CONTENTS
Monday 22 June 1998
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1530 in room 151.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Good afternoon. Thank you very much for being here at our first meeting of the social development committee. The purpose of the meeting is to organize the work of the committee. As you know, we've had two pieces of legislation sent to us, Bill 18, An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution, and Bill 20, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. It was not possible to have meetings of the subcommittee, which is why we've convened a meeting of the full committee to discuss these two pieces of legislation and how we would organize our time with respect to that.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): If I may, Madam Chair, I know that the New Democratic Party member of this subcommittee, utilizing her right under the standing orders, specifically standing order 124, requested that, pursuant to standing order 124, the Chair convene a meeting of the subcommittee to set a time for a consideration of the matter leading up to the shooting down and killing of Dudley George in Ipperwash park back in September 1997. I should tell the Chair that that request is somewhat dated now, and I'm surprised that the committee is moving on to consider, with no disrespect to the sponsors of Bill 18 and Bill 20 -- I'm advised by the clerk that the Chair, you, pursuant to that letter and as is your responsibility, requested that the subcommittee meet to consider the standing order 124.
The Chair: Let me speak to that, Mr Kormos. I think we can deal with that matter. It's not before us at this time because, as you well know, 124s have to be dealt with by subcommittee first; they can't come automatically to committee. But, in addition, there was a problem with respect to the substance of the 124 that was requested by Ms Boyd, and I made her aware of the difficulties with that. The matter is not before us, but it is true that we tried to convene a meeting of the subcommittee on two occasions and it was not possible to have the members present at those times.
Mr Kormos: Madam Chair, I'm confident from the information I received from the clerk that the Chair fulfilled all her responsibilities. May I please, because this is Ms Boyd's committee -- I understand Ms Boyd was present at a subcommittee that was convened for that purpose, or was prepared to be present. I understand that the representative from the Liberal caucus who is the subcommittee member was prepared to be present. This is an incredibly important matter, and I am very concerned that somehow the subcommittee didn't meet and respond to the Chair's direction.
I understand some of the technicalities and legalistic arguments that might well be raised, for instance, about the timing of the SO 124 request. I understand that. It's no secret that Ms Boyd did this at my behest, because the government circumvented her standing order 124 right in justice committee, because justice committee is hearing Bill 22, among others, which should be in front of this committee but is in front of the justice committee. I am confident that the Chair called a subcommittee meeting. Please, Madam Chair, with no disrespect, how is it that a subcommittee meeting couldn't be held?
The Chair: As I said, the matter is not before this committee and I really don't want to belabour the point. I will simply say this to you: Two meetings were convened. There is no power in the Chair to compel anyone to attend meetings of the subcommittee. We could not get a full complement of the subcommittee. We are required to have one person from each party, we could not get one person from each party and, therefore, we were not able to convene a subcommittee meeting, which is why we've called a full meeting of the committee. But the full meeting of the committee cannot deal with the very issue that you've raised because that must be dealt with in subcommittee. There is no power in the Chair to do otherwise.
Mr Kormos: Yes, ma'am, and I'm not going to belabour the point but I feel compelled to draw the irresistible conclusion, as has been said so many times, that since the Liberal member was prepared to be at that subcommittee meeting and since Ms Boyd was prepared, Mr Carroll, the government member, declined to be present at that subcommittee or declined to appoint an alternate. This is so bloody typical of this government avoiding the issues on Dudley George.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, that is not the issue before us. If you don't mind, we'll go ahead.
Mr Kormos: Point of order, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I'll hear your point of order.
Mr Kormos: It requires some preamble to become clear.
The Chair: It had better be a short preamble because we have other business.
Mr Kormos: I understand that, ma'am. I look at the agenda and the committee is entitled to sit until 6 o'clock and it's got two small matters on the agenda. I'm confident I will not be intruding into the time of either of the sponsors of Bills 18 and 20, Mr Bartolucci and Mr Colle.
The Chair: My experience with this committee is that there's no such thing as a small matter, Mr Kormos. Don't underestimate these items.
Mr Kormos: I think it's obvious, once again, that Mr Carroll, as a dupe of the government, avoided those subcommittee meetings so that it wouldn't have to consider the request for a standing order. That is not only irresponsible, it's reprehensible --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, may I ask you to withdraw the remark.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): On a point of order, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I've already asked Mr Kormos to withdraw the word "dupe." We can use better language than that, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Okay: As a mere flak for this government he, obviously following marching orders --
Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Mr Kormos is intelligent enough that he knows how to use proper parliamentary language and "flak" is not one of them.
The Chair: I'm not sure whether that's the case, but I would ask you, Mr Kormos, in the interest of brevity and getting through the day, to use language that we won't object to.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, ma'am. I find it of serious concern that a member who is a member of this committee and a subcommittee member, as Mr Carroll is, would not abide by or fulfil his responsibilities as a member of the Legislature and a member of this committee, clearly with the intent of subverting the request for standing order 124. I submit to you, Madam Chair, on this point of order that this Chair should report, through its clerk, to the Speaker to advise that the Chair sought subcommittee meetings, that the member Jack Carroll refused to attend and/or refused to appoint an alternate.
If that's the way it's going to work, then any single member can subvert the process at will and at whim, and that's not what's intended. Then the rights under standing order 124 become meaningless rights. If a member wants to bring a 124 issue, all that a New Democrat or a Liberal or, in this case, a Conservative has to do is say, "I'm not going to attend a subcommittee," and those rights under standing order 124 become literally unenforceable. I find that repugnant. I find Mr Carroll's behaviour repugnant. It's part of the whole coverup of the Premier and his office's involvement in the murder and killing of Dudley George.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, we're going far afield now. This item is not before us. It's not part of the agenda. It's not a matter that can be raised with the Speaker. I assure you that's one of the things that I did ask the Clerk's office to advise us about. It's a matter properly for the committee to discuss. I think if you'd like it on the agenda for the next committee meeting, it is certainly something we will entertain. It is not a matter before us today, and I'd like to move on.
Mr Kormos: The record then should simply indicate my appreciation for your consideration of this and my observation that Mr Carroll's conduct is slimy and reprehensible.
The Chair: Can we move on to our first item of business, Bill 18, An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution. This matter was referred to us two weeks ago.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It's a pleasure to be here. I guess what I'm going to ask of the committee is that we not play politics with this private member's bill. Before the private member's bill was debated at second reading and subsequent to its passage in the House and referral to the social development committee, my office, and I personally, have received an absolutely enormous response and communications from all segments of society within Ontario, and in fact across the country, but primarily in Ontario.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very serious problem. It's a bigger problem than even I thought it was when I first researched this and introduced this bill. I believe, as I said in the House during debate on Thursday, that this isn't the perfect bill, but at least it's an opportunity to begin dialogue and finalize some dialogue. As I said in the House and I said to the media, and I'll say to you, I don't care what the end result of this bill will be and I don't care who wants to take credit for it at the end of the day. That doesn't concern me, as I'm sure it doesn't concern any member around this table. What I am concerned about is that we have kids who are being sexually exploited and sexually abused through prostitution.
1540
I don't know how you try to convince a group of individuals when this process that we have within government is an adversarial one. But when I ask that, all I want is for committee hearings, all I want is for the opportunity for whoever will be sitting on this committee to hear from not only the kids -- and there will be kids who will be testifying before us, I can guarantee you that -- but I want you to hear from the parents and from the social service agencies, I want you to hear from the police and I want you to hear maybe from your own constituents as to just how severe a problem this is and just how much we have to do in this area to protect children who are being sexually abused and sexually exploited.
I could go on and on and make the pitch and ask that it not be a political decision that's made as to whether or not we're going to hear it at committee this summer. All I'm asking is that you do what you know is right within your own heart and within your own mind. If you believe that going to committee is right, if you believe that doing something very proactive that doesn't have to be adversarial is what's in order, then I'm going to ask you to refer this to your committee for some public hearings. I believe that the kids will be the winners in the long run and that those kids who are being sexually exploited or abused, because of our actions maybe, will have an opportunity to live the lives that you would want for your children. That's all I'm going to say.
The Chair: I hope the committee realizes that we don't have the power to actually call meetings. We need permission for that. But thank you for your comments.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I'll be brief as well. I can assure my friend and colleague that it's not the government's intention to play politics, as he suggested in his opening comments. Certainly, I, as well as my colleagues on this side, am fully appreciative of the considerable dialogue, debate and feedback you've had on this bill in a positive context. I appreciate your comments as well with respect to the need to fine-tune the bill as it's currently presented. But, very clearly, it would be my position that we have this committee reconvene after the summer recess. Dealing with this matter would certainly be a priority item for that particular meeting.
I think the Chair herself has clearly indicated that a motion would be required from the House in terms of this committee meeting during the summer period. Having said that, I think I can give you some assurance that not only is the government certainly concerned with child prostitution, I think there are many things in your bill that warrant serious consideration. But that consideration would be more appropriately dealt with when this committee could reconvene after the summer recess.
Mr Kormos: Those words ring very hollow, Mr Smith. The fact is, and you know or you ought to know, that the minute there's government business referred to this committee, private member's bills are displaced. I trust I'm correct, and the Chair will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong in that regard, but that's my understanding.
You know full well the games that the government has been playing with displacing opposition members' business, be it standing order 124 and a request into the slaughter of Dudley George at the direction of the Premier's office or the Premier himself. Similarly, I can anticipate the social development committee becoming all of a sudden encumbered with government business when this House resumes, be it in September or thereafter.
You can't suck and blow at the same time. Oh, I hear your words. You're all so concerned about child prostitution, baby hookers. I find it incredible that in this weekend's Toronto Star there was a page-and-a-half feature on the child sex trade in Central America, in this instance, the new Thailand. Yet here's an opportunity raised by Mr Bartolucci and, look, you might recall what I said and what Ms Boyd said about the bill, and Mr Bartolucci has been very candid about the fact that the bill may have some defects, particularly legalistic ones and whether it's federal law or provincial law and the impact of the charter and so on.
This committee doesn't have anything to do this summer. It doesn't have anything to do. It has permanent members who are assigned to this committee. The minimum wage by elected members in this room is $78,000, and for a number of the Tory members it's far in excess of $78,000, significantly more, probably far closer to starting around $86,000, up into $90,000-plus for those who are parliamentary assistants. That's a whole lot of money.
One of the inferences that can be drawn is that you simply want the summer off because there's clearly no other business before the committee --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Well, there isn't any other business before the committee. It seems to be an ideal time for this committee to consider Mr Bartolucci's bill and, quite frankly, Mr Colle's. That's number one. You want the summer off -- cause you folks keep picking up your paycheques, including the parliamentary assistant paycheques, that extra 8 G's, 9 G's, 10 G's. I've got folks down where I come from who live on that in a whole year. Okay? Do you understand that, Mr Smith? Who live on that for a whole year. That's your little perk; that's your little extra. You want to collect that paycheque and not have to work this summer.
I quite frankly find myself as the substitute for Ms Boyd here today supporting Mr Bartolucci enthusiastically. You've got two full months. It seems to me that this committee should have something to do. You know full well that you're free and available. You're certainly not free -- the taxpayer is paying big bucks for all of us: minimum wage, 78 grand; for those of you who are parliamentary assistants or in other positions, well in excess of $78,000; for more than a few of you who are still operating businesses and collecting incomes from the other work that you continue to do, far in excess of the $78,000 a year. There's a whole lot of people in the Tory caucus who are still operating their law firms and their businesses and splitting their time between their constituents and their private sector incomes.
I find it pretty repugnant that you would want to pay lip-service to, "Oh, yes, of course, Mr Bartolucci, we want to consider this, but let's wait until September." Horsefeathers. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Mr Smith, and all the nice little spin that you want to put on it simply won't work. Mr Bartolucci knows better. His constituent who motivated his bill knows better. I have every confidence Mr Bartolucci's going to let him know what position you -- and I hope you're not speaking for all of your colleagues, but somehow I get the strange impression that you are. Somehow I get the distinct impression that you're the spokesperson, you're the mouthpiece, you're the consiglieri for the gang over there and that the marching orders are, "Don't consider Mr Bartolucci's bill."
I put to you, why not? It's either because you're lazy or because you want to rip off the taxpayers by spending the summer without working and doing your committee work, or because somehow, somewhere, you really want to avoid this issue because you know that come September, come hell or high water, there's going to be a government bill before this committee which is going to displace Mr Bartolucci's bill and/or Mr Colle's.
You've got two private members' bills. Both of them were passed by the House and both of them were referred to this committee. The government, with its numbers, could have defeated either the bills, had it chosen to, or the referral to this committee, had it chosen to. The government was either inadequate in its numbers because people were asleep at the switch or, quite frankly, in general terms in support of the bill, the general proposition, and of the referral to the committee.
Although this ain't question period, how is it that the government could have permitted -- because that's what it came to at the end of the day. Private members' bills can't pass unless the government agrees. I'm talking about government backbenchers. The numbers can crush any private member's bill any time, any bill any time. Far be it for us to ever see you do it when it requires some courage, when it's something like Bill 160 or Bill 26 or the upcoming Bill 31 or any number of time allocation motions that have been goose-stepped on to the legislative floor.
1550
But I find something very sinister in your comments. If that's imputing motive, so be it. Let somebody stand up on a point of order and I'll respond to that point of order and I'll explain once again why I find it sinister. The committee has the time. It has no other business before it. It runs a serious risk of having this matter deferred, should it wait until September. It also runs the risk of the House not returning in September. You know full well that's a possibility, because nobody's come clean on whether the government is abiding by the House schedule, which requires a return date some time after September 28, the end of September.
Boy, it would be a unique and fascinating opportunity to see some Tories with some guts support Mr Bartolucci on this matter.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. I would remind members that there's a 20-minute limit for your interventions.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I will not take my full 20 minutes. Suffice it to say that the government has paid a lot of lip-service to this bill and I'm quite frankly surprised you wouldn't want to have hearings this summer. There's nothing before us, no government bills. The government has made much out of its own efforts in the area of crime and we believe this bill ought to be given a high priority, not simply sloughed off because you don't want to work this summer.
I applaud Mr Bartolucci's efforts. My colleagues and I are prepared to travel the province, to have hearings, to discuss the bill, to take amendments to the bill, to do whatever it takes to get this bill passed. Mr Colle's legislation as well is extremely important. Again, we could deal with both these pieces of legislation, legislation which has been adopted by the Legislature. We can deal with it this summer.
We are open to public hearings, to debate, to amendments and I'm deeply surprised that the government members of this committee would not want to go and have public hearings on this. Heck, we had a whole bunch of your colleagues through our city on crime. They didn't get many people out. We had your colleagues through on homelessness. I don't think you had anybody out.
I would welcome the opportunity to have hearings in my community on this bill over the summer, and I'd welcome the opportunity to have government members there in the hope that possibly we could amend this bill, deal with some of the concerns that were well placed, well put in the Legislature, and bring forward a bill that could actually be passed by the Legislature. I would hope, given that there is no pressing government legislation before this committee, that all of us as private members would want to have the opportunity to discuss this bill -- not next fall. That's garbage. That's just BS. It's stalling, it's playing politics. It's doing exactly what Mr Bartolucci asked not be done.
We're of the view that both of these bills are worthy of public hearings, not at some unspecified date in the future but this summer. We on this side of the committee, this side of the House, the official opposition, are prepared to travel, have public hearings, entertain amendments to the bill and bring the bill back for the Legislature's consideration early in the fall session.
It's unfortunate, if Mr Smith in fact represents his colleagues' views on this, that you would attempt to stifle these kinds of hearings at a time when this committee has absolutely nothing else to do. I regret that. It's too bad and it really betrays that your so-called interest in crime and criminal matters is nothing more than political posturing. It's very unfortunate.
Mr Wettlaufer: I was extremely surprised at Mr Kormos's remarks when he indicated that if the members of this committee aren't sitting in the Legislature or in the committee that they don't do anything. That would indicate to me that he in his riding does absolutely nothing when he's not sitting. I was even more surprised to hear Dwight Duncan say the same thing, say that the members of this committee have absolutely nothing to do when this committee isn't sitting this summer. It's very, very surprising --
Mr Kormos: What are your travel plans?
Mr Wettlaufer: -- because I think everyone realizes --
Mr Duncan: Yes, what are your travel plans?
Mr Wettlaufer: I think everyone realizes that this government has sat more than previous governments. This government has passed more legislation than previous governments. I know from my own experience in my own riding that my constituents were extremely happy when I was able to spend some time with them this winter and look after their problems. I believe, Mr Kormos and Mr Duncan, that is a very important role that members of the Legislature must perform.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Madam Chair: That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. He's full of lies.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, that's not a point of order. Please, let's watch our language, shall we.
Mr Kormos: I'm not going to listen to that sort of crap. It's stupid and it's lies and it's a crock.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, that's not a point of order. You may not agree with it, but it's not a point of order. Mr Wettlaufer, you have the floor.
Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Madam Chair. You will note that he accused me of lying and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw.
Mr Kormos: No, thank you.
The Chair: Well, if he refuses to withdraw, he's expelling himself.
Mr Kormos: No, I'm not. The heck I'm not. On a point of order: Mr Wettlaufer is lying. He's lying through his teeth. He's trying to paint a picture that --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, that is quite enough.
Mr Kormos: I must go.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, the members of my constituency greatly appreciated it when I spent some time helping them with their problems this winter, and I know from comments I have received that many are looking forward to the time I'm going to spend with them this summer. I know that other members of this Legislature share similar views. I'm not alone; I'm not any hero. I know other members have the same problems. I think it would be unseemly to expect the members to be in here, in the Legislature or on committee, sacrificing the problems that constituents have.
I do want to add that I'm no different from other members in our government. We consider this bill very important. It's a matter of very serious concern. Mr Bartolucci, I honestly hope that you will find a great deal of support.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm going to be honest with you. I really don't think we can wait till the fall. This is a problem that the Premier will be lobbied on today by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. Julian Fantino says it can't wait. I talked about this with him last week and I said, "I have a sneaking suspicion it's not going to get to committee this summer." At that time, it was because I guessed we couldn't get a subcommittee.
Your House leader was very open to me in response to the letter I sent him when he said, blah, blah, blah:
"You should be commended for bringing increased attention to this matter and for seeking meaningful solutions. It is not the role of the government House leader to bring private members' business before the committees. These decisions are to be made by the Chair and the subcommittee of the designated committee. I encourage you to contact the Chair of the social development committee to request this matter be brought forward for consideration."
That's the government House leader telling me, "This is what you should be doing in order to get there," understanding that maybe it wasn't going to get through the Chair and the subcommittee members.
I'm telling you, and I think you all know, there are kids right now, as we speak -- and this not an emotional plea, this is the truth -- some child, whether it be a male or a female, is being sexually exploited and sexually abused as we speak. We all have hard work to do in our own constituencies, there is no doubt about that. Nobody denies that. But I honestly believe it's a problem that is in everybody's constituency. Some of us may not have identified it yet, but it's there and so it is a part of our constituency work.
How big of an inconvenience is it for us to spend some time bettering the lives of those children who are not as fortunate as most kids, who end up, because of pimps or johns, being sexually abused or exploited? I honestly believe that hearings are not an inconvenience in this issue. I honestly believe we shouldn't be waiting for October, whenever we come back, because our plate is going to be filled; we all know that.
1600
I honestly believe as well, as I said earlier, that if at the end of the day the government takes credit for it through amendments to whatever, I don't care. I really don't care. What I care about truly, deeply and sincerely is that we discuss it this summer, that we discuss it at committee, that we hear, so that at the end of the day, whoever's signature is on the final piece of legislation, we'll know we listened to the people of Ontario and we drafted some type of legislation that is going to protect kids from being sexually abused or exploited. That's all anybody here is asking. That's all I'm asking. But I honestly don't think, in all sincerity, that it can wait for the possibility of hearings in the fall.
Mr Smith: I think I've certainly made my point with respect to the merit and the intent of the bill, and again I would not question the member's direction with this. I think I made that apparent at the outset.
I would be prepared to move a motion, if I may, Madam Chair, if you're prepared to accept such, that would read as follows:
That the standing committee on social development reconvene after the summer recess and commence business with Mr Bartolucci's private member's bill, Bill 18.
The Chair: The motion is on the floor. Debate? No? Do you want to speak to it?
Mr Smith: I don't think any further discussion is necessary, certainly from my perspective, unless my colleagues wish to add anything to it. Very clearly, as I indicated at the outset, the government shares the member's concerns regarding child prostitution. With this motion, we're making an effort to clearly indicate to the committee members on both sides our intent to deal with this matter this fall, and I think that's reflected in the motion that has been placed before the committee.
Mr Duncan: Could you just read the motion back to me, please?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): "That the standing committee on social development reconvene after the summer recess to deal with Mr Bartolucci's bill, Bill 18."
Mr Smith: "Mr Bartolucci's private member's bill, Bill 18."
Mr Duncan: Could I propose an amendment to that?
The Chair: You can certainly propose an amendment.
Mr Duncan: "And that we would convene on the first day that the House resumes for consideration of this matter."
Mr Smith: I would suggest that certainly if Mr Duncan is prepared, the subcommittee convene on the first day that the House returns.
Mr Duncan: No. The amendment would be that the committee convene the first day that the House returns. You said you wanted to do it in the fall. Let's do it. We weren't able to convene the subcommittee.
Mr Smith: I think in fairness, Mr Duncan, we would require a motion and some decisions from the House leaders' offices in that regard if we were prepared to sit and consider the matter. From that perspective I certainly would be prepared to commit that the subcommittee convene at its earliest convenience on the first day to deal with the matter.
Mr Duncan: Madam Chair, may I, on the amendment --
The Chair: Hold on. I take it this is not a friendly amendment, so we will deal with the amendment to the amendment.
Mr Duncan: The government has indicated a willingness to debate this in the fall. The government members know full well that if a government bill is introduced the first day of the sitting and gets referred to this committee, it will bounce this private member's bill or any other private member's bill out of order.
We're saying that we are prepared to compromise. You don't want to do it this summer. Okay, then let's agree to sit the very first day the House resumes. You said you wanted to do it in the fall. I take you at your word, and if you are of your word -- we're meeting here today for the purpose of organization. If you look at the agenda, we are organizing the committee's time. It does not require the subcommittee; it does not require anything else. All it requires is that we meet the first day the Legislature resumes. You said you wanted to do it in the fall; you should have no problem with this. Otherwise, you're simply playing games.
The Chair: Very well. Any further debate on the amendment? No further debate? All right. I'll put the question. All in favour of the amendment to the amendment?
Interjection: To the motion.
The Chair: That's right: the amendment to the motion, which is an amendment.
Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Back to the debate on the main motion. Any further debate?
Mr Duncan: We'll vote for it and we'll see if you keep your word. You won't, but we'll vote for it because the next thing you'll do is twist it around and say we didn't vote for it. We'll see if you're a man of integrity, if you're a group of people with integrity or if you're just playing games. You'd better hope a child prostitute doesn't die this summer in a street in Toronto, because we'll hang it on you, believe me. We'll hang it on you every day this gets delayed. You know how the standing orders work. You may be content to sit there and play games with the lives of innocent children when you can deal with this meaningfully. If you refuse an opportunity to deal with it the first day the Legislature resumes in the fall, we'll see what your integrity is all about. We'll see. You said here to us today that this bill will be heard in the fall. That's what you said. Now we'll see. We'll vote for it.
The Chair: Any further debate? All in favour of Mr Smith's motion? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.
We then move to Bill 20, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve Safety at Highway Intersections by providing for the installation and use of Red Light Cameras.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): For the purpose of dealing with Bill 20, I'm just going to move that the standing committee on social development authorizes the Chair to send a letter to the government House leader requesting extra sitting time during the summer recess to consider private members' bills and any other matters referred to the committee.
I know some of you voted in favour of Bill 20 when it was proposed in the House and I think you understand the concerns. As you know, 16 people died last year in the Toronto area from cars running red lights. It's something that is a real occurrence, where people are getting hit at intersections.
The Chair: Excuse me. It's getting a little difficult to hear with all the various conversations that are taking place. You might give Mr Colle your ear.
Mr Colle: It's a reality of people getting injured. Intersection accidents are usually very serious accidents, because they usually result in T-boning at 90-degree angles, and especially acute in terms of certain intersections. All the municipalities want is the ability to go ahead and install these cameras. The city of Toronto already has 40 intersections ready to go. They've got the technology ready. They've identified the intersections. The city of Hamilton has a couple of intersections identified. The city of London has identified intersections. So has the city of Ottawa.
These are very clear dangers where, if something dramatic isn't done in terms of monitoring these intersections, there are going to be serious accidents occur over the summer and into the fall. I think it would certainly be the right thing to do to move this along, have some summer hearings on it so that the municipalities would be allowed to protect innocent pedestrians and motorists from these people who run red lights. Delay would basically mean that you're going to leave people open to serious accidents over the next three or four months.
I urge you to sit during the summer, have some hearings. That is part of our job. It's not a matter of a choice. I don't know how many times it has sat over the last year and what bills it has deliberated over, but I think it's part of our job. We're paid to sit on committees. It's not an extra thing; we should also be sitting on committees, whether it's the summer, winter or fall. It's not as if this committee has any other bills with which it is charged. You've already dismissed one bill that you won't sit on in the summer, so I ask you to do what is important for public safety in these dangerous intersections. I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience to be delaying and deferring this.
Also, in terms of looking at the liability, if it was my family member or friend who was hit at a red light intersection over the next two or three months because this government delayed, I would certainly hold you liable as a government, because you know what the results have been, that red light cameras do save lives. There's documented proof, and for you, the government, to keep delaying and deferring this as you have for the last couple of years, it would basically make you if not legally liable, certainly morally liable for doing nothing.
You know this is part of the solution. The bill is open to changes if you feel they should be required. But we have to do something. This government is in such a hurry to pass so many bills on a daily basis -- it's ramming bill after bill through -- this is one, as I said, that would save people from serious injury, save lives. So again, this is not the time to stall and stonewall something that will be effective. I encourage you to sit in the summer and take immediate action in doing something about these high-collision intersections.
Mr Smith: Certainly there has been some discussion with respect to Mr Bartolucci's bill, and very clearly we've had a decision there. Simply, it would be my point of view that this particular bill that Mr Colle has presented would be a matter for the subcommittee to deal with at a later point in time, after the Bartolucci bill has been dealt with, for consideration as business of that subcommittee at some point in the future.
The Chair: Any further debate? No. Then I shall put the question. All in favour of Mr Colle's motion? Opposed?
Mr Colle: A recorded vote.
The Chair: All in favour?
Mr Wettlaufer: What was taken?
The Chair: The clerk had not in fact written everything down. She had begun to do that.
Mr Duncan: You don't want your vote to be recorded? You don't want people to be able to read about it?
Mr Wettlaufer: It's already a closed vote. You had already taken it.
The Chair: We had not in fact taken the opposed votes. Grant me this, Mr Wettlaufer.
Ayes
Colle, Duncan.
Nays
Arnott, Elliott, Hudak, Smith, Wettlaufer.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Mr Bartolucci: The vote is over now. If we can just go back for a point of clarification. It may be unusual, but what's the intent of the government realistically, Mr Smith? Do you want to debate it? Do you want to be continually bumping it or do you really want to have meaningful debate across the province?
Mr Smith: I'm not obliged to respond to that -- I think we have had debate -- but I will out of courtesy to you, sir. I think I have put my point forward and certainly the perspective of my colleagues. I can assure you that there is genuine interest in the merits of your bill, and it's from that perspective that we have the motion presented today. I know it's not as strong as you would like it, but very clearly, it's significantly more than what you had when you entered the room today. I think in that context we'll continue to work with you in that regard.
The Chair: Are there any other items before the committee? Very well, the committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1613.