself, where people have to line up to go for social housing, is not there. They're paying for it because the cost of social housing has gone up so much. They're paying for it in many forms.
Sometimes it's painful to say to ourselves we shall vote an interim supply in paying the civil servants. I've spoken to many civil servants. You know what they say to me? They've been working night and day trying their best somehow to bring some sense to the NDP over there, the ministers and members, who can't even respond to a letter, as a matter of fact, and they're getting nowhere.
I want to give heart to the civil servants there, who are working so hard. I've worked with them and they are dedicated individuals who need to be paid. But it pains my heart very much to know that some of that money itself shall be paid to this incompetent government over there that is costing this province and costing the people a lot of heartaches, pain and suffering. But the day will come when it will be over.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Deliverance is with us.
Mr Curling: Definitely. We shall deliver them. We shall deliver the NDP back to where they should be. We shall send them where they will see competent government, where deficits are not so much increased and people are not suffering as they are today.
I just want to put those things on the record as we leave here today, to thank those civil servants and thank those individuals --
Mr Marchese: Hallelujah.
Mr Curling: As he says, "Hallelujah." I hope you understand some of those civil servants' concerns too, how painful it is -- we understand that -- for those individuals who work hard.
Before I go, I almost forgot. I saw this minister who says she's -- you know the arm's-length minister, the Minister of Citizenship, the arm's-length one, the appointments that went through without any competition? While we're putting in employment equity and talking about access and fairness, she's putting people through in positions who never even compete for them. While we speak, on the one hand, about certain things, we are undoing it in another way.
Madam Minister, even if you have three more months to go, clean up your act. Tell those individuals that every job must be competed for, because I'm telling you, many of the minorities that you advocated so strongly about feel very competent that they have the ability to compete any time with any individual. But they need you and your government to move those barriers and stop putting barriers in the way by eliminating competitions and appointing people across and saying, "Oh, that's only for nine months."
And the insult of it all is, one of the positions that she had the stamp of approval for was an employment equity individual who's going to put this process in place. How can you believe these type of people who will say, "This is the individual who will put a fair process in about removing barriers and setting up a system of employment equity," and then that individual not competing for the job? Shame. It's terrible. It's frustrating. It feels so awful to the people outside, who say, "What confidence can I give to this government which spoke one way and in another way did something else?"
It's just somehow that the message has reached the people a long time ago that you are incapable, your government, of doing the right thing, the fair thing, to be fair to all Ontarians of whatever colour, whatever class, whatever creed, and some of the handicapped, which they do have, some of the inadequacies that some people have, to remove those barriers for them to have access to jobs and training. But no.
I vote against an incompetent government. I will continue to vote against them. But that is why I feel very, very, very moved on one hand to know that while I will vote for interim supply in paying our civil servants, I wish I had those powers for all of those individuals who feel that they should be paid through this process. Well, the time is coming very soon that they will not even be sitting inside this Legislature, because they don't deserve it. They have let the people down.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Tell that to my constituents.
Mr Curling: We did. Your constituents are phoning me and many of my colleagues and saying, "Help." But, again, there's a process. They don't have to tell me any more. They will be telling them all there sooner or later and by somehow doing it with their vote, with their foot, and sending you packing very soon.
Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to express the concern of the great constituency of Scarborough North.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments on the honourable member's participation in the debate? Further debate? Would the honourable parliamentary assistant wish to wrap up?
Mr Sutherland: I want to thank the two members who participated.
Let me just say to the member for Etobicoke West that there's good reason that the resolution from the member for Leeds-Grenville was not supported. We dealt with an issue of trying to reduce crime today in an all-party, supportive way in terms of what we did with restricting access to ammunition. I certainly wasn't prepared to deal with what can only be described as a very opportunistic manoeuvre by the member for Leeds-Grenville to take advantage of a tragic situation.
With respect to the comments from the member for Scarborough North, I can only assume that he's so animated because he's trying to deal with his own mixed views on issues. The member has a track record on human rights in the past. He has said he supported employment equity; he voted against it. I assume the Liberal Party have said they support expanding pay equity; they voted against it. They have said they supported extending same-sex benefits; they voted against it.
For the member for Scarborough North to talk about our record, I can only assume it is to help cover up his own guilt about how his party has not supported human rights and how the party seems to be -- because we also know they voted against both Bill 40 and Bill 91 -- how the spirit of Mitch Hepburn seems to be dominating this party, rather than the spirit of Senator David Croll.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oxford has moved interim supply. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
2200
MEETING OF THE HOUSE
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 6(a)(ii), when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 1:30 pm on Monday, October 31, 1994.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Any opening remarks?
Hon Mr Charlton: Just a very brief comment. It's been a wonderful and productive spring session and we've accomplished a lot this spring. I'm certain that some of my colleagues on the opposition benches will get up and say something about the fact that we're not coming back until the first of November or the end of October, however they choose to phrase it.
I pointed out to a couple of my colleagues opposite earlier this evening that when you sit down and look at the time over the course of the last three years that the House has sat in this Legislature, with this motion we will have in fact sat almost an identical number of days to the days set out in the calendar over the course of the last three years.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): My question is, is the House leader for the government really serious?
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?
The government House leader has two minutes in response.
Further debate?
Mr Elston: The explanation that was given by the government House leader -- I guess in jest I asked about whether or not he was really serious. You can't be serious in talking about the length of time over the past three years that we met in this House and use that as a measurement against what is supposedly a regular calendar for each year that we have in this place.
While we do accomplish some things, we have many, many more things to look forward to discussing when we are in this place in the fall, if we're in this place in the fall. There are very many good reasons to expect that this government has no intention of returning to these halls whatsoever or that if they do return they will have wished to have avoided several very important events that are occurring in this province and also in this nation.
While we have, it seems to me, a mandate to meet in accordance with the schedule which has been laid out not just by this group but by people who have gone before us to establish that there are regularized hours and days and weeks in which we can conduct our business, so that we can plan what we are going to be doing, this government really conducts its business around its own affairs, its own party affairs. That has nothing to do with the work that should be done here by the representatives of Her Majesty's loyal subjects.
From my point of view, we should be sticking to the calendar. There are times when, of course, we have to go beyond it; there are times in which we should make sure we get the work done which is presented to us. But to indicate that we should be back here more than one month after we are scheduled to be here, it seems to me, is a wee bit of a travesty.
If there is a good argument for us not doing what is now being contemplated, it has been this last two weeks. In the standing orders, when we were deliberating on changing them, the last two weeks of each session were designed to put to rest issues which required a little bit more debate. Under the standing orders we provided extra hours to sit, and we sit now from 6 o'clock in the evening until 12 at night almost on a regular basis each session end.
That causes some difficulties. That was exhibited on at least a couple of occasions in this very past two-week period, most recently on today's date, and the reason we had that problem was because we have been rushing to try and finish and to accommodate the completion of several pieces of legislation which popped up on us all of a sudden.
Why does it pop up all of a sudden? It is because the organization of the business is restrained by the fact that we never know when we're coming back. We didn't come back on time in the spring. We never know when we're leaving. We never know when in fact we actually end up having the time available to do the business. I may have made a mistake; it was the previous year that we didn't come back on time. We came back quite late that year, and I apologize for that mistake.
But at each end of a session we end up pushing things through, not because they are unplanned but because we broker everything at the last moment. We recognize that there is reason to do things that are important pieces of public business. Do you know something? We overlook doing some things which ought to be done and could very well have been done had we been pacing ourselves much more precisely to accomplish the public's business as opposed to ending the public sitting.
There are other reasons of course why this government, I suspect, probably doesn't want to be around here for four months: 17 weeks, I think, it all adds up to. One of the things that we probably don't want to be around here for, if I'm a government member, is to be the host/hostess to the inquiries with respect to the Ministry of Housing.
If you were the Minister of Housing, if you were in charge of the Van Lang affair, if you were the minister who was in charge of the flips that are going on with public housing, and there was a need for the opposition parties to get to the root of the evil that has stricken the Ministry of Housing, then you would not want to be here.
Do you know why you don't want to be here for four months? You don't want to be here for four months because that gives you some time to manage and massage the state of affairs to extract the least possible bad news that you can from that terrible, terrible problem that has beset the member for Ottawa Centre.
Why else might you not want to be here for four months? You might not want to be here because the people of the province will see in the next four months that the whole budgetary plan is falling apart, that the jobs which are to be created for my constituents and the constituents of each of us around here are disappearing, that there is not the will to create the jobs which these people have said have been funded through these huge amounts of money that they have put through the consolidated revenue fund to create these meaningful, long-lasting jobs.
You probably also don't want to be here when you find that your projections for payments of interest on the money borrowed have gone through the roof and that your deficit projections have again missed the target. All of those things probably are forcing you as a government member to want out of here and to be away from here for a long, long time. If you're Premier, why don't you want to be here between June 23 and October 31? You don't want to be here even when this place is in session. You have, as a matter of course, never shown up on a regular basis to answer the questions on the problems which you yourself as Premier have created. You want to escape the public scrutiny that is required of you if you believe in the parliamentary traditions and in the history of this chamber. This is a responsible government system we have, it's a parliamentary government that we have, and it requires Her Majesty's loyal executive council members to be here in the House to account to the people who are elected to serve Her Majesty's citizens.
2210
It's a difficult job. I've been there. It isn't easy coming in day after day when there are problems which hit you, and if you have a large ministry, those problems can be apparently endless for you. You start off each day wondering what the newspapers will print, what the TVs and the radios will be spilling out into the hinterland and what letters will be attracting the attention of Her Majesty's loyal subjects. And you prepare: In the middle of some of the best debates you can ever have about where the broader public policy is leading you, you have to prepare to answer the questions that should be answered directly.
If I were the Premier and if I had a tired cabinet, and if I were a tired Premier, which is pretty obvious these days, I wouldn't want to be here between June 23 and October 31. If I were a member of the cabinet and thought it was more important for me to be sitting in my office signing letters or doing all those other things that have to be done, I wouldn't want to be here either. It's much easier and it's much nicer to go out and deliver the speeches that have been prepared by dutiful political staff, dutiful press personnel, who have put together the wonderful thoughts you can drop without challenge and without question into the public's lap.
There are all of those reasons for not wanting to be here. But there are other reasons for not wanting to be here as well; that is, as long as this government is not required to be in this place, it pretty much does as it pleases. For a person like me, who has stood here and said on many an occasion that basically this bunch of rascals does pretty much what they please in here anyway because of their use of time allocation and a roughshod running over all the standing orders, it means far less trouble not to have to even debate the issue of removing any interference the standing orders may put in their path.
They can do just about anything they want. They can in fact almost totally ignore, with impunity, any of the advice the public service gives to them with respect to the right way or the wrong way to proceed in an equitable and better public policy fashion, and nobody can question them because there is no forum in which a public debate can be initiated. But while the public debate on many occasions is hardly, I say with respect to my colleagues here, worth listening to a lot of the time because of the constraints placed on us, it is none the less important that the questions at least be laid on the table and put publicly in front of all the people of the province, through the televisions that cover us, through the reporters who write for the newspapers, through the radio reporters who are over the airwaves and through the television stations that report during newscasts.
It's important that those issues at least be brought out. We can't force an answer, we can't compel that anybody address the problems, but we can identify them. Some of us can do it better than others, but every one of us, when elected, has the right to stand in this place and put those problems out, whether it affects five people in my constituency, five million people in the province of Ontario or all 10 million-plus citizens of this great province. For four months we will not be able to do that. We can write our letters, we can even file our petitions with the Clerk, we can draw up all kinds of press releases, but nothing can substitute for this chamber.
I make great issue with the kids who visit us, or anybody who visits us here in Toronto from home: I tell them not to think of this as any kind of mysterious place. You've heard me say this before, that there is no mystery to what this chamber does. We are all advisers. We advise what our constituents have said to us when we're home. We advise what others have written to us. We advise what we think or feel about the things that are happening around us and we publicize that advice. We offer advice to the government from time to time. Whether or not it's accepted is up to the government, and that's the way our system works. But it is without exception a non-functioning chamber when we cannot have access to its public performances.
Question period: One hour each day when we are sitting, four days a week, when some of us get a chance to put the question that we have no other way of telling our constituents that we tried to put; one hour per day for four days a week.
For most of us, it means we never get a question on. I know there are a number of government members who wish they could get on and cannot. There are people in my caucus who, because we have a process that sets up the first five or six questions of the day -- the same thing in the Conservative caucus, they end up having the same process -- most of us can't ask the questions we want to deal with because the time escapes us.
For that one hour, we're free to talk about almost anything we want to, unconstrained. I can ask the question about why the Minister of Health, for instance, has stopped covering with OHIP people who are returning from foreign lands, having worked with the Department of National Defence, and have to wait now three months before they're covered, even though those people have paid income tax for the years they have been away from Canada.
How do I get that publicly acknowledged as a big, big problem? People who have taken public service as a serious matter now are welcomed back to Ontario by saying, "You wait three months before we cover you with OHIP." How do you say there is danger in discovering a problem with health in those three months that should be contemplated and faced as part of our public policy deliberations? I can write a letter. I can tell you, it's helpful to speak to the minister because she is an understanding individual, but there is nothing like revealing publicly that the issue is being addressed, not just for those two people and their families but for others who likewise will be coming back into this land of ours from having performed public services in other places.
Why, why can't we just come back on September 23? Well, there's another reason, I suspect, and that is that perhaps the Premier, because of the sensitivity of the time and of the problems facing the nation, would prefer not to be here when there is a Quebec election. We have sat through elections that have been held in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in BC, in PEI and other places. We were even here during the federal election, if I recall correctly. I don't quite understand why we shouldn't be sitting here when our business requires it, because our business is to be here when either our province or our nation is in need of our advice. We should be here. There is no good reason for us to be away from this place for 17 weeks.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Did you ever leave it?
Mr Elston: I've been away, but I was never away when it required my attendance at the House. I was hardly ever away. If you check, Irene Mathyssen, my record of attendance when I was Minister of Health, when things were going tough, I was here. If you want to check when I was Minister of Financial Institutions and things were going difficultly for our party and for us, I was here. I was never away to the extent that your people are wanting to stay away, because I believe in the responsibility of my role here as an elected official and as a member of the executive council.
2220
Why don't you go home and add up the number of occasions when your Premier has been away from question period? Why don't you go home and add up all the times your Finance minister was away from this place after he delivered his budget? I'll tell you, there are lots of reasons why these people have no desire to be in this place, because the issues of critical importance are unrevealed when this chamber is closed. They have shown by their cavalier attitude towards the standing orders in this place that they could care less about us functioning well as a loyal opposition, and the best way they can make sure we don't get any work done as an opposition is by shutting us down and making sure we don't even come back on time.
Do you know how come I know they are going to get their way on this? They have more people than we have. Since the very first day this House returned, they have had a huge majority and they have put that majority to us at each turn when we requested something reasonable and rational. When we wanted to get to the bottom of a whole series of items which caused concern about the performance of ministers, they used their majority, and they will use their majority again. But I cannot nor will I sit down without saying that again the majority will bring us back October 31, 1994, some month-plus after the calendar that we all agreed on at one point said we should be here.
That's bad. That's bad for the people. It's bad for the government, because it's easy to get lazy and it's easy to get sloppy, and I'll bet you that the ministers will hate to take their first briefings to get ready for question period.
It is also evidence that there is about to be a cabinet shuffle, without any cause at all, that there is concern in the Premier's office that there have been performers who are not very worthy of retaining their executive council and PA-ships. In some cases, the performance of the people who will be removed from their places has been based upon one particular issue, and I will argue that the performance of those people in all other respects has been relatively good, but their jobs are lost. The reason we will be out of this place for 17 weeks is to allow some time to separate us from the events that will cause those demises of careers and the actual time of the implementation of the new team.
That new team will be brought forward some time probably in July or early August, and there will be ample time between August and October to rebrief, retool the cabinet, and to try and establish enough new faces to allow the Premier to say: "I have taken hold of this bunch. I have a new group and I have a new resolve and I have a new plan," And you know something? If it's really looking good, "I have a new election date." All of that is possible.
Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): So what is your problem?
Mr Elston: I would have no problem, Minister of Agriculture, if you'd call the election tomorrow. In fact, a lot of people would be quite happy for that.
But there are, and I will say this very seriously, a number of people who will lose their jobs in not many weeks hence across the way. To those people who had the resolve to vote their conscience or to perform in the best manner they thought was possible, and for those people who didn't crumble under the pressure -- because we all felt pressure -- I say job well done and I'm sorry. I really and truly am sorry, because perhaps those events have more to say about the new democracy than all the violations of the standing orders could possibly say.
Perhaps that separation of several weeks from today of those members who have stood their ground and said their words is the biggest reason we won't come back for several months. Perhaps there's a belief that the passage of time, these several weeks after the new cabinet and new PAs are sworn in, will solve any of the criticism that will be levelled at them. Not from some of us, because we will remember.
Not that any of the people who will lose their jobs need anybody to stand up for them, because it is quite apparent that they have done their own work and have their own strength and have their own character. But we will remember the style of democracy that will force the demise of those individuals. We will remember the type of heavy-handedness which there appears to be no fear in using. We appreciate, for those people who become new members of the cabinet and of the PA group, that you will have several weeks to contemplate your futures in the light of the way that your colleagues have been dealt with. Perhaps that passage of time is to let settle in quite firmly just exactly what the new democracy discipline is all about, and I'm sorry for that.
I'm sorry for Ontario, because while we're away from here the work in the executive council won't stop, the disciplining in your party will not stop, and in fact, behind silent doors, behind those closed doors of your caucuses the real work that is about to take place in the New Democratic Party will occur, and people will be hurt by your dirty work over the summer.
Most of you won't do it, most of you won't even have to put your hands close to any of the stuff that's going to happen to your colleagues. Some of you will silently cheer, some of you will silently cry for the people who had the courage to voice their opinions. If there's anything we should be able to do in this place, it's at least to say what we mean without being savaged for our beliefs.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Always do, Murray.
Mr Elston: Some of you do, some of you have, but the real work in the 17 weeks that is about to take place in this party's history will prove the demise for several years to come of any of the principles you have about freedom of speech and the ability to say what you have to say to support not only your representative colleagues but yourself. Do you think the 17 weeks is going to be enough to silence the critics after we see what happens to the people who've had courage? I think not, but you need it; 17 weeks, I'll tell you, isn't enough.
When Hallowe'en arrives in Ontario and when your devilish work through the 17 weeks is celebrated on Hallowe'en night, you people will not be as smug nor as full of laughter as some of you are this evening, because you will know what work the devil has wrought. I'm not going to be here on October 31. I will be with my family and making sure we have a safe Hallowe'en, so I won't be here to talk about budgets and the other things that are being planned for those days.
But I can tell you that throughout the summer I will be with my people in the riding of Bruce, and I will be telling them about the work that is to be done this summer by the New Democrats. The face-lift that is about to occur will not be enough to salvage your political future as a government. I will be out there to make clear that the disguises you have put on your public fiscal plans will not save you one vote, because they know you've played games with your numbers. They know, in the public, because of work done by the third party, by the Liberal Party, by my leader, Lyn McLeod, that you have been unmasked. Your plans in your new 1994 budget are now being revealed for what they are, and that is, plans for how to take money from pensions, for how to take off line expenditures which used to be acknowledged as public expenditures and a whole series of other -- I'll say it -- scams that are being authored by this administration.
2230
I am going to stop at this point. I make myself clear. They have tried systematically to silence us as opposition. They do it by overruling the standing orders. They from time to time will do the most violent time allocation motions you can ever see -- namely, in Bill 91. There are all kinds of public policy issues they would have to account for if they were here in the next 17 weeks. They won't be. I freely admit that I am looking forward to a break, but not to October 31, not to October 17, as was planned, either; to September 23.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You said it wasn't long enough.
Mr Elston: I'm looking forward to my break at the moment, but I am not looking forward to a break to October 31. We should be back here in September. I believe it, and I will tell my constituents why we are not back here, and I'll make sure they know that we deserve better of the new democracy.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to add a few comments. I can't believe that when this debate started, the House leader called this session wonderful and accomplished. Those were his words I think that he used, "wonderful" and "accomplished."
Here we sit with a $90-billion deficit, 500,000 people unemployed -- the unemployment rate has virtually doubled -- we have 1.2 million people on welfare, the health care system is deteriorating, the education system is deteriorating, and this government calls it wonderful and accomplished.
When I played hockey for a living, we said the three best things about hockey were June and July and August. I can't believe I found a profession that gets more time off than we did playing hockey with having the summer off. We're going to be off July, August, September and October, at a time when we're facing some of the most difficult crises facing this province, with a health care system that's deteriorating, an education system that's deteriorating, 1.2 million people on welfare, 500,000 people on unemployment, and these people are going to be out at barbecues, drinking beer and having hot dogs in their ridings at a time when the people of the province are suffering.
I think the only good thing about this, as I sit and reflect on the closing of this session, is: Number one, the less time we spend in here, the fewer crazy bills this government's going to pass, and that's going to be a good thing. As the session comes to a close, the other thing that I think is going to be important for the people of the province of Ontario is, each time we close the session, we get closer and closer to closing the great socialist experiment in the province of Ontario. I think all members opposite realize what the people of province want is an election, and the next time we hold an election, the government will change and socialism will die in the province of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions and comments? The member for Bruce has two minutes in response. No response. Further debate?
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I am going to keep my remarks brief.
Applause.
Mr Eves: I'm sure members will be delighted to hear that. That's why they're clapping.
Mr Eves: However, I have been known to be provoked on occasion.
Mr Elston: Feel provoked.
Mr Eves: Feel provoked.
I'm a little concerned that a party that fought so hard for a parliamentary calendar, both in opposition and then in government, is now apparently abandoning the parliamentary calendar that they fought so hard for. According to the calendar, as I'm sure everybody is aware, we were supposed to leave here today, which we probably will be doing, and we're supposed to return on September 26. We are now not coming back, when this motion is passed, which we will not be supporting, until October 31. That means that we will be spending 18 weeks -- I hate to correct the member for Bruce, but it was in fact 18 weeks that we will be away from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. For four and a half months this place will not be dealing with the business of the people. I find that somewhat startling.
What's even more startling perhaps to people out there in the public who are not aware is that when we come back, according to the parliamentary calendar, we'll be sitting only five out of six weeks because there is a week off for Remembrance Day, a constituency week. We'll be sitting for five weeks and then we'll be adjourning again for another three or three and a half months. I find that somewhat disconcerting. That tells me perhaps a couple of things. One can only speculate as to why the Premier and the government of the day would want to do that.
Some of the speculation is that perhaps the government has no agenda: They don't have anything else to do on their agenda, so how can they do it? This government has not had a throne speech now in some fairly lengthy period of time. Do they not have any new ideas over there? Do they not have an agenda that they would like to get on with and produce? Are they tired and just going to wait out the rest of this calendar year of 1994 and try to rejuvenate themselves perhaps when an election is called next year at this time?
Another bit of speculation is that perhaps the Premier of the province is giving himself a window of opportunity for a fall election. There has been some speculation that he is waiting to see what happens in the province of Quebec with its provincial election, and if the PQ is successful, perhaps the Premier will be wrapping himself in the Canadian flag and playing to the tune of Captain Canada, "I am the Premier who can save the country." I don't think it will work, if that is in the back of his mind.
Why are we not proroguing? As I've said, this government has not had a throne speech in some considerable period of time. I can only assume that they don't have any new ideas to put forward to the people or that what few ideas they have they're saving for whenever they call the provincial election.
I'm also a little bit concerned about a couple of trends that I have noticed taking place with respect to the government in this session and perhaps the one before it as well. I'm a little concerned that the government of the day, in my opinion, is using private members' bills in place of ministerial bills on several items. I can only assume it is because the minister or the government does not want to take responsibility for doing what governments are elected to do; that is, govern. All decisions are not easy: There's an upside and a downside, and part of being in government and being a cabinet minister is assuming responsibility for your actions. Don't slough it off to a backbench private member and try to skirt around responsibility.
Hon Mr Charlton: Wouldn't it be wonderful if it was really that machiavellian?
Mr Eves: The government House leader says, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were really that machiavellian?" I can think of a couple of instances in this session alone where the government has definitely chosen to proceed by way of private member's bill as opposed to government legislation.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Bill 21.
Mr Eves: "Bill 21," the member for Mississauga South says. I can think of Bill 116; I can think of Bill 95; I can think of Bill 62. There are all kinds of those pieces of legislation that probably were more properly dealt with up front by the minister involved but for some reason he or she did not want to assume that responsibility so they had a private member do it instead.
I'm also a little bit concerned about the trend that seems to be taking place of not coming up with whatever substantive or fairly substantial pieces of legislation the government has. It seems that they never introduce them early in the session. They've either been away for three and a half or four months, as the case may be, doing nothing, and they wait until the House resumes, in this case I believe it was March 21 we came back --
Hon Mr Charlton: On the calendar date.
2240
Mr Eves: Right. But as I say, to the government House leader, we were off for three and a half months before that. What were the ministers doing who were preparing Bill 165? What were the ministers doing who were preparing Bills 171, 173, 163? Were they sleeping for three and a half months? Why weren't those pieces of legislation introduced during the week of March 21 or the week of March 28, or the week of April 4, April 11, April 18, April 25, May 2, May 9, May 16? Then we took a week off, and then they decided to get serious about introducing some significant pieces of legislation. They did this in the last session and the session before it.
Interjection.
Mr Eves: The government House leader says, "We were so machiavellian." I think they are exactly that: machiavellian. I think they do this deliberately and on purpose so that the legislation is not out there very long: "It won't be debated very long, we'll deal with it the minimum amount of time and we'll schlep it out to committee. Some of it we won't send to committee at all; we'll bite the bullet, we won't let people talk about it and we'll get rid of it." That seems to be a very disturbing trend that has developed with this government.
Another disturbing trend is the use of time allocation motions. I've given this part of a speech before in this place. I can recall very well when the member for Bruce, the predecessor to the current government House leader -- the previous government House leader -- and myself were talking about the change in the standing orders.
I can recall very vividly that his predecessor at those meetings said: "Oh, we would only use time allocation about once or twice during a sitting, only one or two significant pieces of legislation. We would never dream of using this as a matter of course."
This government, if my memory serves me correctly, has used time allocation either 16 or 17 times now.
Hon Mr Charlton: And proud of it.
Mr Eves: And they say they're proud of it. If my memory serves me correctly, not that I was always supportive of the previous government, I believe that in some five years the previous government used time allocation about five or six times, in five years. That is also what the previous NDP government House leader told us he would be doing under the new standing orders: "We would never dream of using this more than once or twice a year. It would be stupid politics. It would be committing political suicide. We would become known out there as a dictatorship as opposed to a democracy." That's what he told us. Welcome to dictatorship, I say to the NDP of Ontario, because that apparently is what it's become.
I'm very concerned about delayed introduction of legislation. I know the member for Bruce will concur that we went to House leaders' meeting after House leaders' meeting at the beginning of this session asking for the government's wish list, the things it wanted to accomplish during this session, and week after week the government House leader said: "Not quite ready yet. Should be ready by next week."
This went on for about 10, 11 or 12 weeks in a row, after we'd been off in excess of three months. For the next three months, he tells us he hasn't got his act together yet. This is either an example of gross mismanagement on the part of the government, that it takes it six months, or it is a very machiavellian government deliberately delaying legislation until the very last moment so that people will not have a great deal of time to look at the legislation; they won't have a great deal of time to criticize the legislation. We won't have a great deal of time as opposition members to review it and send it out for committee.
I look at Bill 91, which was just passed here today, a very, very controversial piece of legislation, one that I would think anybody who knows anything about rural Ontario, about ridings like mine and tens of them like mine across the province -- if my riding is any indication at all of what rural Ontario and the agricultural community think of Bill 91, believe me, you owed it to the people of rural Ontario and in the agricultural community to hold public hearings across the province when you're now going to be off for four and a half months. You can't find time in four and a half months for three or four weeks to hear the concerns of the agricultural community across the province of Ontario?
The reality is the government didn't want to put itself through that, because they knew there would be a great deal of opposition to this bill in rural Ontario. They knew that there would be a great deal of opposition to this bill in the agricultural community, and they chose to cut off any deliberation with respect to Bill 91 whatsoever. And that's but one example. Does the government have an agenda? If it does, where is it? Is it sitting on it like an egg, waiting for it to hatch? Are they waiting for somebody to come up with a brilliant idea? Does David Agnew only have six brilliant ideas left in his bag of tricks, and he's saving them all for whenever they decide to call the next election? Those are questions one has to ask oneself when we look at the amount of time we've spent in here lately, the amount of time we've had off, the amount of time we're going to spend -- five weeks -- when we come back, and then we'll be off for another three and a half months. It doesn't make any sense.
I think the member for Bruce raised some valid queries when he said, is the Premier not satisfied with his current government? Is he not satisfied with his current cabinet? Is he going to use this four and a half months to make changes, to put a new face on his government, hoping that somehow this will be able to reverse or rejuvenate the sagging fortunes of the New Democratic Party of Ontario?
I personally don't think the Premier will be silly enough to call a provincial election when he's at 15% in the polls. I find that very difficult to believe. But I would say one thing to the Premier: I don't care whether he decides to go to the people this fall, next spring, next summer, or, for the ultimate insult to the people of Ontario, to wait till September 1995. But I can assure him of one thing: His fortunes won't be much better when he does decide to go than they are right now.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): One of the things no one has really commented on is how difficult this is going to be for the members of this Legislature to explain to their constituents, why we're going to be doing nothing for the next four and a half months --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Harnick: -- why this government has nothing to do and no agenda to project. Let me tell you --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I realize it's late in the evening and tempers are short; however, the member for Willowdale has the floor.
Mr Harnick: Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that there is a bill before the Legislature called the Limitations Act. This bill had first reading almost two years ago, but I'm getting phone calls from the Ontario Association of Architects saying: "The government said they were going to push this bill through. We want this bill. Why is this bill not coming through?" Now I have to explain to them that the government's so busy that they're taking a four-and-a-half-month holiday, and this bill is going to sit on the shelf probably for another year, and then next November we're going to come here and the Attorney General's going to say: "I gotta have this bill right now. We're going to have to sit around the clock to get this bill. We're just going to have to bring in closure and ram it right through."
This is a bill that everybody's waiting for. If everybody's waiting for the bill, why are you going on vacation? Why don't you do it? You're all leaving. I don't know where you're going to go for four and a half months. You don't have time to let the farmers of this province comment on Bill 91, because you're all going to be on vacation, doing nothing. I can tell you, maybe that's the only thing that's going to improve your fortunes, if you go and you hide, because every time you do anything, you screw it up anyhow.
2250
Mrs Marland: I think there must be some significance in the fact that when this House returns, it is Hallowe'en. I'm quite sure that some of the government members will be able to spend time, perhaps, even sewing their costumes. I would like to assure, however, my constituents in Mississauga South that I will be working very hard for them in the riding for the next four and a half months and that is an opportunity this recess gives me. However, my preference on behalf of my constituents would be that we would be in this House dealing with legislation that would remedy the problems the constituents in Mississauga South face.
Frankly, I think the government that has to recess for this amount of time simply confirms something we always have known for the last four years, that it doesn't know what it's doing, it's totally out of control. If they were well managed, they would be bringing legislation forth that the people of Ontario have been asking for for their whole term of office thus far. There are many pieces of legislation that need to be drafted to address and provide remedies for problems in this province.
I feel it's regrettable that this government feels it can run and hide. Mind you, if I was the Minister of Housing, for example, I would want to run and hide. She can't endure any more question periods. The one good thing about not coming in the House every day is that there are no more question periods, so there are no more checks and balances for the opposition in order to make the government accountable. However, we will make you accountable in other ways. The people of Ontario will make you very accountable at the next election.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you, to the honourable member. The time has elapsed.
Further questions and/or comments? The member for Parry Sound has two minutes in summation. No summation. Further debate? The government House leader summing up?
The government House leader has moved that this House stand adjourned until the 31st day of October, 1994. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
I declare the motion carried.
Hon Mr Charlton: You might notice that I'm wearing a Frank Miller button this evening. That's because any old Tory is better than the crowd here tonight.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We'd tell the same joke, but we can't find an old Dipper.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Charlton: I have a number of motions here that I had intended to move, but the member for Mississauga South suggests that the Minister of Housing should run away and hide, so perhaps I shouldn't move the motion that will move the Minister of Housing into committee for an inquiry around those issues.
The member for Willowdale says the government members are all going on vacation for four months, so perhaps I shouldn't move the committee motion to allow the committees to continue the work of this Legislature.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He's just supposed to be introducing these. There's not supposed to be a speech involved. I don't think they're supposed to be provocative.
The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order.
Mr Stockwell: If you could ask him to move it, I'd appreciate it.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the Chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be authorized to meet to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines made against the Minister of Housing in connection with her attendance at a meeting with the board of the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa on Friday, June 17, 1994, as follows:
The committee shall commence public hearings on the matter on August 8, 1994, and shall conclude such hearings no later than August 11, 1994, and shall meet from August 15 until August 18, 1994, for the purpose of writing a report on the matter and that with the agreement of the House leader of each recognized party the dates specified may be amended;
The committee may, through a Speaker's warrant, compel any person to attend before it to give evidence under oath and to produce any documents required. Witnesses may be represented by counsel if they choose;
The subcommittee shall be authorized to retain and direct legal counsel;
The subcommittee shall meet to determine organizational matters by unanimous agreement at least two weeks prior to August 8, 1994. In the absence of unanimous agreement of the subcommittee, such matters shall be referred to the House leaders to be determined;
The committee may not inquire into the merits of any proceeding currently pending in any court or comment in its report on the guilt, innocence or liability of any party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party House leaders and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:
Standing committee on administration of justice for three weeks of public hearings and one week of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters;
Standing committee on estimates for one week to consider the estimates of certain ministries;
Standing committee on general government for three weeks of public hearings and one week of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario;
Standing committee on government agencies for two days each month that the House does not meet to consider intended appointments as provided in its terms of reference and for two weeks to consider the operation of the Ontario Council of Regents and the St Lawrence Parks Commission;
Standing committee on public accounts for two weeks to consider matters as agreed to by the committee at its meeting of June 23, 1994;
Subcommittee of the standing committee on public accounts to adjourn to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees;
Standing committee on resources development for three weeks of public hearings and one week of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act;
Standing committee on social development for three weeks of public hearings and one week of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care;
And that with the agreement of the House leaders of each recognized party, the time allotted and matters specified for consideration by the committees may be amended.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
2300
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I should have raised this point of order when I had an opportunity a few minutes ago and I apologize for doing it now.
When we recess, I always feel that there are staff in this building whom we need to express our appreciation for. They are staff we take for granted every day. I speak of our protective police officers, men and women, who in all of the buildings and at times of demonstrations etc have a tremendous responsibility in protecting us as members, our staff and the public. On behalf of all of us, I would like to thank them for the job they do.
The Acting Speaker: It is not a point of order, but an excellent point.
Hon Mr Charlton: I would like to seek the consent of the House for a few moments to make a few comments about the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, who is departing and has so announced.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.
MEMBER FOR ST ANDREW-ST PATRICK
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): As members may know, Zanana Akande, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, is leaving us. She is, as I understand it, returning to her old profession in the educational field, as a teacher and superintendent to one of the boards.
In any event, a few comments about her time here: Zanana is one who brought to this House, and I think to a number of issues that have confronted us here in the Legislature, a great deal of strength and focus and emotional determination to proceed to deal with what, from her perspective and the community she represented, were a number of very serious and long-standing wrongs that affected people in a number of racial communities in this province in a variety of different but usually negative ways.
She brought a great deal of determination and a great deal of zeal to her fight around some of those issues. From time to time, some members have found her level of emotion, in terms of her participation here, difficult to deal with, but it was a reflection of the real depth of feeling she brought to the issues she found some concern about.
For my part and for the part of my colleagues, all of whom have had an opportunity to work with Zanana in one way or another, in one of the committees or on youth jobs programs or a number of other things that she's been involved in, we will miss her presence here. We will miss the way that she was able, both in the House and in our caucus meetings and elsewhere, to applaud us when we moved forward and to sometimes chide us when we were reluctant to move. We will miss that part of what she brought to our process. Hopefully we will find the depth within ourselves to continue to move forward on some of the things that she won't be here to push us on. We will also miss the sense of humour that she brought to many of our discussions, both in caucus and here in the House.
I wish to express our hope that Zanana will have a very successful new career, or new recareer, however we want to look at that. But we will very sincerely miss her and we wish her well.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too would like to add my words of appreciation for a colleague in the House whose experience I can identify with in some respect, who came to this House without any legislative experience, into this arena, which is quite intimidating. I saw her with such confidence, boldness and effectiveness that it was almost sometimes an envy of mine, because I know how intimidating this place could be when I arrived in this House.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You turned grey.
Mr Curling: As the member says, she can recall that my hair was very much black at that time, and all this light comes forward.
Zanana maintained her posture, her dignity and carried forward. She went through some rather challenging times too as a minister, as an individual and in her personal life, actually. She went through this very challenging time but she held her head high. Her family is one of great distinction and we in the community always admire her, very much so.
Zanana serves on committee with me and we often end in some rather exercised debate in a manner that I came to examine myself much closer because of her. I saw her in the community and how she carries herself, and the respect that she gets from that community too is something that will last her for ever.
I know too that when she told she was returning to teaching, she said to me, "Of course, I will continue to contribute in making sure that the laws of this province can be in a way that reflect and encompass all of us." She's a good person, a good Ontarian, a great Canadian.
I can't say I will miss her in that form in the sense that she won't be in the House, because her presence will be always here in some of her contributions as a member. Also, the House leader stated that we will of course continue with some of the things that she had started.
I want to say that she has been just a wonderful friend too, and the community welcomes her in her new role.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further tribute?
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I too count it a privilege to rise on behalf of our caucus and join in saying farewell to Zanana Akande. Zanana has had a very strong presence in this House. Although obviously in our caucus we haven't had the privilege of knowing her on a close personal basis, as her caucus colleagues have had, we certainly have always recognized that she is a very bright, articulate and capable woman.
She also is someone who all of us have been impressed with in terms of her personal commitment. She is in my opinion a woman of grace and a woman with style. I feel that the way in which she carried her personal bereavement, the terrible loss of her beloved husband, is an example for all of us when we are faced with similar losses of a personal nature in our lives. It is very, very difficult when people are in public life to cope with such an experience in their personal life, and that again speaks volumes of Zanana Akande as an individual human being.
Frankly, I think that her decision, while it is the loss of this House, this place and all of us as colleagues, as we are, regardless of party -- when the end comes, we are colleagues together in this place. When we set aside our political differences and the duties and roles that each one of us has to assume in this room, in this chamber, we then look to what really matters.
When I see the decision that Zanana Akande has made to leave this public life and go back into teaching, and probably I'm sure, very soon if not immediately, into administration of a school again as a principal, I think the beneficiaries are definitely going to be those students and those staff who will be privileged to work with her and learn under her direction. As she has left her mark in her public service in this place, she will indeed leave her mark as an influence on the most important resource to the future of this province and this country, namely, our children while they are learning.
We send her on her way with our very best wishes.
The Acting Speaker: Any further business?
Hon Mr Charlton: I move adjournment of the House.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
It now being past 11 of the clock, may I wish all colleagues in the Legislature a happy and safe summer and early fall.
This House stands adjourned until October 31, 1994.
The House adjourned at 2311.