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

April 14, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (BLOOD-ALCOHOL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PRÉSENCE D'ALCOOL DANS LE SANG)

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (BLOOD-ALCOHOL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PRÉSENCE D'ALCOOL DANS LE SANG)

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

PAUL WATSON

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

ASSISTANCE TO NATIVE FARMERS

RACE RELATIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

CITIZEN OF THE YEAR

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

REFERRAL OF QUESTION

VISITORS

ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE COMMEMORATION

PUBLIC SAFETY

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

JOBS ONTARIO

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

HOMES FOR THE AGED

PLANNING APPROVAL

CHILD CARE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VIOLENCE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

TUITION FEES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

FIREARMS SAFETY

HAEMODIALYSIS

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

VIOLENCE

FIREARMS SAFETY

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CAMPING

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

REGISTRATION OF PEDOPHILES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES PÉDOPHILES

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (BLOOD-ALCOHOL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PRÉSENCE D'ALCOOL DANS LE SANG)

Mr Offer moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 93,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 93, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Offer, you will have 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which every recognized party within the Legislature will have 15 minutes each to debate, and then you will have two minutes in summation.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): In the time allocated, I firstly would ask for the Legislature to give approval to second reading of Bill 93,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

The reason for my request to ask for the passage of second reading of this bill follows from its explanatory note:

"This bill prohibit persons under nineteen from operating a motor vehicle while having any alcohol in their blood. The penalty for contravention is the suspension of the person's driver's licence for one year."

It is my belief that the passage of this bill will, as a result of the explanatory note, cause less death on the road as a result of motor vehicle crashes in which alcohol is a contributing factor and will also reduce the number of injuries to our young people as a result of, again, motor vehicle crashes where alcohol is a factor.

Members of the Legislature will know that I was one of those members on the committee which was looking into the issue of graduated licensing, and it is fair to say that that particular initiative received wide acceptance. It is also clear that those who came before the committee, while signifying their approval of the graduated licensing scheme, also said that it was a good first step but it indeed could be made stronger.

I discussed this particular initiative in my constituency, through letters to my constituents, cable TV programs, columns in local newspapers, and the reaction to the initiative has really been a direct reflection of those who came before the committee and, indeed, I believe the reflection and opinions of people across the province.

But we also heard at the hearings from Dr James Young, who is the chief coroner of the province of Ontario, and we heard about the incidence of drinking and driving and we saw in cold, hard numbers what that means: the death, the injury and the destruction of property. I know that numbers cannot in any way measure the human tragedy of what befalls a family and friends for those who are involved in car crashes, but none the less it is something we which have to use to underscore a particular need for improved legislation.

I have been informed that there have been, I believe, 14,012 drinking drivers involved in crashes: 7,525 of those drivers were involved in property damage crashes, 6,193 drivers were involved in personal injury crashes and 294 drivers were involved in fatal crashes. My bill will hopefully address this particular tragedy.

We know the current law in this province is that the legal age to drink is 19. We also know that any driver of a motor vehicle exceeding a blood alcohol level of 0.08%, upon conviction, has their licence suspended. It does not matter whether the person was driving erratically, swerving or exhibiting any signs of impairment. If a person, after taking a breathalyser test, exceeds the legal limit, then they lose their licence for a year. It is straightforward, it is clear, the penalty is strong and the result over the years has been less injury and death on the roads.

As I've said, we know that the legal age for drinking is 19, but here is the area my bill wishes to address. My bill will state that if a driver under that age, 16, 17 or 18, is stopped and has any alcohol in their body -- because that is the current law in this province, people under the age of 19 are not allowed to drink. So if a person 16, 17 or 18 years of age is driving a motor vehicle and has any alcohol in their body, then upon conviction, their licence would be suspended for one year. I believe this is reasonable.

I believe it sends out a very clear signal to all that drinking and driving do not mix, that if this is followed, there will be less death, there will be less injury and there will be less property damage on the roads.

I know, under the graduated licensing system, there has been a small improvement in this area, and that small improvement is that if someone under the age of 19 does have alcohol in their body, then their licence is suspended for 30 days. But I do not believe that is enough. I believe we must send out a clear and strong and firm message, when young people get behind the wheel for the first time, that their penalty is the same as our penalty, that if we contravene the driving rules by driving with alcohol in our body, then upon a first conviction, our licence is suspended for one year.

It is coincidental, but none the less a fact, that in my local newspaper, the Mississauga News, of Wednesday, April 13, there was an

article entitled "Driving Sober is Cool with These Teens." It recites that there was a conference held in my riding, at the Delta Meadowvale Hotel and Conference Centre, by a group called Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving.

The

article says: "Last year in Canada, 34 people per hour were killed in alcohol-related accidents. It's a figure 18-year-old Kathy Simington of Paris, Ontario, would like to see whittled down to zero." I agree with her.

It goes on: "'In the past year we've seen so many friends die and it's all been related to alcohol,' said Simington. 'It's just peer pressure I guess, but if it only takes one person to put on the pressure, then it should only take one person to take it off too. It's the domino effect.'"

I agree. I hope that this bill will add to that peer pressure to send out the message that drinking and driving do not mix and the penalty for contravening this rule is at least a one-year suspension.

The

article goes on: "A desire to be that one person was a motivating factor in inspiring Simington to join the Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving (OSAID) at her local high school, an involvement that brought her and close to 500 other Ontario students to a conference at the Delta Meadowvale Hotel and Conference Centre last week."

It goes on to say: "'You can't stop people from drinking, but the idea is to stop them from getting behind the wheel afterwards. I know so many people who have been in drunk driving accidents,' says Jeanette Harris, 18, of Brantford.

"Mandy Stringle, 18, of St Thomas agrees. 'Drunk driving is a real problem at our schools because teens go out there and drink and don't know the facts. Teens think they're indestructible, but we learn at the group that this is definitely not true.'" The

article goes on.

I would like to take a moment to congratulate the Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving organization. I'd also like to congratulate the Mississauga News, cable 10, the Mississauga Booster, the Streetsville Booster, in my area for carrying on the message in so many ways that drinking and driving do not mix.

This particular bill is designed to do one very simple yet very important area: It is designed to say to young people, 16, 17 and 18, who have the right to drive but under our laws do not yet have the right to legally consume alcohol, "If you go behind the wheel of a motor vehicle with any alcohol in your body, because you have contravened the current laws of the province of Ontario, upon conviction, your licence is taken away for one year."

I believe that this will result in a reduction in death, injury and property damage, and I hope that all members of the Legislature will support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga North will have two minutes to participate at the end of the debate. All parties now have up to 15 minutes to participate in the second reading debate of Bill 93.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to rise today in broad support in principle for this bill. I do have some problems which I would like to outline, but I believe the member brings it sincerely in his concern for protecting the lives of our young people.

Indeed this effort I think will be applauded by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. During the hearings into graduated licensing -- which I feel personally very responsible for, because for some two years before the government brought forward graduated licensing, I was asking in this House for this measure -- we heard from John Bates of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and it was just one of his quotes which really jumps out at me from his testimony: "Drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 make up 5% of the driving population...for 13% of all traffic accidents, 70% of impaired and 18% of all fatal crashes," indeed a very, very serious statistic.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving would like to see the age for drinking raised significantly and many coroners' inquests have suggested this would be a useful move. In fact Mothers Against Drunk Driving have suggested we should have zero tolerance for any alcoholic consumption when somebody gets behind the wheel of a car. Indeed, I think we can all sympathize with their concerns.

The problem that we have with this bill -- and I believe we can further discuss this if it's passed today and we can send this out to a committee and at least address these problems.

One of them is that during the graduated licence hearings it was pointed out by the Ministry of Transportation that they were concerned that we had a number of people who were driving without any licence, and if we were to suspend these teenagers for this offence for one year we might encourage these teenagers -- and undoubtedly they are the more reckless types of teenagers who would be drinking and driving in the first place and contravening the law -- to go and drive a car without a licence.

That has very serious implications in terms of insurance and so far as the crash victims are concerned, if these people are driving under those circumstances.

There is additionally the very real possibility of a charter challenge if we treat these citizens differently from others, because the police at this moment have the right to suspend for 24 hours the licence of anybody who is driving with a blood alcohol level over 0.05 against the 0.08 which we so typically talk about as the point at which you will be charged with drunk driving.

If we treat these teenagers differently, there could be a charter challenge on the basis that we are discriminating by age. I think it's unfortunate that the charter presents us these kinds of problems and challenges, because I do believe that the intent of this bill is right-headed. However, it is a problem and we should recognize that, and certainly at committee we should discuss that and see if there's any way we can address that particular problem.

In terms of my position as Transportation critic for the PC Party, we are in favour in principle of this measure. I applaud my colleague for bringing it forward, but I do hope that in his closing remarks he can speak to those two concerns I have raised today.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I want to stress further that public hearings, of course, were held here in Toronto and around the province of Ontario on this particular issue of graduated licensing, the resources development committee taking that on the road.

I'd also like to stress, the committee considered this issue and concluded that additional sanctions would not be appropriate, as a problem of underage drinking is an issue more closely related to social and health policy than to driver licensing.

Since the private member's bill proposed by the member for Mississauga North, Mr Offer, parallels one of the new licensing conditions -- it would apply to most of the same drivers -- the Ministry of Transportation would prefer to evaluate the effectiveness of the graduated licensing restriction as a deterrent measure rather than creating a new violation.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation and as a member of that committee, I'd like to thank those who came before us across the province of Ontario and gave us much direction and advice on the issue of graduated licensing.

I rise today to address the private member's bill from the member for Mississauga North and the government believes that, while the member's bill is indeed well intentioned, the changes it proposes are unnecessary; they are already covered under the new graduated licensing rules. New drivers applying after April 1, 1994, for a licence will be the first to enter Ontario's new system.

Learning to drive safely is difficult enough without adding alcohol to the mix. New drivers of all ages are overrepresented in collision stats. This is especially true for those between 16 and 24 years of age. These young people comprise 16% of all licensed drivers but 25% of all drivers that are killed. They are three times as likely to be killed on the road as to die from suicide or cancer. Road collisions are the leading cause of death among this age group. The human toll of collisions, as you know, is staggering, and we must also consider the financial impact, costs that total well over $9 billion a year for property damage, health care, wage loss and also future earnings.

That is why the government included tough but realistic penalties for drinking and driving under graduated licensing. This law, which will be fully in effect on June 6, 1994, establishes a clear policy of zero tolerance for alcohol during the two-year graduated program. New drivers must not drink at all when driving. Graduated licensing effectively prohibits all drivers under 19 years of age from drinking and driving. It is that simple.

In addition, all new drivers must be accompanied by a licensed driver with at least four years' experience. That experienced driver, who might be asked to take the wheel in certain circumstances, must therefore also maintain a blood alcohol concentration of less than 0.05%.

I'm quite sure all members would agree that drinking and driving invites disaster at any time, but now there's one more reason not to drink and drive: It also violates the conditions of the graduated licensing.

Graduated licensing imposes the most stringent restrictions ever on new drivers anywhere in North America. We will be evaluating the new system's effectiveness as a deterrent to drinking drivers and can make any adjustments that prove necessary.

The government feels there is no need for any new laws covering this matter. The Minister of Transportation does not see the justification for creating a new violation, as proposed by this private member's bill. In fact, we believe that graduated licensing takes the member's bill one step further by prohibiting all new drivers from drinking and driving.

The government takes the matter of drinking and driving very seriously. We are committed to ensuring that new drivers of all ages learn their driving skills gradually, in low-risk conditions and also in alcohol-free conditions.

Graduated licensing is part of the government's safety agenda, designed to make Ontario roads the safest in North America. The member presenting this bill today and the government have the same goal: to save lives by making our roads safer. It is a goal we all share. We would allow the law to do its job.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am very pleased to enter the debate today in support of the bill put forward by the member for Mississauga North. First of all, I would like to commend the member for Mississauga North for bringing forth this bill. I think it reflects his interest in protecting the young people of this province and it also reflects his very keen interest in ensuring that drinking and driving never, ever mix.

The member for Mississauga North mentioned some statistics. I just happened the other day to be reading through the Queen's Park report for Hans Daigeler, the MPP for Nepean, and, as you know, he is also the Transportation critic for our caucus. So even before I knew the member for Mississauga North's bill was coming forward today, I was looking through these statistics with great interest.

I'd like to let you know a few other statistics that I think are very important; one relates to the trends in drinking and driving. The number of drinking drivers involved in crashes decreased by 47% from 1982 to 1991. That is really welcome news. It means our educational programs are working, it means our RIDE programs are working, it means there is the public will and the political will to do something about this devastating problem. But the fact of the matter is that there are still 14,012 crashes caused per year in Ontario where there is drinking and driving.

If you look at the statistics for drivers fatally injured in crashes who were tested in 1991, 55% showed no evidence of alcohol. However, 45% were still found to have been drinking prior to the crash, and of those, 37% had a blood alcohol content over the legal limit -- 37%. It means it is still a problem.

Of course, many times the statistics about young people and drinking and driving have been reiterated. However, I'd like to mention one other statistic, and it involves the characteristics of drinking drivers involved in crashes. Drivers aged 25 to 34 accounted for the largest proportion, that is, 38%, of all drinking drivers involved in crashes. I suspect they are proportionately a much larger body of drivers to begin with. However, drivers aged 16 to 24 were second, accounting for 28%. That means our young people are still drinking and driving.

The law of the province is that a person cannot drink until the age of 19; that's very clear. Yet I think we are sending out a mixed message when there's no specific penalty for drinking and driving under the age of 19. We have heard from the parliamentary assistant, and certainly a letter -- I have a copy from both the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation -- which quotes current provisions of the Criminal Code and also talks about graduated licences.

I commend the government for coming forward with the graduated licence program. I have been a strong supporter of it since it was first supported in 1989 by the then Liberal government. I was very pleased that we were moving ahead, and I was glad to see that the NDP government followed this commitment and did bring in the legislation. We all waited a long time for it, and we believe it will have a major impact on drinking and driving and on the driving habits of our young people.

I supported that legislation, notwithstanding that I have a 15-year-old daughter who turns 16 next month and notwithstanding that I have an 18-year-old son who, when news last year came forward that they were going to bring in graduated licences, decided that maybe it was time to get his licence. I talked to not only my own teenagers but also to other young people at the time. I am not naïve. I do not believe that because the law of the land says there shall be no drinking until the age of 19, that in fact happens in every instance. In fact, it's clear that there is violation of this law.

I remember that back when I was a teenager -- and this was a very, very long time ago -- at that stage the law was actually that you could not drink till the age of 21. In fact, I had graduated from university prior to being able to drink. I think at the time the politicians and the people made the decision that it was somewhat unreasonable that a person could leave their teen years and have to attain the age of 21 years before they could legally drink. They changed the law because it was being flouted. The reason they changed it to 19 was to keep alcohol out of the high schools.

But having said that, we still know it occurs. While we can encourage our young people not to drink or, at the very minimum, to drink responsibly, I'm not sure our message that they shouldn't be drinking till the legal age of 19 ever really gets through. But there is one message that we have to get through, and that is that they should not drink and drive.

I am very encouraged by speaking to young people, by speaking to my 18-year-old son. I know his policy is zero tolerance. He will not allow a friend of his to get behind the wheel of a car if they have had anything to drink, even one beer. To him, this is totally unacceptable. My son is not unique; I think a lot of young people have this message. But I think we need to reinforce that message of zero tolerance.

I would like to bring up another matter. If members of this House can remember when we were young -- granted, for most of us, a very long time ago. I don't see Mr Sutherland in the House today; he's probably one of the few for whom it was a relatively recent memory when he was young. But do you remember when you were young and you were first learning to drive, how you obeyed the letter of the law? You came to a full stop, you always signalled, you never, ever cut in front of anybody, you always drove the speed limit, and you remembered these rules that had been drummed into your head.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What ever happened to that?

Ms Poole: The member for Durham East says, "What happened to that?" and he's absolutely right. If you drive on the road today, you know that a lot of us have tended over time to kind of bend those rules. What we started out in a very principled way has changed.

But that's where it ties in to drinking and driving. If we say to young people from the moment they are driving that there is zero tolerance -- and the member for Mississauga North's bill says this very unequivocally. There is a special penalty for those who are under the legal drinking age and have any blood alcohol content at all. I'm not sure if that was the right phrase, whether it's "blood alcohol" or "alcohol blood content," but you know what I mean.

It's important when they start out that they start out fresh, believing that you cannot under any circumstances, even with one beer, drink and drive, because we know that as human beings, over the years we will tend to relax our rules, we will tend to relax our principles, we will tend to relax what we have learned. So I think it's very important to emphasize right from day one that we have zero tolerance.

The member for York Mills mentioned the possibility of the charter challenge because of the discrimination on age. I really cannot see this as a problem because, after all, we have in law right now a provision that you cannot drink until you are the age of 19. That is the law. It has never been challenged under the charter, even though the charter has been around for, what, 12 years now? This ties in very clearly with that drinking age that has been mandated by the laws of the province and found by the Legislature of this province and the people of this province to be a reasonable law.

So I can't see why it would be a charter challenge on discrimination by age when we already have made that decision that young people under the age of 19 shall not drink.

I'd like to conclude by reading a letter of support that came from the Police Association of Ontario. This is a letter they sent Mr Offer on November 15, 1993. They say:

"Pursuant to your correspondence of October 14 past in relation to the bill you introduced into the Legislature on October 7, which, if adopted, would prohibit persons under the age of 19 from operating a motor vehicle while having any alcohol in their blood, I am pleased to respond as follows.

"The executive board of the Police Association of Ontario met in Burlington on November 3 and 4, and a copy of your bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act in this regard was distributed to those delegates in attendance. Subsequent to reviewing this matter our delegates adopted a motion supporting your bill.

"We trust that our actions in this matter meet with your approval and we wish you well in your efforts to have this proposed legislation enacted."

It is signed by Mal Connolly, administrator for the Police Association of Ontario.

Mr Offer, the member for Mississauga North, has mentioned several other areas of support, very strong support: from students, from local media, from parents and from legislators. I really feel that notwithstanding the fact we've put in the graduated licence system, we have to take that extra step, make it very clear that it is zero tolerance and that there is a significant penalty attached to drinking and driving if you are under the legal age. If I had my wish, it would be zero tolerance for all parties, but that is probably something that, while we will pursue it as a goal, may never reach universal acceptability. But we can but try.

So I commend the member for Mississauga North. I very much appreciate his standing up on behalf of the young people of this province, the parents of this province and the drivers of this province, and I thank him.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on private member's Bill 93,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. It's a very short bill. Thursday morning is the right time for private members' bills, and this one, I think, is appropriate.

Section 38.1 of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act says:

"No person under the age of nineteen...shall drive or operate a motor vehicle on a highway while having alcohol in his or her blood."

It says:

"Section 41 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

"

(1.1) The driver's licence of a person who is convicted of an offence under

section 38.1 is thereupon suspended for a period of one year."

I trust the people all agree that operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is just not socially acceptable. It should be just as unacceptable to operate a vehicle with any level of alcohol in the blood. It is a sad fact of life that there is still far too much drinking and tragedy on our roads and our highways.

Perhaps people may stop and think before having a drink, and they should before they even consider getting behind the wheel, if they are aware that the first conviction of impaired driving, driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in the blood, is a fine of no less than $300 and a licence suspension for one year. But that's not all: Their insurance rates go up and their legal costs of going to court. I predict it could be a matter of $10,000 minimum just for having that one drink and driving.

The second conviction brings a minimum 14-day jail term and a licence suspension for two years, and a third conviction brings a 90-day jail term and a licence suspension of three years. Consider that if you have a job and you were counting on driving to work.

A lot of people realize it when it's too late. That one year to many people will seem like for ever. But I have to say to you that when we see the second and third convictions, that is really a concern because that means they didn't get the message the first time around. I can tell you, when you have your third conviction, I'm sure the insurance companies are going to find it very difficult to consider you to insure.

Having said that, I would suggest there will be no opposition to private member's Bill 93, but I observe, from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, that there is opposition from the government members. He indicates that it's probably already in the legislation they passed with regard to the young drivers, but I think this adds to it.

I would like to take this opportunity to read into the record a short letter I received from a constituent of mine at the time we were dealing with the graduated licensing last December. Jordana Simek, a grade 10 student attending Eastview Secondary School, resident of Oro township, lives about 12 miles from the city of Barrie.

It says: "The government's proposal to legislate graduated licences is unfair to the majority of 16- and 17-year-olds who are responsible. I do not intend to become intoxicated and drive dangerously...how many by males of the same age range" who drive now. "The legislation punishes the majority and merely delays the same youths in acting irresponsibly. Living in the country, a mode of transportation is necessary. Don't make us walk because they broke the law.

"I would greatly appreciate you presenting my and many other future voters' point of view at Queen's Park."

Jordana Simek is referring to the debate on graduated licensing last December. I supported Bill 122. At that time, after raising the issue of young drivers who do live in rural Ontario, Jordana refers to this issue in the following letter I received from her in February:

"I was overwhelmed upon receipt of the Hansard excerpts of December 6, 1993," which she received "on January 4, 1994, my sixteenth birthday. I have since obtained my level 1 Canadian Ski Instructors qualification, written my final exams, continued my piano commitments, and worked as a ski instructor at Pine Ridge Ski Club on weekends. I have also continued to be a member of the jr. girls' volleyball team and have enrolled in Young Drivers of Canada. My parents drive a great deal to provide me with transportation.

"Your efforts in presenting my letter and making a case for the rural youth at Queen's Park far exceed all of my expectations.

"Your actions have made me realize that you are an honest, empathetic and energetic representative of the constituents and in this case, the rural youth of all of Ontario. Thank you."

Mr Mills: Is there an election coming up?

Mr McLean: That's the type of letter, Gord, that we all should get.

Another Oro resident raises the same issue in a letter I received just this week. I'd like to bring her concerns to your attention:

"My name is Catherine Gilchrist. I am writing this letter about the graduated licensing program. I am 15 and will turn 16 in the fall.

"I live in the country (Oro township), and because transportation is limited, I have to rely on my parents to drive me around. For this reason, it is difficult to find a summer job or to meet friends.

"I understand the reasons for this is so the roads would be safer, but most of the people my age are mature enough to drive in a responsible way." These are some of the comments I've received with regard to the graduated entry licence.

I supported that legislation, but I also brought to the ministry's attention certain young people who are responsible. Most of the accidents that had happened over time was with youth where there were three, four, five people in a car. I often thought there should have been some clause in there that would allow individuals, if they're driving to and from work, to be able to do that.

The concerns I have raised with those two people are the same concerns raised by a rural resident, Mrs Kathleen Rupnow of Hillsdale, when she wrote to me last month about the difficulty in scheduling her son's driver's test.

"My son is already 18 and needs to get his licence for work as he graduates high school this year. Since we live in Hillsdale, he has to drive to work. Since his 365 runs out in June, he will have to do his written test again (additional cost) before he can try his driving test....I don't disagree with the new legislation and I have another son who will be 16 in December who will be affected. I do disagree with a government who would not staff their offices to reduce these ridiculous backlogs during the transition period."

That is her complaint. As I said earlier, the graduated licensing system should have given due consideration to young rural motorists who have no alternative but to drive to and from work.

However, I was pleased that it contained the provisions that a novice driver will be required to maintain a zero blood alcohol content. That was my theory with regard to the bill. Now we have a bill today brought in by the member which is indicating the same. I have no problem in supporting that, because I think the more we debate this issue and get the word out, the better off we'll all be.

The people of Ontario are concerned and upset every time they pick up a newspaper and read about the tragic deaths on our roadways. Traffic collisions are the leading killers of Ontario's young people aged 16 to 24. Almost half of the traffic-related deaths among 16- to 24-year-olds occur when they are driving the vehicle. Most deaths involve new drivers and involve alcohol. I commend the member for Mississauga North for bringing this important matter to our attention today.

With regard to the numerous coroners' reports that we have had on this very issue, they have recommended raising the drinking age. Another strategy is to deal with drinking-and-driving problems. I've had a boating bill before this Legislature on two different occasions which has never gotten past second reading, and a lot of those accidents on the waterways are caused by drinking. I say to the member for Mississauga North, this just reinforces what a lot of us feel, what a lot of us think.

I want to leave with the message of those people who think and consider that they can drive with an alcohol content in their blood. If you lose your licence, the minimum cost to you, I predict, is some $10,000 to $20,000 by the time you're done dealing with the court system, by the time you pay the extra insurance that you're going to be charged and by the time the whole mess is cleared up. I hope those who have their second offence will really stop and consider because, to me, that innocent people are killed by drunk drivers should not be acceptable in society today.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate?

Mr Mills: I'm pleased, along with others of my colleagues in the House, to rise and speak to Bill 93, the private member's bill from the member for Mississauga North.

I think it goes without saying that everybody who sits in this Legislature is interested in reducing the terrible carnage that happens on our highways, and the parliamentary assistant, my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich, has already spoken this morning, that what we're talking about in the province of Ontario is a staggering $9 billion a year that is accountable to traffic accidents with death, the cost of medical care and all those things; $9 billion.

I think we, as legislators, should stand in our place and be absolutely convinced that we should do everything we can to stop this. I know that our government has done more to make the roads of Ontario safer than any other government which previously sat in this Legislature. We've done more to make Ontario safe.

I find it passing strange that here we have a member who introduced a bill that effectively prohibits all the folks under 19 from driving without zero tolerance, and I subscribe to that, but how on earth can you people, the third party and the official opposition, stand in your places and advocate for something that's going to reduce accidents when you wouldn't support photo-radar?

Photo-radar is proven by statistics, and when I gave my speech on that bill in this Legislature I produced enough statistics that showed you that it reduced deaths and it reduced accidents, and this statistical evidence is all across the country and all over the world. Yet these people stand here today and they want to support a bill that's going to reduce the carnage on the highway.

They all stood in their places and they voted against photo-radar, which alone would reduce carnage, reduce deaths and accidents across the province on our highways beyond all kinds of -- you know, it's incomprehensible how people can stand there and advocate one form of life-saving and be adamantly opposed to photo-radar. I find that passing strange, to say the least.

Well, lots of things they say I find passing strange, but this sticks in my throat as a former police officer and having to investigate fatal accidents, having been to post-mortems, having to tell people that their young folk have passed away. You want to try that, my friends. You want to try standing in a post-mortem room and see what happens there. Then, if you had seen all of that, you would willingly stand in your places and support photo-radar, because, man, that is a traumatic experience when you go through that in life.

It's a pity that many of you haven't had that experience, because if you had, you would support this government in its overall efforts to reduce the carnage on Ontario highways. We're going a long way to do that and one of the ways that we're achieving that is through graduated licences.

I want to just touch on that. We know and I have no doubts about the good intent of the member for Mississauga North and I support that. However, what we've got to come to grips with is what the graduated licence system is going to do.

It will address the issue of drinking and driving by inexperienced drivers by requiring all new drivers, not just young drivers -- statistics show that people over 24, it's not the people who are under 19, they're involved in a lot of drinking and driving accidents, so it's not just young drivers but every inexperienced driver -- to maintain a blood alcohol level of zero in their first two years of driving. What could be better? What could be more explicit? What could be more obvious that this government is committed to zero tolerance driving?

We are committed to making the roads of Ontario the safest roads to drive on, not only in Ontario, in North America and in fact in the whole world. We are setting an example in this province, this government is, about driving and safe driving, and our commitment to it, gradually, through different stages, and one of them is the graduated driver's licence.

Our government, in graduated licensing, has included tough but realistic penalties for drinking and driving under the graduated licences.

I agree with my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, that the Highway Traffic Act is not the vehicle where you impose laws about drinking. That's not the role.

Anyway, I'm going to close up. My colleague wants to talk; I've just got the message, the pink slip. Graduated licensing effectively prohibits all drivers under 19 years of age from drinking and driving. It's that simple.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill 93. Obviously, what I'd like to do is get some things on the record that came out of the resources development committee.

As everyone knows, the member for Mississauga North also sat on that committee and I understand that this is probably his intention, because I would never want to accuse him of grandstanding or jumping on a popular bandwagon of graduated licensing, because I think the member already knows that the laws are already in place, that the legal drinking age in the province of Ontario is the age of 19 and that there are penalties for breaking that law.

The Criminal Code of Canada and the Highway Traffic Act currently provide for the suspension of the driver's licence of any driver convicted of driving while impaired or having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08%, with a suspension period for first offence being one year, exactly what he's proposing here.

The member sat on the resources development committee, which held public hearings on the graduated licensing system process, and he was involved in the committee process and the public hearings and is fully aware that the committee considered a number of options and sanctions and concluded that further actions beyond those covered under the current graduated licensing process would not be appropriate. The basic agreement is that the issue of drinking under age is related to social and health policy.

Under the graduated licensing system, all new car and motorcycle drivers must not drink any alcohol if they're going to drive. The licensing condition requires the new driver's blood alcohol concentration level to be zero in their first two years of driving. This is not simply restricted to those underage; it is meant for everyone. This ensures that new drivers assume responsibility for their actions or be subject to licensing conditions.

Suspension periods are part of these conditions. These include a one-month suspension for greater than zero and less than 0.05%, and for those individuals with a blood alcohol concentration of greater than 0.05%, the suspension period is one year.

We must remember that there are various situations that may arise in which a person's blood alcohol concentration would be above zero, and these include the use of various cough syrups and medications that include in their content alcohol. The member for Mississauga North is fully aware of this, as it was discussed by various presenters during the public hearings, and this was fully discussed by representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, and he is fully aware that these other variables must be taken into consideration.

As I have previously stated, the member was involved in the committee as it reviewed and conducted public hearings on the Ministry of Transportation graduated licensing system. The member is fully aware of the ministry's recommendations on the six-point integrated safety project. Our government is taking seriously its commitment to make our roads among the safest in North America. The integrated safety project is another safety initiative of the NDP government's vision to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America.

The member is also well aware of the increased numbers of people driving while their licence is under suspension and driving without insurance. This needs to be dealt with, and adding further penalties and suspension only encourages this action to occur more often.

By using state-of-the-art technology, we can improve compliance with Ontario's traffic laws and as a result reduce the toll on Ontario's roads and drivers. If more drivers obey our existing laws and police are better able to enforce these laws, we will reduce highway deaths and injuries.

The more effective and responsible way in which to deal with the proposal brought forth by the member is to evaluate the effectiveness of the graduated licensing restriction, and since the graduated licensing system just took effect April 1, 1994, then perhaps we should give the graduated licensing system the opportunity to work.

The member for Mississauga North is persistent and is an individual who often needs to have things repeated over and over again to fully grasp ideas. I commend him for his persistence but wish to state that I will not be supporting this bill and feel confident in the laws that currently exist and those included in the six-point integrated safety project. There is not the necessity to duplicate laws.

As the member for Eglinton stated, the Liberals had brought forward this initiative. I know that for years New Democrats have been called Liberals in a hurry. Well, I would suggest to the member opposite that New Democrats are Liberals of action.

The Acting Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Mississauga North now has two minutes to respond, plus the remaining time for your party.

Mr Offer: In terms of my response, I would first like to thank the members who have spoken in support of the legislation: the member for York Mills, the member for Eglinton and the member for Simcoe East. I appreciate the support.

I am, I must say, a little disappointed with the fact that the government does not see fit to support this legislation. I did write to the Police Association of Ontario. The Police Association of Ontario wrote to me a letter under the date of November 15, where it indicated its full support for this very short yet very direct piece of legislation.

I did take this matter up earlier with the Minister of Transportation and with the Attorney General. I took this matter up with them when I first introduced the legislation. I felt very strongly about this legislation in terms of its saying to people who are 16, 17 and 18 that, "Under the current laws of the province of Ontario, you cannot legally drink," saying to those 16-, 17- and 18-year-old people, "If you break that law, which is your law, by not only drinking but getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, your licence upon conviction will be suspended for one year." I felt and feel very strongly that this bill would save lives, would reduce injury and would reduce property damage.

I was very disappointed that the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation wrote to me saying that they wouldn't support the legislation, but I thought that since those letters were dated from the Ministry of Transportation November 24 and from the Attorney General March 29, possibly they and/or their caucus might have changed their position. Hearing the debate from the government members today, I see that is unlikely.

This bill is not directed to us here; it's directed to young people who are sitting in the gallery today, young people who I believe would be safer on the roads if this particular bill were passed.

The members of the government have hung their hats on graduated licensing. Graduated licensing will, first, give a penalty of only 30 days for drinking and driving. I believe that is not a sufficient penalty. A penalty must be in line with the type of penalty that we suffer, and that is at least one year. We realize that the result of the strict drinking-and-driving penalties has been a reduction of death, has been a reduction of injury, has been a reduction of property damage. What I want to do is extend that to the 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds. The passage of this bill will allow that.

The members on the government side have spoken about the $9 billion that is lost and about carnage on the highways, all of which I agree with. So I am disappointed that while eloquently speaking about the cost in terms of dollars and the cost in terms of lives, they do not support a bill which will in fact reduce property damage, reduce injury, reduce death on our roads.

The members of the government have spoken about graduated licensing. I opened up my comments by saying I was a member of that committee. I understand graduated licensing. Members of the government should recognize that the 30-day penalty only applies to young people while they are in that system. Members of the government should remember that that means a person will be in and possibly out of graduated licensing by 17 1/2, actually 17 years and eight months.

Graduated licensing will only apply and that very small penalty will only apply when they are in that system. They could be out of that system when they are 17 and 18 years old. Graduated licensing, which you have hung your hat on, will not help those who are under the age of 19 and outside of the graduated licensing system. Understand your own legislation.

My time is just about up. I urge the members of government: Support this bill. It will reduce property damage, it will reduce injury, it will reduce death on the road for our young people. I urge you to support this legislation.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The time for ballot item number 47 has expired. A vote will take place at 12 noon.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Arnott moved private member's notice of motion number 36:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should refrain from continuing to implement the policy announced by the previous Liberal government, in the 1989 throne speech, of forcing all school boards in Ontario to initiate junior kindergarten programs by the fall of 1994.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation and then each party will have 15 minutes to debate.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): This resolution comes from the people of Wellington. For the past three and a half years it has been my privilege and honour to represent them here in this Legislature, to work and speak on their behalf.

It is a responsibility I have taken very seriously, as I have endeavoured to represent their views and be true to the values and principles of the people who sent me here to speak on their behalf in the best way that I can: to voice the common sense of the farmer in West Luther township, the wisdom of the retired senior in Harriston, the concerns of the shopkeeper in Erin, the homemaker in Aberfoyle, the small manufacturer in Fergus, the factory worker in Arthur, all of the people of Wellington, to the very best of my ability.

This resolution is about education, in our federation the provincial government's constitutional responsibility and government's most important long-term investment, for with excellence in education, our children will grow to show the world that Ontario, Canada, is its centre, leading in the arts and culture, leading in science and technology, leading in commerce and business. But without excellence in education, our children will grow to show the world nothing more than mediocrity and decline. That's why we must strive for excellence.

More specifically, this resolution is about how the New Democrats have continued the policy of their Liberal predecessors to force all school boards in Ontario to initiate junior kindergarten programs by the academic year coming, 1994-95.

It's an issue which raises many questions: What will this cost the taxpayers of Ontario? What about local autonomy, the whole rationale for the existence of local school boards; the idea that excellence demands you allow for local differences through flexibility in the application of programs in different areas of the province; the idea that Toronto is different from Drayton and Mount Forest, much different, and also different from the communities in Halton, Wentworth and Simcoe? That's why we have school boards: to allow for excellence by allowing them to tailor education to fit their local community's needs.

Other questions arise: Are Ontario's teachers prepared and qualified to teach four-year-olds and in some cases three-year-olds? Have teachers been consulted? Have parents? Have taxpayers?

What about our children, our toddlers, as they really are at three and four? Is it really in their best interests to start school at this tender age? Is it safe to put a toddler on a school bus? These questions need to be answered during the course of this debate, and if the answers are as evasive or don't make sense or are as inadequate as they've been to date from this government, then members of this Legislature must support this resolution.

Junior kindergarten is a very important issue, but it's symbolic of an even larger issue. More than three years ago, I rose to join in our first debate of this 35th Parliament on the NDP government's first throne speech. I was in the back row then and I'm still in the back row, which tells you something about the last three years. But don't get me wrong; I'm very content to be here.

In that first speech in December 1990, I said: "We in Wellington understand the economic value of hard work and the social value of personal responsibility. From this understanding stems a serious concern when our government refuses to live within its means, when our government grows until it begins to inhibit overall economic growth, when even excessive taxation does not prevent the expansion of government debt."

In the three years since I gave that first speech I have heard, time and time again, from people in Wellington county how the NDP policy agenda runs totally contrary, totally against those basic principles that we expect from our government, the simple principles that govern the daily lives of all of us in Wellington, policies like mandatory junior kindergarten being forced on us in 1994-95.

I am totally opposed to mandatory junior kindergarten for Wellington county because I'm convinced that the vast majority of people in Wellington believe we don't want it, can't afford it and don't need it. I believe it should be an optional program which communities and local boards can decide upon for themselves to see if it's necessary for their own needs and their own people.

I'm absolutely convinced of this based on what I've heard since I campaigned against the Liberal mandatory junior kindergarten plan in 1990 and since our New Directions policy paper on education, which was released in 1992, in which we called upon the government to make junior kindergarten a local option. Based on what I've heard since I asked constituents in a questionnaire which I send to every household in Wellington last spring, a full 80% of more than 1,000 responses I've received to date said they were against mandatory junior kindergarten.

Since, in response to a constituent's request recently, I launched a petition about two months ago, which hundreds have signed from Wellington and beyond, calling upon the government to cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards.

Since I've introduced this for debate in the Legislature, I have received much support for this resolution. I've received support from the Wellington county council unanimously. I've received support from the town of Fergus council, unanimously; the town of Mount Forest council; the village of Arthur council; the township of Arthur council; the township of West Garafraxa council; the Wellington County Board of Education, our public board, several of whose members, trustees, are with us in the gallery today to listen to this debate.

I've also received support from the Wellington county separate school board and many ordinary people, parents, who've written to me in the past few weeks expressing support for this resolution, people like Bob and Loretta Bray of RR 3, Listowel, who have written to me, and I'd like to read this letter into the record.

"Mr Arnott:

"We are in total agreement and support your position concerning the forced implementation of junior kindergarten by the Ontario government.

"We feel very strongly that junior kindergarten is not required and should not be implemented. We do not see any benefit to the children and have seen many disadvantages to the implementation of junior kindergarten in the Perth county separate school system.

"In our opinion, junior kindergarten is a very expensive substitute to day care -- and not everyone needs to send their children out to day care. Therefore, those who do not have the need for day care should not have to pay for other parents to send their children.

"This letter is a written endorsement of your resolution which will request the Ontario government to refrain from forcing the implementation of junior kindergarten into our Ontario schools."

I've received a number of letters of this nature. I wanted to read this one into the record.

When we get into the issue of cost, we have a number of estimates that are coming out of Wellington county as to what this will cost local taxpayers and beyond, all of us as taxpayers in Ontario.

A consistent estimate is approximately $4.5 million for our local school board annually in terms of operating cost, and it's my understanding from meeting with some of our board trustees this morning that a new, more recent plan, which follows the one that was rejected by the New Democrats recently, indicates that it will cost in total to initiate junior kindergarten for the next three years about $7.7 million. That will be the total cost.

That means higher local taxes or less government programs, less school board programs, many of which are very important to parents and the students who are in the system: programs like core French, programs like teachers' aides for children who are integrated into regular classrooms but who have disabilities and special needs.

We have something like 190 portables in our Wellington county public system, and so we see the need for new capital money being made available which would be appropriate for new classrooms for all the students, yet we find this is the government's priority.

We see this idea coming forward in a time of a very difficult financial situation in terms of the province of Ontario. When the New Democrats came to office, as we know, the provincial debt was approximately $40 billion. In four years they've doubled that to approximately $80 billion.

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: Yes, here we go again. I'm going to continue raising it because you know and I know that this is additional money that the kids we're talking about in the context of this debate will be forced to pay the interest on and pay the principal at some point to retire that debt. It demonstrates the absolute irresponsibility of this government in a financial sense.

We've seen the context of this year's deficit numbers: $10 billion to $12 billion, the government's not sure. Yet they walk around in a daze saying: "We don't know where to cut. We don't know what we're going to do." Here's an example of a program that should be made optional.

I'd like to conclude my initial remarks by indicating that I have received the support also of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association for this resolution and they have said, "The forced implementation of junior kindergarten, like any new program, is a drain on school boards' resources."

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to be able to rise on this issue of junior kindergarten, its implementation and Wellington county.

The government's policy, as with the previous government, has always been to provide four-year-old children with the opportunity to benefit from a junior kindergarten program. It has always been the case that participation in junior kindergarten and kindergarten is the choice of the parent. A child is not required to attend school until they're six years old in Ontario; that's the legal age for attending school. So this is a choice that parents will make.

Parents who choose not to enrol their children in junior kindergarten have done so in many areas because the program is not being offered. So there's a bit of a discriminatory barrier in certain areas. It's clear that many parents want their children to have the opportunity to enrich their learning, and let us remember that children of kindergarten age are natural, eager and enthusiastic learners and the junior kindergarten program will enhance this.

The policy requiring all boards to offer junior kindergarten was first announced, as was mentioned by my colleague from Wellington, in the 1989 throne speech. In that throne speech they said, "The early childhood years are the most important years for acquiring basic learning and social skills." When we talk about the benefits to children, I think there are many to be learned.

In fact, the Wellington county school board research on multi-age groupings, which is the program it wishes to implement over the next three years, states:

"Multi-age grouping is an organizational strategy that combines two or more grades into one classroom. Multi-age groupings foster the feeling of family and community within the class. Children increase their awareness of others and gain appreciation and acceptance of differences which results in reduced competition and high levels of cooperation.

"Specific benefits to younger children: In the early years, language development is critical. Multi-age groupings show a natural acceleration in language development. Older students provide models of language, behaviour and problem-solving and are a support to the learning of younger children." Children helping children.

The Ministry of Education and Training has conducted extensive consultations on kindergarten and junior kindergarten programs, and when Bill 4 received royal assent on July 29, 1993, it required the establishment of junior kindergarten programs by September 1994. But the government has listened to some of the concerns of school boards, and the school boards that do not currently have junior kindergarten can apply for an exemption, and that's what the Wellington county board has done, applied for an exemption so that it could have a phased-in program from this year until 1997.

It must be emphasized that approximately four out of five boards will offer a full junior kindergarten program in September 1994, and many of these boards of course offered junior kindergarten years before they were required to do so. In fact, only 22 boards in Ontario are in the position of having to request for an exemption.

The Ministry of Education and Training has worked, where requested, closely with the boards to develop this implementation plan. As far as the Wellington county board is concerned, it has demonstrated a commitment to implementing junior kindergarten by 1997.

If we look at some of the projections from the Wellington County Board of Education, projections over the next three years about enrolment in junior kindergarten -- and these are from Alma, Eramosa Public School, JD Hogarth school, John Black school, all within Wellington county, all within your riding, Aberfoyle, Brisbane, Drayton Jr -- we're looking, in the first year, 1995, at an estimated enrolment of 402 students.

In 1996, the second year of the phase-in, we're looking at an estimated enrolment of 551 additional students, and in 1997, when implementation is completed by the board, we're looking at another addition of 592 students. This brings a total of 1,545 students. Obviously, they weren't included in the survey that the member took. The parents wish their children to receive the benefits that junior kindergarten can accomplish for their children.

In judging the process, the bottom line is that within three years every child in Ontario will, where his or parents wish, be able to attend junior kindergarten. It's an accomplishment that I'm proud of, and I think it will benefit the children of Ontario and it will contribute to the betterment and the social wellbeing of our province.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): It's a pleasure to rise in the debate that our friend and colleague has put forward today on the question of junior kindergarten. I want, at the outset, to say that I have a great deal of respect for the member and I understand the concerns he has expressed previously on this issue. I would simply note as well that we may also, as we craft resolutions, perhaps be getting into that season that we sense is pre-electoral, so the references to other parties and other policies sometimes get brought in in a way.

I want to talk a little bit about what I think was the policy that we put forward where it differs from the present government, but that the place where I think we share the concern that the honourable member has put forward is in the verb "forcing." We had quite a debate on that aspect of junior kindergarten when we were dealing with Bill 4 last spring in the Legislature.

But before doing that, let me just go back with a bit of history here. Over the course of the last decade, and indeed longer than that, since the early 1980s, there has been increasingly, I think, work done which has suggested that providing an educational program in the years prior to grade 1 can be very helpful, can be advantageous to young people.

Indeed the Progressive Conservative government, prior to 1985, had launched a number of projects such as To Herald A Child and the early primary education project, both of which dealt with this issue and were suggesting that we need to look at how we can provide a broader range of senior and junior kindergarten programs. Again, in reports that were done when we became the government after 1985 from the project that looked at what would help kids to really have equal opportunity, there were many areas where being able to get into school earlier would help.

I can recall, when I was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, going to one area of the province where the socioeconomic level in this particular area was low; many problems in that community. One of the things the school board felt was that if kids could come in for half a day of junior kindergarten, that would open them up to learning and begin to give them a base that would be different from other kids in whose homes perhaps there was more attention being paid to those early years of learning.

The key here is how we go about doing that and to what extent the province, any provincial government, says, "Thou shalt; thou must do that now because we want this to be right across the province in every board."

It's fair to say that in the throne speech of 1989, it was certainly the intention of the previous government that junior kindergarten be implemented across the province.

But it's important to recall that in the legislation, the way it was referred to was that the board "may" provide the program, and it was only with Bill 4 that it was changed to "shall." At that time we argued that, particularly in the present economic climate and given the fact that the vast majority of boards were in fact offering junior kindergarten, it would be best to leave it as "may," that there were some real problems that some of the larger boards had around how they were going to implement it.

So we voted against Bill 4, not because we were opposed to junior kindergarten but we were opposed to that method of ensuring that it was done.

I think there could be an approach by the government which, through discussion and through financial support, was bringing most of the boards on side and having these programs developed. The issue here, if there is one, is really just the method, the way in which the present government is going about it.

I want to go back to the throne speech of 1989. Some excerpts have been read from it, but let's put this on the record again. In that throne speech on Tuesday, April 25, 1989:

"In this session, my government" -- the then Liberal government -- "will address the following priorities." The second one was, "Investing in the future of our children by making our education system a more effective springboard to opportunity."

It was the clear sense that junior kindergarten, a better program at that level, would provide opportunity. It was not intended to be simply a babysitting exercise. It was intended to really be encouraging the development of learning among younger people.

Further in the body of the throne speech, as the Lieutenant Governor read it, it said: "Our elementary schools must assist our children to develop basic learning and social skills in their early years. They must build on that foundation by setting high standards for achievement in subsequent years....

"My government is determined to improve the quality of education for our children. New initiatives will refocus our education system from kindergarten to the end of secondary school....

"The early childhood years are the most important years for acquiring basic learning and social skills. The quality of education that our children receive in these critical foundation years will largely determine their ability to succeed at school and in later years.

"My government believes that children have the capacity to benefit from education at an earlier age. Our education system must build on their natural curiosity and their capacity for early learning.

"My government's long-term vision is to make the opportunity for full-day junior and senior kindergarten available to all four- and five-year-olds.

"As a first step, my government will:

" -- Ensure that all school boards offer half-day junior kindergarten for four-year-olds as well as half-day senior kindergarten for five-year-olds.

" -- Provide funding for school boards to offer full-day senior kindergarten programs, where classroom space permits.

"These two initiatives will, over the next five years, provide parents with an opportunity to place their children in a stimulating learning environment at an early age."

I don't think there is anything there that I would disagree with. What we have recognized in the ensuing years is just that there are some financial difficulties the government has not been able -- and it's probably fair to say no government, given the economic recession we've been in, has been able to provide the kind of funding we were looking at in those earlier years. Hence the need for a more flexible approach.

The government, as has been noted, in the debate over Bill 4 did say, "Originally we wanted this program in place as of September 1, 1994, so we're going to have a period from 1994 to 1997 where it can be brought in and where school boards can come and say, 'We would like an exemption until September 1, 1997.'"

There's no question, though, when you talk with the representatives from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and from the 20 or so school boards that have been wrestling with how to do this, that they find, with the social contract and expenditure controls, that in terms of priorities they may feel, "Yes, junior kindergarten is something we would like to do, but on a phasing basis, there are other things that at this juncture we believe are more important."

As we go along in this place and as we mandate a variety of programs, I think we really need to step back and try to determine, where do we allow the school board to make some of those decisions? If I were a parent in Wellington county, as I am in York region, which has been having a similar sort of question -- I favour junior kindergarten. I think it can do a lot of good things. But I also recognize, when I talk to my school board representatives, that they're saying: "These are the priorities we have.

Yes, that one is important, but we would like to bring it in in a way that we think is more acceptable to the community." We too often have a tendency here at Queen's Park to say, "That's all very interesting, but we're telling you that you're going to do it, and you're going to do it within a set period of time."

That is what is at issue here. When I look at the critical verb in Mr Arnott's resolution, it is that "the government of Ontario should refrain from continuing" and then "forcing all school boards." What has to happen here is to allow the residents of those school areas to determine how quickly they want that program to come into place.

My sense is that if that were an issue, and it may well be an issue in some of these areas in the school board elections later this fall, I think one would be surprised to see that there's much more support for moving to a junior kindergarten program than perhaps some critics feel there is. But by the same token, the wise course -- and the course we discussed during the debate over Bill 4 was that this was not the time to be moving the obligation on the board from "may provide the program" to "shall." The debate is not essentially around the value of that program.

I recognize that there are those who feel strongly that there should not be a junior kindergarten, that there is a feeling that the children are too young. As was pointed out, as parents you don't have to send your child to that program. The Education Act makes it clear that education is mandatory from the age of 6. For those who don't want it, they simply don't have to participate. Granted, they are paying taxes and they have concerns about that, but there are all kinds of activities that boards do, that municipalities do and that provincial governments do that people are not necessarily in agreement with. But that's democracy; that's how it gets worked out.

But if the government had continued with the approach that had been in place, where as funds became available -- where the province was saying, "We believe you should do this program," there's an obligation on the province to ensure that those dollars are there, and where a school board has a different set of priorities, that school board should be able to determine those priorities. That's one of the big lessons from the recession: that we can't simply be mandating programs that then have to be paid for out of the funds of the local board if we're not prepared in a more effective way to fund it.

With the boards that are remaining, I understand from talking to officials in the Ministry of Education and Training that they believe a lot of progress has been made. A number of boards have different kinds of proposals. I know Grey county is one that came and said, "Could we do some different things in working together with a number of child care and day care operations in providing this program?" To the ministry's credit, it has been sitting down and working with the board on that. Other areas? I know Peel has been looking at some optional ways of providing the program, where it's not necessarily in the school but making use of a variety of child care programs that are in the community.

When we're dealing with these early childhood years, we want to be able to look at a number of options, because young people at the age of four have different capacities for learning and also different capacities just in terms of what they can take in a more structured setting or in terms of how far they may have to travel. What we've seen in many places is that a number of the rural areas have real concerns about how this program would work, and "Leave it to us to determine what the best way is to bring that in."

It comes back to this question of forcing boards to do it by a set time as opposed to allowing the people in that area to set out exactly what the priority is.

I continue to believe, as I look at the program around the province, that it will of itself become something people want to do, because as families look at how it's done in other areas, they see ways in which it can be done so that distance is not necessarily a problem and that there's a flexibility in the kind of programs that are set up, that this is a good thing and that it really can, as the throne speech said back in 1989, help to increase the opportunity of young people for learning and can mean that when they get into grade 1 they will be on a much more level playing field as they go forward with their education.

But in this case, as with a number, the much better approach is to do it in a permissive vein, to work with the boards without a club. The best thing would have been to have left the legislation to continue to be "may" and not "shall." I still think that's the best way to go and I still think that by the end of this decade, if we were to approach it that way, we would probably see junior kindergarten throughout the province.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It gives me great pleasure to be here today to support my colleague Mr Arnott's resolution with regard to junior kindergarten programs in this province.

I was interested to hear the member for York-Mackenzie speak, and interested also to see that he was the only person who spoke on behalf of the Liberals, because this happens to be one of the biggest issues in the minds of parents right across this province, riding by riding, and certainly is on the minds of all school boards.

He stated that in 1989 the Liberal government of the day wanted to provide an opportunity to young people for learning. I think two major mistakes were made at that time. First of all, there was not public consultation as to how best to do it. The Premier of the day, in the throne speech, made certain that half-day junior and half-day senior kindergartens were promised. In my view, and in the view of many educators and early childhood specialists, they would not say that the school system is the best place to provide learning opportunities for young people right across this province. There are other opportunities, in child care centres and early child centres, and there are many --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Do you support universal child care?

Mrs Cunningham: I do not support universal child care. I support a learning program for young children, but not universal child care in the context in which the member for Oxford has raised it. I should tell you right now that this province is crying out for public discussion around early intervention and early learning for young children, ages two to six, probably.

We need it badly. We're discussing it right now in the standing committee on public accounts and we're discussing the efficiency of it. The auditor has made the comment that we are not efficient in our junior kindergarten program in terms of the outcome for early childhood education. We have to look at it in a very different way.

Although the Liberals got this ball rolling, without the public consultation necessary -- and this NDP government has not consulted on this issue. As a matter of fact, they referred to the issue of junior kindergarten in Bill 4 as "housekeeping." There was no opportunity for public discussion in Bill 4 on

section 170 of the act,

section 28. I can only say that the concern was raised by school boards and parents across the province at that time. We had very little time for public deliberation, and this issue, because of its importance to society today, is worthy of public discussion.

The Progressive Conservative caucus does not support the mandating of programs, any programs, without sufficient funds allocated to these programs. The member for York-Mackenzie said two things. He said they promised that these programs would be in place with funding. They have never been in place with funding. If they are in place with funding -- I stand to be corrected -- the school boards are saying they can't afford it.

Life is priorities, and education is priorities, and if you have to choose them, I would say we have local boards and it's up to them to set their priorities and what they can afford to do. Many of them are well educated and know a better way of providing these kinds of programs. I think we should be listening to them.

I should also say that in January 1994, when the memo was sent out to the school boards stating that "school boards must forward their requests for exemption, together with their plans for the phased-in implementation of junior kindergarten to regional office by April 15, 1994," that related back to the legislation of junior kindergarten. My colleague used the word "forces." It's now forcing by legislation, never before in this province. It was a policy of the Liberal government, but not legislated. Now we have legislation, so the boards are really concerned about what they're going to do.

We know there are 22 school boards that do not have junior kindergarten right now, and as of Tuesday, April 12, three of the 22 boards had not submitted their plans. Those three are submitting their plans to their own boards this week.

All I can say right now is that this is a topic worthy of serious public discussion, and I think those recommendations will be forthcoming from the public accounts committee. There are more efficient ways of providing early childhood learning programs to any child who needs it in his or her own community. Now, as we see the deplorable action that boards are forced into, forcing three-year-olds to go to school all day every second day -- that's not appropriate early childhood learning, and that's the decision that rural boards and boards within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto have been forced into. It's deplorable.

We never looked at how; we never looked at why. All we looked at was a philosophy, and we didn't seriously think about how children could best be served.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): In considering this issue, members should never lose sight of the fact that most school boards and a majority of parents have already made a decision for junior kindergarten. Kindergarten, JK and K programs, is widely available in Ontario, and in a sense the vote is already in. Both parents and boards have voted in favour of junior kindergarten by participating in the program.

Just yesterday or the day before, my board put out a press release indicating that it has 169 young people, four years old, registered for the JK program and 273 junior kindergarten students for the upcoming school year.

The early years are crucial because it is in junior kindergarten and kindergarten that the foundations are built for a lifetime of learning. Numerous studies have shown the value of an early beginning in quality programs. I mention Lazar, Hubbell, Murray, Rosche and Royce in 1977, Schweinhart and Weikart in 1980, Lazar and Darlington in 1982, Wright in 1983. Junior kindergarten and kindergarten are the years when young children can develop strong foundations in social, physical, language and thinking skills. Through their interaction with other children and adults they can also develop attitudes that enable them to approach later, more formal schooling with confidence.

Junior kindergarten helps parents also in the important task of providing children with a stimulating environment that encourages discovery and growth. Music and art programs, sand and water tables, exposure to good books and stories -- these are some of the features of junior kindergarten programs that build on and enhance the work of parents.

As a parent I used to, with my own children when they were that age, go to the library once a week and bring home 20 books and we read those 20 books, and then we'd go back to the library and we'd bring home another 20. It got so that my three-year-old, my daughter, could memorize and read with me the Madeleine books because she had heard them so often and they were her favourites.

But there are additional programs and additional things that are available for them in a junior kindergarten program. That wasn't available for me at the time. My children were ready for junior kindergarten and it wasn't there. I wish that option had been there for me and for the children. I ended up putting my children into a nursery school, because they needed something more than I could give them at home.

But dramatic changes in society are transforming the world of our children. The media, and particularly television, are changing their attitudes and the way children learn.

Also, because of increasing diversity in family structures and support systems, children no longer enter school with a common set of experiences. In the past most children came to junior kindergarten and kindergarten from the home, and these programs functioned as an introduction to formal schooling and a bridge between the home and school environments. Today junior kindergarten and kindergarten link schools to a variety of support structures that may include child care, nursery schools, before- and after-school programs and informal arrangements for care.

Children also come to early years programs from a variety of linguistic, cultural, ethnic and racial backgrounds. This diversity enriches the school environment for all children and provides opportunities for them to be exposed to new ideas, cultures and languages.

Increasingly, the days and learning experiences of young children are becoming fragmented. Their lives may be disrupted by moving or changes in family and support structures. It's believed that greater continuity and stability in education in the early years will help children achieve success in the primary grades and beyond.

Continuity and stability may be particularly important for children from low-income communities. For these children, it has been shown that two years in preschool, starting at age three, are more effective than only one year in improving social, intellectual and cognitive development. That was in the Wright study of 1983.

While many children come to school from stable, nurturing environments, some children come to school frightened, hungry or neglected and unable to learn. Many children live in poverty. Many witness spouse, child and substance abuse as well as racial, social and gender inequities. Many also experience tremendous instability in their lives. Their family structures and home environments change frequently and unexpectedly as the result of unemployment, increasing mobility or family breakdowns. Educators can assist these children by finding ways to provide stable environments and provide positive role models in school.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Schools will fix all our social problems.

Mrs Haslam: No, they won't fix all of their social programs. But I want to reiterate that this is not a mandatory program that mothers must send their children to. It is an option, and there will be people who don't want to take up that option.

Mr Jackson: Why? They're paying for it in their taxes. Why wouldn't they?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mrs Haslam: When Dianne talks about rural school boards, that's one of the areas where many people are going to be concerned because of transportation issues and young children. But it is an option, and just because there are some people who say, "We don't want it," they shouldn't say to others, "You can't have it." Providing equitable access to junior kindergarten throughout the province is a worthwhile and a valuable goal and one which I am proud to support.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It's a pleasure to be able to speak in support of my colleague the honourable member for Wellington's resolution. I would just like to state that we have two objections. And an objection to junior kindergarten is not to junior kindergarten as a concept; it's to the mandated forcing of junior kindergarten upon all of Ontario as if the needs of Metro and urban areas are the same as of rural Ontario.

I represent two school boards. In Victoria county, they've chosen to have junior kindergarten. In Haliburton county, it doesn't make common sense to have junior kindergarten.

I think there's a consensus in this House that we all recognize: that the ages of zero to five are very formative and that's the basis on which children grow up and that forms their socialization and their education skills. We all share that belief. Where the problem exists is thinking that from Queen's Park we can mandate what's best for rural areas like the county of Haliburton.

The two areas of concern are with regard to the costs of implementing the program, and there are a number of costs. Our grants have been depleted or decreased in the last number of years. The burden on our tax base has grown, and the majority of our tax base is comprised of residential dwellings. We do not have the industrial and commercial base that you have in urban centres, and it's putting a great deal of pressure upon the households in our county.

There are number of costs from the supplies younger children need: the space that's required, additions to schools, teachers, who need training, their curriculum needs to be developed, and transportation costs.

In our county, under the proposed -- because it's forced, they were against it, but they were forced to submit a staged process -- junior kindergarten will be delivered every other day. Now, the school buses in our area take up to an hour in some cases. There is a tremendous cost if we were to have half-day programs. You can't afford to double-bus the whole county, so the option is every other day, with up to an hour.

Now, it's up to the parents' option whether they go, but as it's been pointed out, they're paying for it in their taxes, and there's also a financial incentive that's forcing working parents with low incomes to go to what's the most affordable. So it's really a misnomer in rural Ontario, in places where working people aren't making very much to start with, to then say: "Well, you have an option. You can pay out of your paycheque and have child care services, or you can get it free and have your child travel on a bus for half an hour." That's some choice.

I also have concerns about the way the program's been implemented. As I mentioned, there's stress on young children travelling great distances on school buses. We've all acknowledged that three-and-a-half-year-olds to five-year-olds are at an age where they learn and they develop their social skills for life. I have a boy who's four and another who's six, and when they're on the school bus, there are a lot of high school kids who will be able to teach them quite a bit, and they'll pick it up.

There's also the potential -- and this is the real problem that I see. The smokescreen is that it's for the child and to have everybody have an opportunity to have junior kindergarten for the child's interests. But there have been no criteria established for the ratio of teachers to children.

In the early childhood education program, it's one qualified teacher who's trained in the needs and assessing what that child needs, because they all learn at different rates. Under this program, there are no criteria. It's one school teacher to maybe 20. I read that in Durham it's going to be one to 27. This is in the classroom.

There are also standards in the play yard. Under the ECE program -- and the government regulates it and they're licensed -- it has to be one to eight. If you're smaller than that, it's one to five, and that goes inside and outside. I see no criteria from the government on how it wants this developed in the school system.

I just want to conclude that this will have implications for the future. Implementing junior K as a mandated program that meets the needs right across Ontario, without regard to local autonomy and local school boards, is not as simple as this government would have us believe, especially in a riding like Victoria-Haliburton, where great distances and time will undoubtedly have serious repercussions. With that, I'd like to conclude.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): It is my pleasure to join in the debate this morning on the resolution that was introduced by the member for Wellington.

I'm actually a little bit shocked by his resolution, because I'd just like to remind him that it was the Tory government which had a report called Report of the Early Primary Education Project. The report was released in 1985, and it was released by a Tory government. I think I would really strongly encourage all the Tory members to read the report and the recommendation that came from that report, which was the implementation of junior kindergarten as an investment for children because it will save costs for social assistance and it will also save costs in terms of providing remedial programs.

I would remind the member for Wellington to read that carefully, because it is your responsibility to provide education for the constituents.

I think one thing that is important to remember is that children need to have those early education opportunities for themselves because they need to be able to develop their critical thinking skills, their problem-solving skills, their literacy, not only in the spoken word but in the written word. They need to have that opportunity for the incidental learning. It also provides children the opportunity to develop emotionally and socially, and most importantly, we want to provide them with a violence-free environment.

I think that junior kindergarten is an excellent opportunity. I think the bottom line is that the child needs to be able to build and develop a strong foundation so that they can have a good language base and have good social and emotional development, and this can be done with a wonderful environment. I think it's something you need to know.

Early childhood, the ages from zero to five, is the most critical time of learning. That is the time where we learn the most in comparison to our later years in life. I'm talking about the Report of the Early Primary Education Project that was released, again, as I said, by the Tory government, and it is an important investment in children that they are provided with the best educational opportunities possible.

You know that technology is changing and the world is changing, and our children need to be ready. They need to be given the opportunity to accept those changes. I think really our point is that our government is being accountable.

We want to make sure that parents have a right to an access for early education for their children so that they can get into the educational system. There are many parents who are frustrated because they do not have that program now, and this is why we are here. I think we are very proud to force the school boards to implement this so that there is the availability.

I think you don't want to misunderstand us when I use that word "force." We're not forcing parents to send their children to school. What we are doing is having the school boards provide the program and then parents have an opportunity to send.

Mr Jackson: You are right. You are just forcing them to pay the taxes.

Mr Malkowski: Really it is -- you're saying that if it doesn't happen, you are forcing them to pay more for social assistance and remedial programs, and that's a problem. I think it shows where your accountability or lack of it is. I would challenge the Tory members to read the report on the early primary education project and it talks about being helpful. I think it would be helpful for the Tory members to understand, and I think we are very proud, in East York specifically, that the board of education has an excellent junior kindergarten program.

I'd just like to thank all the members.

Mr Jackson: I'm very pleased to participate in this debate because I believe that my colleague's resolution is very timely and very appropriate. I think it's timely because this government is imposing a deadline tomorrow that all those 22 boards that don't have junior kindergarten have their plans filed or, as the Minister of Education has indicated, there will be financial penalties imposed on school boards that fail to comply. When the member for York East uses the word "force," he really meant the word "force." That's the style of this government.

The reason that junior kindergarten is successful in some jurisdictions in this province is because it has done that based on the academic leadership in some of those boards, in spite of the government not having a management plan. There's no leadership from the Minister of Education or the Minister of Community and Social Services on how to implement junior kindergarten or any early childhood programs in this province.

The proof in the pudding is, there's no funding. Let's call this what it is. This is a grand plan on the part of the Liberals to offload child care onto the local taxpayer, pure and simple.

In my municipality of Halton region, 80% of the four-year-olds in our jurisdiction are in some form of program today, but people are paying. They're paying on the basis of their ability to pay. People who can't pay and are on social assistance are getting a subsidy because they need to have access to that day care or an intervention program for their child.

That's typical of the Liberals to think that we can con the public into offloading day care for four-year-olds, where the province pays 75% of the cost, onto a municipality like Metro Toronto, where it pays 100% of the cost of educating a child.

In my region, it's the exact opposite: 75% is paid by the local taxpayer. That's what this is all about: a sleight of hand as to who provides services for these children. Because there's no management plan in place, typical of the NDP and the Liberals, because there's no funding in place, we're going to have problems with this junior kindergarten program.

I'll give you a couple of examples. One of the most important elements -- and I'm glad the member for York East is with us in the House to hear this and to read this debate, and I'll tell you why -- is that in my community of Halton, children getting ready to go into school, and there are a good number of them, need speech and language pathology services.

I heard one of the NDP members tell us about how her three-year-old was reading at a grade one level. We're happy for her child. But what about those children with cognitive deficiencies, those children with handicaps, those children who can't speak the language? Why is it that your government has no program in place to assist preschool children with these language and cognitive skill needs, to strengthen them? A good system would take those children who need help and help them directly, but the Liberals and the NDP have got a system to pick up everybody, whether they need it or not.

In Halton region recently Joseph Brant hospital cancelled its preschool speech-language pathology program. We had 120 children on that program and 90 on a waiting list. These are two-, three- and four-year-old children. I want the members of the government to hear this. When the Ministry of Health cancelled its pre-school speech-language pathology program, they went running to the school board.

They said, "We're not getting funded; we're not helping those children." They went running to Comsoc and they said, "We're not providing that support and funding for those children." Those 90 children today still in that program are paying $80 an hour to the woman who was laid off at Joseph Brant hospital, who walked down the street and opened up her own private clinic. That is the legacy of your government. I ask the member for York East to look into the case of hundreds and thousands of children across Ontario who are now into a user fee system just so they can speak their own language in this province.

Yet you feel that we need junior kindergarten imposed at all levels.

I wish we had more time for this debate because there are a lot of issues here to be raised. I want to commend my colleague who has indicated that what the Conservatives believe in for early childhood education in this province is, first of all, true parental choice and that there should be some financial testing, so that those families in absolute need get the support for their child, but not a universally funded day care system in our schools, which is what this government is proposing. You know it's going to fail, because it doesn't have the support of the people and it isn't properly identified as academically helpful.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This completes debate. The honourable member for Wellington has two minutes in response.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the members who have spoken to this resolution: the member for Guelph -- I want even to thank him -- the member for York-Mackenzie, the member for London North, the member for Perth, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, the member for York East and the member for Burlington South.

I am quite disappointed with some of the comments that I've heard this morning. It appears that the New Democrats will not support this resolution and there appear to be enough of them in the chamber perhaps to defeat it. It appears the Liberals have indicated some measure of support.

I appreciate the sincere presentation of the member for York-Mackenzie on behalf of the Liberal Party. I think he demonstrated that there has been some movement on the Liberal Party's part to recognize that the initial policy in 1989 of -- you could call it "requiring," but to me "requiring" and "forcing" are synonymous in the case of provincial government downloading something on local government, forcing school boards to adopt junior kindergarten programs.

It appears now that the Liberal Party's position is moderated somewhat, that it would like to work with school boards in a cooperative way, so I think we've made some progress in that respect. But many of the questions that I asked in the context of my initial presentation have not been answered by the government side.

On the question of cost, the estimate we have seen, if as I believe 40,000 kids are in junior kindergarten in the next three years, will be something like $80 million. Again, we can talk about costs of programs but we must talk about them in the context of the financial situation that the Ontario people find themselves in today and the government increasing the debt, doubling the debt in its four years in office.

It took 120 years to accumulate a debt of $40 billion in this province, and in four short years of this irresponsible, profligate NDP government, they have doubled that debt. We know that this debt will eventually hold our children back in the future and we must speak against it.

I encourage all members of the Legislature to support this resolution.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (BLOOD-ALCOHOL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PRÉSENCE D'ALCOOL DANS LE SANG)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 47. Are there any members who object to a vote? If so, please rise.

Seeing none, we now are dealing with Mr Offer's motion, ballot item number 47. 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.

Shall the bill be ordered for committee of the whole House?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Can we put that into the justice committee?

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a majority for the justice committee?

All those in favour of going to the justice committee, please rise.

All those opposed for this motion to go to the justice committee, please rise.

The majority is not in favour. Therefore, the bill will go to committee of the whole.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 48 standing in the name of Mr Arnott. Are there any members opposed to a vote on this motion? If so, please rise.

All those in favour of Mr Arnott's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Acting Speaker: Could all members please take their seats.

We are now dealing with ballot item number 48, private member's notice of motion number 36, standing in the name of Mr Arnott.

All those in favour of Mr Arnott's resolution, please rise and remain standing until named by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Crozier, Cunningham, Harnick, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, McLean, Miclash, Murphy, Offer, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Tilson, Turnbull, Waters, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Arnott's resolution, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Perruzza, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 24; the nays are 30.

I declare the resolution lost.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PAUL WATSON

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I rise and take this moment to congratulate Paul Watson of the Toronto Star as Canada's first Pulitzer Prize winner for his photograph of a dead American soldier being dragged by a mob through the streets of Mogadishu in Somalia. It is this photograph which prompted the United States Congress to reshape its policy in Somalia.

Pictures such as this push people into thinking about and discussing what is going on in other places. I do not believe that photos such as this are a mechanism to sell newspapers but rather to graphically explore the realities of war and its horrific cost. Photographs such as this do not and are not meant to sensationalize an event but rather to portray as best as can be done the truth of those events.

I wish to congratulate Mr Watson specifically, but also recognize that he is representative of many journalists who risk their lives day to day to bring the facts from far-off places to our attention. We must remember, as we celebrate Mr Watson's well-deserved award, that others not only risked their lives but lost them in their pursuit of unfolding events.

I congratulate Mr Watson on his award, and congratulations to all other media who bring us news from places far removed from where we happen to be.

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): This statement is addressed to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and also the Minister of Labour.

In eastern Ontario, the St Lawrence parks provide what is possibly the most important focus for tourism in the region, apart from the National Capital Commission. They are also an important source of local jobs. Ever since the former Liberal government announced the closure of two campgrounds and three parks in 1990 and the current government restraints added a further two parks in 1993, there have been efforts to reopen the parks through long-term leases.

These efforts have been only partially successful, with the result that we still have parks whose only purpose in recent years has been to grow weeds and grass. To the NDP, this appears to be a preferable alternative to job creation.

The main reason these parks are growing weeds is not the lack of individuals wanting to operate them. The main reason is the lack of progress from the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Labour. In order for these parks to be economically viable, they must be exempt from the existing collective agreement of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act and now Bill 40 require existing collective agreements to stay in effect when a new employer takes over the operation of one of these parks. The Minister of Labour can take that exemption away.

The excuse used by both Liberal and NDP governments to close these parks was that they were too expensive to operate. Potential private operators know very well that's true, and they can do a very good job. I hope the government addresses this before the summer.

ASSISTANCE TO NATIVE FARMERS

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Earlier this week I accompanied the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Honourable Elmer Buchanan, and the parliamentary assistant for the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, David Winninger, to the first nations community of ON_ YO TE'A:KA in Middlesex.

For over 30 years, the ON_ YO TE'A:KA settlement and local municipal governments have tried to work with federal and provincial governments to resolve drainage problems in communities around the reserve and flooding problems on reserve lands. Until recently, these efforts have not been successful.

Early in our government's mandate, I met, as did Mr Winninger and Minister Buchanan, with the members of the native and non-native communities. The results of those efforts were realized last Monday. The Minister of Agriculture signed a memorandum of understanding with Chief Al Day, chairperson of the Southern First Nations, that provides provincial funding of $54,250 to conduct a study that will identify procedural mechanisms and funding arrangements that may allow outlet drains to be constructed on first nation territories and the identification of environmental concerns in preparation for a watershed approach to drainage planning.

The minister also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Indian agricultural program of Ontario representative, Mr William Brant. This agreement provides $120,000 to ensure aboriginal farmers will receive loans for tile drainage under the same terms as other farmers in this province.

I would sincerely like to thank the minister, the first nations and David Winninger for their diligent efforts to make this important initiative work.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I am rising to comment in essence on a television news clip I saw last night about some black and Asian students who were essentially concerned about how the issue of crime can become focused on a particular group.

I think it's important for us in this assembly to recognize that while we should be concerned about crime, victims and, unfortunately, perpetrators of criminal activities come from all backgrounds, and that while we, as legislators, have a responsibility to reflect the public mood, we have a responsibility to lead as well and to be maybe slightly different than the public mood. I think of Edmund Burke's famous speech to the electors of Bristol in that regard.

I think how difficult it must have been to be a black youth in the last few days as people have looked askance because of the Just Desserts situation, and how difficult it must be, for example, for black youth in my riding and I'm sure all across the city.

As we strive in this House to fight crime and make the city a better place to live, and the province, we also have to make extra efforts, it seems to me, to ensure that we do not, as legislators or as the media covering this, allow that fight against crime to become an attack on any group, but instead be focused on a way to make our neighbourhoods safe and secure for all of us.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My constituents in the riding of York Mills are concerned that they are paying punitive property taxes and demand that the whole question of inequity in property taxes be addressed.

We need major property tax reform in Ontario. You have done nothing to address this issue since you were elected. The report of the Fair Tax Commission, an $8.6-million report on this question, is gathering dust. I do not subscribe to all of its recommendations, but it does underscore the need for major reform in this area.

Rental apartment buildings continue to be taxed at a higher rate than homes and other buildings like co-ops and condominiums. The president of the Federation of North York Tenants Associations, Bob Gosschalk, has said "that residential tenants are being discriminated against in a brutal way." He is absolutely correct.

In addition, many owners of new infill single-family homes feel that they too are discriminated against by the existing assessment process which attempts to assign 1940's values to new homes.

Small tenants in shopping malls are in danger of bankruptcy, unless changes are made immediately, due to some recent precedent-setting appeals.

Premier, the Assessment Act needs to be completely overhauled. The tax burden must be distributed on a more fair and equitable basis. This is an issue of grave concern to property owners and tenants alike. It's time for real property tax reform.

CITIZEN OF THE YEAR

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Next week the town of Dundas will be honouring its 1993 Citizen of the Year. The selection committee has now completed the difficult task of narrowing the long list of nominees to six finalists. They are Dick Beemer, Amar Chahil, John Farnan, Frederic Hopkinson, Colin MacDonald and Ian Stubbs.

The six finalists were all nominated for their tireless dedication and support within the town of Dundas: Mr Beemer for his work with senior citizens; Mr Chahil for his dedicated to the Dundas youth soccer; Mr Farnan for his work with the Dundas Valley School of Art and the local architectural conservation advisory committee; Mr Hopkinson for his long history of involvement with the Air Cadet League of Canada, the Hamilton air show and the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum; Mr Stubbs for his volunteer work with the Dundas Skating Club and other community activities.

Colin MacDonald, who unfortunately was recently killed in an automobile accident, has been nominated for his many years of involvement in environmental issues.

Dundas is truly blessed to have people who are always willing to give so much of their time to their community. They have, in their own way, made Dundas an enjoyable place to live.

Congratulations to all the nominees and finalists, and thank you for your kind and generous support. You are all winners.

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Today I want to rise to revisit an issue about which I have presented a private member's bill to this House; that is, the issue of water extraction, particularly from underground aquifers.

Water is the lifeblood of this country, as it is for all of humankind and all of the animals and the creation that exists around us, and it is astounding that we continue to issue bit by bit water permits that allow individuals to basically extract as much water as the permit will allow without understanding the very serious implications of this piecemeal approval of applications.

I want to call on the Minister of Environment and Energy today to institute a moratorium on the issuance of any new permits and to require a review by the Ministry of Environment and Energy of any transfer of the right to take water under any of the existing permits to take water that have currently been given.

The reason is this: There are day by day new examples of the wholesale movement of water from our province to other areas. Some of them have been tracked, but many of them are misunderstood or not understood at all. It is time that we as legislators took the bull by the horns and actually wrestled this issue to a conclusion that all of our constituents will understand.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Yesterday, in response to the CAVEAT report card on justice reforms, which gave our Premier a failing grade, the Attorney General stated she was moving on several issues on behalf of victims. However, the facts do not support her statements, since the actions of her own ministry officials have slowed down the critical justice reform recommendations before the standing committee on justice.

In June 1991, the Advisory Board on Victims' Issues released its report entitled Victims of Crime in Ontario: A Vision for the 1990's, which contained 13 detailed recommendations for improving services and compensation for crime victims. That report is an indictment of the NDP government's inactivity on victims' rights.

In May 1993, the PC Party under standing order 125 caused the justice committee to consider justice reforms including a bill of rights and a review of criminal injury compensation. Priscilla de Villiers, Debbie Mahaffy and many other victims presented their concerns.

In June of last year, I asked the Attorney General to respond to these recommendations and any implementations to date. To her shame, the committee had to wait seven months for her response, a fact that held up the work of the justice committee.

On October 3, 1992, Attorney General Howard Hampton promised to table legislation for a dedicated fine surcharge fund to help crime victims. Nothing happened.

On June 25, 1993, Marion Boyd pre-empted the work of the standing committee and stated she would bring in that legislation in the fall of 1993. Nothing happened.

Ontario's the last province to create a dedicated fund for the victims' fine surcharge, in spite of the government's repeated promises. This is further evidence of the government's failing grade.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Violence and victims of crime are uppermost in nearly everyone's mind today. This is a complex issue that we on all sides of this House must work together to address. It affects all of us. Just last week, in the city of Niagara Falls, the mother of a murder victim spoke to a group of women. For many years I have been involved with a feminist group in my city that is concerned about the causes of violence against women.

A lot of factors are contributing to this frightening violence that we are experiencing. We must not use any opportunistic political gamesmanship. This issue is far too serious. Our society in Ontario has always been and strives to be a model to the world of how to live together with respect and tolerance. Our society is very precious to us.

There are no easy answers. There are no quick solutions. I ask all members to look at very carefully and to evaluate very carefully every possible solution to this complex problem and to act here in this Legislature in the most responsible way, and also to encourage and work with the federal level to also act.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): It has been apparent for some time now that Ontario's workers' compensation system is in critical need of reform and renewal. All across North America, governments are grappling with the need to make their systems of workers' compensation more viable, efficient and affordable.

In Ontario, workers have become increasingly critical of the impact of earlier legislation and of the difficulty of getting back to work. Employers worry that their costs may have to rise beyond what they can afford in the future because of present and future liabilities.

A change that will meet the twin challenges of real fairness and fiscal responsibility is not easy. But it is essential that the change be balanced. It must speak to injured workers and speak to the needs of the broader economy.

A year ago, I asked my Labour-Management Advisory Committee to find areas of consensus around WCB reform and they made substantial progress. Today my government is going to build on that momentum and bring forward a number of measures to fix the workers' compensation system.

We are going to get workers back on the job more quickly, we are going to help older injured workers and tackle the critical urgency of the board's finances.

We expect to see immediate and positive results from these measures. Long-term issues will be turned over to a royal commission for further study, the details of