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

June 18, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L029a - Thu 18 Jun 1998 / Jeu 18 Jun 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMERY SCHOOL COUNCIL

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

FIESTA WEEK

CHILD PROSTITUTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

GAMBLING

PAULINE JUNIOR SCHOOL PLAYGROUND

KELLEY ADVERTISING

DROWNING DEATHS

CORRECTION

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEXTBOOKS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

TEXTBOOKS / MANUELS SCOLAIRES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LABOUR LEGISLATION

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

AIRCRAFT PLANT CLOSURE

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

CANCER TREATMENT

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DES VICTIMES DE CRIMES DE VIOLENCE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

HEALTH CARE

BOTTLE RECYCLING

ELECTORAL REFORM

HEALTH CARE

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ELECTORAL REFORM

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

RENT REGULATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should amend legislation to permit all-terrain vehicles, ATVs, of three, four, five or more wheels, that are registered to a bona fide farmer, to be insured as a self-propelled vehicle of husbandry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for the opportunity of introducing my private member's resolution. I'm pleased to present this resolution on behalf of the agricultural industry and farm insurance brokers.

This resolution is about insurance as it pertains to all-terrain vehicles, known simply as ATVs, that are exclusively used for farm use, and I want to emphasize the words "exclusively used for farm use." But more important, it is about farm safety and liability. It's a very simple resolution but I believe a very important resolution.

In no way does this resolution change the registration procedure with regard to the Ministry of Transportation's fees that they collect on all-terrain vehicles, nor does it interfere with regular insurance procedures of ATVs that are used by many residents other than a bona fide farmer.

The resolution sets the process in place to allow a bona fide farmer to insure his vehicle as a vehicle of husbandry if used exclusively for farm use. The onus is on the farmer to decide himself, in consultation with his insurance broker, if the ATV will be for farm use only or for other uses, which may include off-farm services such as hunting, fishing or cottage use.

I'm asking you to support this resolution which will permit legislative amendments to permit all-terrain vehicles of three, four, five or more wheels that are registered to a bona fide farmer to be insured as a self-propelled vehicle of husbandry. If this is to happen, then the farmer will have the opportunity to insure his ATV at approximately 40% of the cost in comparison with it being classified as a motor vehicle, which it is now.

There are many types of ATVs being used on the farms in Ontario, but two such types, the John Deere Gator and the Transporter, manufactured by Polaris, seem to be part of the problem and indeed part of the controversy. A recent

article by the insurance industry reads:

"It has been brought to our attention by a member that there is confusion in the marketplace over the proper method to insure a Gator. This is a self-propelled farm implement manufactured by John Deere." I want to emphasize the words "farm implement" in this statement. "Many brokers in companies are under the impression that this type of vehicle can be covered under a farm liability policy similar to a tractor. We have reviewed this issue and found that this type of farm implement" - again emphasizing "farm implement" - "falls under the definition of a motor vehicle."

I ask you, why? It is because the legislation does not allow a special-circumstance classification. These vehicles are being used continuously in current farm operations in Ontario, things like fertilizing fields, transportation of feed from one farm to another, fence-mending and, in many cases, as a compact tractor. Why then would it not be classified as a farm implement and insured as a farm implement to a bona fide farmer?

Let me clarify. A bona fide farmer is a farmer who is in business, registered under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, or Bill 42. This includes membership in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers organizations.

Let me give you an example of insurance costs for farm implements in comparison with other implements used on the farm that have the same classification.

A compact farm tractor with a replacement value of $20,000 is insured as a farm implement at an approximate cost of $115, which would include fire, theft and liability for one year and is typically covered under a standard home/farm insurance policy.

By contrast, an ATV, at a cost of $8,000, also exclusively used as a farm implement and so recognized by the Ontario sales tax guide, must be insured as a licensed vehicle under the auto insurance act, or Bill 59. The cost to insure that ATV is between $300 and $1,000. Again, a vehicle that is exclusively used as a farm implement is triple the cost to insure.

It appears that the gatekeepers of the auto insurance act do not realize that ATVs are an integral part of today's farm operations, doing work where heavy tractors fail.

As mentioned before, the onus is on the farmer or the farm business to insure their ATV correctly, if it is reflective of an agri ATV. The farm business has the option, then, to insure the implement as they see fit.

Many farmers today are not insuring their farm-use ATV due to high insurance premiums, as I just indicated. If this is the situation, then the farm liability insurance is not in effect. This has a great impact on the farm business if the ATV, in the operation of that farm unit, injured a member of the family, staff or indeed the general public.

If this resolution is to come into effect, then ATVs classed as a farm implement registered to a bona fide farmer would have to adhere to farm implement regulations, ie, carrying a red triangle, a slow-moving vehicle sign, and travelling on secondary roads under 40 kilometres per hour. As well, they would have to have a qualified person operating that ATV.

Also I would like to mention that for farmers who would have had their ATVs insured as a farm implement but who wish to operate them away from the farm, it is suggested that the insurance companies may create an interim short-term policy to allow farmers to take them on fishing trips, to the cottage or indeed to hunt camps, as many do. Again let me emphasize, the onus is on the farmer. The onus is on him to discuss and consult with the insurance company to make sure he has the right insurance on that farm implement.

This is a resolution that goes beyond the farm gate. Small family farms are diminishing. Large farms spread over large areas, some a number of miles away from each other, are indications of farming in the future. Equipment that supports the agri-industry of the future has also changed, and new ideas, new and advanced technologies have to be identified and supported.

I would like to thank publicly Mr Norm Blodgett of Darling Insurance, Peterborough, and Ken Kelly of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for their help, input and counselling on this issue.

As I first indicated, this is a resolution that deals only with the agri-industry. It deals with options, it deals with public safety, and more importantly, it deals with liability. This resolution addresses an issue that is long overdue. It is a resolution that supports the agri-industry of this province and the farmer of the future. I ask for your support.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I am pleased to rise to speak to this resolution of the member for Peterborough this morning and would say at the outset, without any doubt, that we support this resolution and its intent.

Interjections.

Mr Crozier: It wasn't meant to please you; it's meant to please the farmers.

In any event, like any resolution, what might seem to be a very simple issue is difficult to deal with. We all know that farmers use these all-terrain vehicles the same as other farm implements, to perform a number of farm tasks. They use them to transport feed and fertilizer sometimes, in small spraying operations, to go out and mend fences, to generally more conveniently get around the farm.

Others use all-terrain vehicles for all means of recreation, as has been mentioned; hunting; they may use them at their cottages where they simply wouldn't be off the property. Some just use them for plain fun. I know of one person, for example, who has such a great relationship with her all-terrain vehicle that they have named it Big Red, this kind of thing. So they're used for all manner of uses.

The issue here seems to be one of liability, and as has been pointed out by the member for Peterborough, that really goes to the root of it. How is this vehicle used? How is this implement used? We can all understand that within reason a farm tractor is going to be used for that purpose, to do work on the farm. Occasionally we see them in rural fairs and parades where they draw floats and things like that, but generally speaking you see a tractor and you can be assured that it's going to be used as a farm implement.

The problem here is, as has been pointed out, that if the farmer insures the vehicle as a farm implement and assures the agent or the insurance company that it's going to be used only as a farm vehicle, and then for some reason, albeit it may be the only time, they use it for some other reason that's more recreational and something happens, then where are we?

We then have a claimant who probably wants to satisfy a claim, perhaps a liability claim, and we have an insurance company that says, "Well, you assured us this was only going to be for farm use and now I see that in this instance it has been used for some other reason, therefore we're going to claim that we aren't liable," and you get into a real tough situation.

Somehow we must find, to take the intent of this resolution and if the government sees fit to bring legislation forward - of course, with a resolution of this Legislature in private members' business, we have no assurance whatsoever that the government will bring forth legislation - we have to somehow assure ourselves that in carrying out the intent of this resolution claimants somewhere down the line aren't found to have absolutely no coverage.

It even goes beyond these all-terrain vehicles where farmers are concerned about some of the regulation and some of the definition that they're under. We just met with the corn producers recently, and there is a new carrier safety rating system that the government is bringing in, one which on the surface we all agree with because of the safety aspect but which causes farm owners and farm operators a great deal of concern, because they have other vehicles that they use: trucks, for example.

We have trucks that are only used during tomato season in Essex county to bring tomatoes into the factory for processing. Are they going to be under the same regulation? We have farmers who use trucks, again, and it may only be for occasional farm use but probably wouldn't have any more than 2,000 or 3,000 kilometres a year on them at most.

So there are those kinds of issues, not only with an all-terrain vehicle which could be used as normal farm equipment, but we have other farm equipment considered to be vehicles at the present time that are going to fall under some stringent regulations the government is bringing in in the way of a carrier safety rating system, and we would ask in the same vein that the government look at those kinds of uses of vehicles.

We support the resolution. We understand what the member for Peterborough is trying to do and we understand the concern of the farming community, but if this were to come to some kind of legislation, we must be sure that they are only being used for farm use and that insurance agents explain to users that if they're insured under that specific category, they not be used for anything else or they're running the risk of having any kind of a claim denied, whether it be property damage or liability.

We want to make sure that if these vehicles fall under this category, and it's been suggested that sometimes they're used to move material from farm to farm or from field to field, the operator complies with all the safety regulations and has a slow-moving vehicle sign on the equipment as well, and to recognize that all ATVs shouldn't be covered, that no one should try to take what would be normally in everyone's view a sport ATV, and just for the sake of saving the premium, then use it for any other purpose.

The resolution is simple, it's straightforward, it's understandable, but it raises a lot of questions. I'm sure the member for Peterborough understands that, and if we are to go forward with any kind of legislation on this, we're going to have to look very carefully at the regulations this would fall under.

I think the most important thing, and it's a problem within the insurance industry in general, I think, is communicating with their customer, making sure that the person who purchases the insurance for the intended use understands what the limitations are.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to support the resolution. I acknowledge that the farm community often uses all-terrain vehicles for small jobs, transferring things, whether it be fertilizer or feed or seed in small amounts, from farm buildings to the field or from one field to another, and in doing so may have to travel on public roads, and the question then arises about liability and insurance.

I would accept the view and I understand the member saying that qualified people would have to be operating the vehicle - I hope that would mean someone at least 14 years of age and over - and also the use of the triangle sign at the rear of the vehicle to ensure that other vehicles on the road will know that there's a slow-moving vehicle on the sideroad, or hopefully the sideroad. I wouldn't want to see these on highways.

Having said that, I want to raise two particular concerns. The first one is that we must ensure that in doing this we are not allowing those who use these vehicles recreationally to somehow get an exemption or to get out of having to have proper insurance coverage. There are a lot of people who use these vehicles for hunting or, if they're going out in the bush, for recreational travel on trails. These vehicles are used a lot in northern Ontario in these areas, and in most of rural Ontario, I'm sure, by people who are cottagers and people who are recreationists.

We want to ensure that in passing this resolution, the regulation is done in such a way that we know these vehicles are being covered because of their use for farm operations, number one.

Number two, I want to raise a concern about some kinds of all-terrain vehicles. In my experience over the years I've come into contact with a lot of people who have had accidents with these vehicles. The four-wheelers, it appears to me as a layman, appear to be more stable than the three-wheelers. At a certain level of speed, if an operator of a three-wheeler needs to turn quickly, unexpectedly, it often tips. They are not as stable as the four-wheelers, it appears.

I know of some very serious accidents that have occurred, one where an individual lost his leg because of the injuries he sustained because either a wild animal or a dog had run out in front of him when he was operating a three-wheeler. He was going at close to its top speed and he had to brake and turn the vehicle quickly. The vehicle overturned, his leg was crushed and he ended up losing his leg. It was very serious.

I would be tempted to argue that perhaps we should be passing a regulation under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act about the use of these three-wheelers in themselves for anything, because I don't think they are very stable and they can cause very serious injury in emergency situations that arise unexpectedly. I would hope, and this is just my personal opinion, that anyone using an all-terrain vehicle or purchasing an all-terrain vehicle would look very carefully at whether it's better to have a four-wheeler than a three-wheeler.

It reminds me a bit of these Sea-Doos or snow machines on water that are infesting our lakes across the province. These things -

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): - are fun.

Mr Wildman: They are fun. They're fast. You can go up to 60 kilometres an hour, I think, or more. But one of the problems with them is that at high speed, if another vessel traverses the path of this water-borne snow machine and they let off the throttle, they can't steer. They are very unsafe. If you're going at high speed and you let off the throttle you can't steer, you can't turn, so even if you try to turn you go straight ahead. In the brochures, the warning is there. Bombardier and other manufacturers warn purchasers of these vehicles that at high speed, if you let off the throttle, you cannot turn them.

I know this is a sidebar to what we're discussing this morning, but I think we really must be very careful about these kinds of vehicles that are used for recreation largely and ensure that they are safe and that they are operated in a responsible manner.

Having said that I am concerned about the safety of three-wheelers as opposed to four-wheel all-terrain vehicles, I support the proposed regulation change to ensure that farmers can operate these vehicles in the normal practices of their farm activities of transporting from one place to another small amounts of fertilizer, feed or seed or other materials, whether they be insecticides, herbicides or whatever, and that we ensure they are indeed used, first, for farm purposes, that they are responsibly operated by responsible people and that they have the triangle warning on the back of slow-moving vehicles and in this way support our farm community.

I add the sidebar that I hope the Ministry of Transportation would ensure that all these kinds of vehicles, when they are used for recreation, are indeed safe.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Mr Speaker, I seek permission to share to my time with the member for Northumberland as well as the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

The Acting Speaker: You have it automatically.

Mr O'Toole: First, I want to thank MPP Stewart from Peterborough for bringing forth a very practical resolution to assist the farming community and clarify the use of ATVs.

Second, I want to take the time to thank Dr Ross Stephenson, who is a professor as well as a former cabinet minister, an MPP as well as an MP, for assisting me in research on this very important resolution this morning. His consultations were with the farm community itself, the Durham Region Federation of Agriculture, Karen and Dennis Yellowlees.

The response from those consulted has been supportive of Mr Stewart's resolution. I would be remiss not to mention other important farm practitioners. These people are familiar with the use of the ATVs: Kirk Kemp, a well-recognized apple producer in my riding. David Frew was consulted, as well as Joe Christl and Jim Rickard. Harvey Graham, former president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, was also consulted.

ATVs have become an integral part of the equipment of husbandry on most of the large farms in Ontario. Many of my farming constituents have remarked to me about their value in a farming operation. The proliferation of ATVs in the farming community is a direct result of their usefulness and flexibility in a wide range of farming enterprises. The ATV can access difficult areas and can pass through emerging crops up to seven centimetres in height with little or no damage to the crop. Compacting the soil is minimal with an ATV, especially when compared to large four-wheel tractors or pickups.

ATVs are particularly useful for farmers with large cropping enterprises. Farmers are advised to take soil samples and establish existing soil fertility levels and to determine any additional requirements for fertilizer or manure. To walk over several hundred acres of crop land is a very time-consuming job and too frequently proper soil analyses were not determined because of the time and effort required. With an ATV, the job is done with ease, and there is the time consideration, as well as no damage to existing crops. Also, ATVs have convenience carrier racks to provide ease of transportation of heavy soil samples, for instance, as well as fertilizers.

An additional farm use of ATVs is for herbicide application. In crops where weed growth exceeds crop growth weight in the spring, a differential in height between the weeds and the crop is created as height differential allows the farmer to wipe out the tall weeds with a saturated wick. Thus there is minimal herbicide released to the environment. Because of the soft, low-inflation tires, there is essentially no damage to the crop. This form of weed control is used most commonly for milkweed control in soybeans and white beans. In my riding of Durham East, these are important cash crops. Note that soybeans are the most widely used cash crop in Ontario, recently passing the acreage of corn.

Superior crop management requires infield observation of the germinating and growing period. Specifically, farmers look for proper emergence of the crop, adequate weed control, disease infestation and insect problems. If difficulties are recognized early, in many cases, corrective action can be taken. Farmers with large acreages too frequently use a drive-by method of observation from the roadside or the laneway. ATVs allow for convenient, quick, intrusive inspection of fields throughout the spring, regardless of the crop.

In large pick-your-own operations - we're all familiar with these; Watson's in my area is well known throughout the area; there are a number of them - ATVs are useful for supervising client pickup as well as transporting baskets of fruit down the narrow pathways to the checkout. The flexibility of ATVs for this application far exceeds the use of conventional tractors, cars or trucks.

For large livestock operators - I mentioned before - like Harvey Graham and Trevor Nesbitt, ATVs have become almost a necessity of doing business. On a large ranch the ATV has replaced the horse for checking cattle as well as fences. Predators are becoming a concern among many livestock producers as the value of animals has greatly increased. ATVs provide the fastest and most thorough coverage of any means of transportation modes used.

Possibly the widest application for ATVs is on the livestock operation for pasture reclamation. Farmers commonly pasture their roughest or wettest lands, which many times can only be harvested through grazing by animals. Hence pasturing obviously is a very practical application for the ATV.

In

summary, ATVs have acquired a lasting presence in farm operations as useful, flexible, convenient and modest cost vehicles of husbandry. Their usefulness far exceeds their role as a recreational vehicle on the farm. For those reasons, I support the resolution brought forward by my colleague from Peterborough, Mr Stewart.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the discussion on the resolution and to say, as my colleagues said, that we're very supportive of it. My background: In the private sector I spent 25 years working mainly in the food business with producers, processors and retailers, and learned that it's an industry that is rapidly changing, that embraces change readily, that has been able to adapt technology and modern environmental pesticides and has really kept itself world-wide competitive by changing quickly.

What we've got before us is another move to help the industry continue to adapt and change and keep up with technology. I was pleased the member for Peterborough spelled out for us some of the protections that are in his resolution. Without doubt, our agricommunity makes widespread use of these vehicles now. They are an integral part of their operations. We have to make sure, as government, that we remove the unfair impediment to the use of these vehicles.

The member for Peterborough spelled out also some of the protections that are in here that I think are important in terms of ensuring that our agricommunity get the proper insurance on these things and, if they are used in a recreational sense, that they're properly insured and, if they're used on roads, that they're properly marked and things like that. It's a small, but important step forward.

It raises a broader issue, and that is, how do we, as government, ensure that we are moving as fast as our industries are moving to allow them to remain competitive? We have to have a resolution here and will spend an hour debating it. It may require legislation. I'm sure to many in our agricommunity it seems that rather than government being contemporary and modern, we're the ones that are slowing things down. This illustrates it. ATVs have been widely used in the agricommunity for some time and yet we've got in the road of them because we have on our books legislation that makes it difficult to get proper and fair and farm-related insurance.

It raises for all of us, as legislators, how do we change the way that we govern and the way that we operate that will keep up with the rest of the world, which is moving very quickly?

I have some suggestions, something the NDP did in their final year: They introduced a process of bringing forward annually an omnibus bill that encompassed changes to all sorts of legislation. The bill probably had changes to 500 pieces of legislation.

Mr Wildman: But they always have to be non-controversial.

Mr Phillips: What the member for Algoma said is true. They said to us, in opposition, "Listen, if you've got problems with any of these, we'll withdraw them." We did express concern on two or three areas, or four or five areas, and they were withdrawn from the bill. The bill then was introduced as legislation and passed.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: I will say, because Mr O'Toole has provoked me a little bit, that the omnibus bill was a good idea, but it was abused in the first months of the Harris government when an omnibus bill called Bill 26 was brought in and was tried to be rammed through within days of being introduced. It had nothing to do with an omnibus bill that was designed to update legislation; it was all about ramming through dramatic changes under the guise of an omnibus bill.

What was a good idea, an omnibus bill designed to update legislation in a non-controversial, all-party-agreement way, was abused by Mike Harris in the very first few weeks of his government. It became known as the bully bill. That was an abuse of a good idea.

The member for Peterborough has brought forward a good idea. It is very helpful to our agricommunity. But it's probably one of 50 ideas that we should be bringing forward. We probably still have impediments to new technology, biotechnology, all sorts of things that our agricommunity have to and want to and will embrace. There's a suggestion, that a thing like this should be brought forward annually in an omnibus bill where we can deal with 500 items that would help, not just our agricommunity but all of Ontario, but it has to be done in a way that is fair to the community and fair to the process.

I was very supportive of what the NDP brought in, in their final year. It was a huge bill. It was given to us with ample time to consult. There were three or four things in there where we said, "We don't think this should be in the omnibus bill." They were taken out and we passed that bill. I bring that forward because the public look to us to move our institutions on into the 21st century in a modern, contemporary way. This illustrates that today.

The resolution, this motion on ATVs is worthy of support, but it could be encompassed in a more all-encompassing bill, and maybe the government will choose to bring it forward in that manner, where we can assure the public that we're as modern as the world outside these four walls. We'll be supporting the resolution. I appreciate the resolution coming forward, and my suggestion is ways that we can encompass good ideas like this in a broader fashion.

Mr Bisson: I rise in support of this motion brought forward by the member for Peterborough. We understand what the member is trying to do here. The member is trying to make life for those who operate farms a little bit easier.

I know in our community of Cochrane South we have a number of farm operations, from the Black River and Matheson area, in and around Val Gagne and Timmins, and often you don't need to be pulling a full rig out of the barn in order to bring a sack of seeds or a pump that needs to be changed or a part for a piece of equipment that's broken down into the field. They need to use something that's a little bit more economical and a lot easier to start up and take out into the field. That's what the member here is trying to do.

He's trying to say that you can use an ATV for the sole purpose of being able to do those small odd jobs that need to be done on the farm rather than using a large piece of equipment. There are all kinds of good reasons for that and I support what the member is trying to do.

I want to say up front that I am supporting it, but I do have a few concerns. Growing up in the city of Timmins, a lot of my friends came from the farm community. As youngsters of 14 or 15 years old, we used to like taking off on our motorbikes - they didn't have ATVs back then - and going for a ride in the bush or whatever. Given some of my friends, the ability to take their -

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: No, not at that age. I won't repeat what the member just said.

The opportunity to take out an ATV or a motorbike at 14 or 15 years old, thinking, "Because I live on a farm I can go anywhere I want," is a bit of a temptation for a young man or a young woman, to take such a motorized vehicle out on to the roadway, maybe without having full control or trying to do something that they shouldn't be doing.

My plea would be this: I don't want to create some kind of regulation that's so complex it's difficult and impossible to put in place, but I'm wondering if the Ministry of Transportation would look at some sort of permit system that says: "I'm a farmer. Here's the geographical area of my farm. I have to cross Highway 11 or car road number 3" - you remember car road number 3, Mr Wildman? You would have to have a permit that says, "This ATV can be operated for the purpose of the operation of the farm within a particular geographical area."

At least in that way you're taking away the temptation of some to take that vehicle and say, "I don't have to bother getting insurance; if I get caught I'll just say I was on my way to the next-door neighbour's farm to pick up something," or whatever it might be. It raises a whole bunch of other issues of liability.

We know there are increasingly more accidents with what we call ATVs today, especially three-wheelers. As my colleague from Algoma pointed out, there's an increasing number of accidents because these are very fast machines and can be very dangerous, not only for the person operating it but for somebody who might be walking along a country road or going out for a ride on a bike, in a car or whatever it might be. We want to take away the temptation of somebody taking that machine out and driving it for other than what it was intended to be used for in this particular motion that we have before us today.

I would ask that the Ministry of Transportation look at that to see if it's practical. It may not be. Maybe in the end it would just be too complicated to put in place, but we need to find some way to assure ourselves that this particular motion would make the regulatory changes under the highway transport act to specifically make sure that ATVs are used in this particular case for farm operations.

The other thing I want to speak to very quickly is the question of a qualified operator. Again, that's something we need to make sure is covered here. We don't want a situation where this vehicle is being used by somebody who is not able to handle it safely, for his or her own safety as well as for other people who might be around. We need to find some way to say either it's a person with a valid driver's licence or somebody who goes through a required training program or whatever, to assure ourselves that that person is utilizing that equipment in a safe way.

Let me just give you one of my experiences. I said earlier I like to ride dirt bikes quite a bit. I have a number of motorcycles and like to go in the bush with both my dirt bikes. I've gone out with a lot of friends who have ATVs and they tend to be a little bit braver with ATVs than I would ever be with a two-wheeled bike, because you have this false sense of security that this thing is a lot more stable than a two-wheeled motorcycle.

Often, when we want to get from point A to point B, we'll end up crossing some abandoned field that might be in our way to where we're going. You know what's in abandoned fields. There are all kinds of ruts, there are all kinds of hidden hazards under the tall, unkempt grass - hay, actually - in those fields.

I've had a number of my friends take some pretty major wipeouts with their ATVs because they have this sense of, "I just go flying across here, I don't have to worry, I've got four wheels, nothing will ever happen to me," and wham. They end up in a predicament where they go flying off the bike. Luckily, up till now, neither of those two fellows I was with have gotten hurt in a serious way.

I bring it back to the point of making sure that we have qualified operators on these pieces of equipment, because you wouldn't want somebody, especially because it'll be used primarily in the field, utilizing this equipment who is not trained to do so. They're dangerous pieces of equipment if not properly operated. I think for the safety of those people who are using them, those people we're intending to have this regulation applied to, we want to make sure that we make it safe. I would also urge the ministry to look at, if at all practical, some sort of a system that makes sure that those people who are utilizing the ATVs, the operators, are properly qualified.

The other issue I want to talk about is the issue of liability in the case of accidents. That comes back to the first point. You could be in a situation where you're going for a walk or a ride down a country road and all of a sudden you get hit by an ATV that happens to be driven by somebody who is not using it for it what it was intended. In other words, rather than going from field A to field B, the person says, "I'm 15, 16 years old. I want to go for a ride down to Harry's place," and is bombing down the road with the ATV and all of a sudden somebody gets run over.

The issue of liability comes here because if that thing's uninsured, you know what's going to happen. Basically the person is out of luck when it comes to some sort of compensation or, in the event of death, benefits that have to be paid to the family.

That's why I want to ensure that we limit the use of these things on public roadways just for the purpose of getting from one field to the other and not for bombing down country roads to go visit your friends or neighbours. These things should be used for what they're intended. If you want to put them on a roadway, they should be licensed, driven by a licensed operator and insured, and for the regulation we have here, just to be able to cross from one field to another.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to support this resolution from my fellow colleague, the member for Peterborough.

I'd like to explain some of the different ways these vehicles can be used on a farm. The reason I can do that is that I feel I'm probably the closest to being a true farmer here in the House, though there are other members here, like the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Simcoe East, who have had farming experiences. They're retired from it now. We do have a few hobby farmers here also.

The first thing that comes to mind is a farmer is using this machine for getting around to check the fences. Myself, being a cattle and sheep farmer, and I do have four pasture farms, that leaves me with miles of fences to repair. They're great for carrying tools, especially a chain saw. I've walked miles of fences with a roll of wire over my shoulder and a pair of pliers in my back pocket and carrying a chain saw. You've got to have this with you because you get windfalls all the time and you've got to check these fences.

Then we've got an apparatus rigged up on the back of them. That's for rolling out wire. A lot of us use electric fence now and then we have fences along woods and other areas where you have to use barbed wire. It's a handy tool for making sure that you can get this job done a lot easier.

I was impressed with the comments of the member for Durham East. For a fellow who lives in the city of Bowmanville, he did an excellent job of explaining a lot of uses of this machine on the farm. One that he mentioned was for chemicals on the crops. One particular item that we use a lot is a wick-weeder. This is a wick, really; you can put it on the front of a four-wheeler and use it for spot spraying thistles in crops. But two of the most common ones which have been mentioned are milkweed and velvetleaf. These are common weeds in soybean.

What happens is that these weeds grow faster than the soybeans, so therefore they get taller. When you go through with a wick-weeder, they will actually only rub on the velvetleaf and the milkweed, so therefore you can eliminate these two particular weeds without interfering with the crop itself. It's amazing: A gallon of spray will do 100 times more than if you are actually having to spray it on the crops. It certainly saves on the cost of chemicals and it's certainly a lot better for our environment.

Another thing that happens is that upshot corn can be a real problem, especially if you've had a late harvest the year before, and you have to eliminate that from a soybean crop.

A lot of people use them for spreading of grass seed and fertilizer. I know we do a lot of this ourselves because we grow winter wheat. Probably in March, somewhere in there, we like to get over these fields and put the grass seed on so that when the spring thaw comes, it will work into the ground and start to grow so that we'll have a hay crop the next year.

In some cases you have to use them for fertilizer. If you get an early breakup of frost and the fields are a bit soft, you don't want to be leaving tracks in the fields, so therefore it's nice to use this machine to do that, especially on your winter wheat and sometimes on meadows, because you like to put extra fertilizer on your meadows.

The great thing about these machines for this purpose is the fact that they're light. They don't pack the ground and they don't leave ruts in the fields. We like to keep our fields nice and smooth. The thing is, because the machine is light, when you do drive over a crop, it doesn't destroy the crop. They'll usually spring back up and continue to grow.

The other thing is that they're great for getting around to check the fields and check the crops and particularly the livestock, because you've got to keep track of them to see that they are all there and there's no sickness. You can soon scoot over the fields and do this.

Another thing that's important, especially where I'm also a sheep farmer, is that we use this machine a lot for yarding of sheep at night. We have to yard our sheep at night for predator control. We don't have to do a lot of this in our place because our sheep come to the yards at night, but when you turn them out first in the spring, you have to get them the first month or so to the barns at night before they get the idea and come on their own.

They're great for getting around to different barns. I know we have five different barns that we operate in the wintertime, and they're great for slipping around quick and easy to get to these different barns to do chores. You know, the big machines they've got now have even got electric dump boxes on them and they are great for handling feed.

The other thing that's important is the fact that they certainly save on the pickup truck by being able to get around in the fields and that a lot easier, and they're certainly cheaper to operate and to own. There's a significant difference in the cost comparison and the upkeep. The thing is, keep the pickup truck on the road and out of the fields and it'll last you a lot longer.

These machines should be classified as a self-propelled farm vehicle, the same as a tractor, for the uses that I have described.

I had a major fire in January 1989 and all the machinery was stored at this time, including the ATV. It was quite a coincidence, because the day before the fire I said to my boys, "Put that ATV inside," because it was sitting on the lawn in front of the house, and they did. I had no insurance, and with this resolution it could have been a claim for me instead of a total loss.

The thing I want to point out is that to a farmer this is considered as a piece of equipment, not a toy, and I fully support this resolution.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate having a couple of minutes to make a few comments on the resolution being brought forward by the member for Peterborough, a very thoughtful resolution to put in proper perspective the use of all-terrain vehicles on the farm, to recognize the importance of insurance and to get that into the proper category as we look at this as properly being classified as a self-propelled vehicle of husbandry.

We've had an excellent description from the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings on how these are used, everything from spraying of crops to wicking to checking for pests to examining crops and livestock. They're used in all kinds of weather and seasons. They're very ideal as it relates to their size, very light, with large wheels for getting across wet land in the springtime and also not packing crops or packing the soil.

But as you look at this vehicle sitting there and you look at a small tractor, yes, it's driven by all wheels, but there's not an awful lot of difference other than the name that we put on them in what you would use a small tractor for versus what you would use an all-terrain vehicle for.

Certainly this resolution is consistent with the legislation that's presently on the books. This particular resolution is supported by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and by the insurance industry. The recognition of an ATV or all-terrain vehicle as a self-propelled vehicle for husbandry means that for farmers the insurance liability changes considerably and for insurance it's automatically considered as other farm equipment. We're talking about here a bona fide farmer who owns an ATV for farm use and who is registered with the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act of 1993.

I compliment again the member for Peterborough for bringing forth this particular resolution and I, as a member of this party, can enthusiastically support it.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Peterborough, you have two minutes.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to thank the members - and it's going to take a minute or two - for Algoma, Cochrane South, Agincourt, Essex South, Durham East, Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, and Northumberland for their support.

As I mentioned, this is a liability resolution, a safety resolution, but indeed it is an agricultural resolution that I believe is long overdue. I know there's concern that maybe it may give them an option not to insure these vehicles right. I think the farm community is very cognizant of the fact that they have to make sure they do have the right insurance on farm implements that they use. In this particular case, it does give them the option to decide whether it should be for farm use or whether it should be for recreational purposes or off the farm, ie, hunting, cottaging, whatever.

What we're trying to do here is make sure that, first of all, the vehicles are insured, which is not happening in some instances because of the great price for insurance in comparison to tractors or whatever. I think what we're trying to do is to make sure that there is insurance, that the farmers can afford it, and that the vehicle will be insured so that their farm liability will kick in if indeed there happens to be an accident or whatever.

Again, I appreciate the support of this House. I appreciate the support of the agricultural community, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and indeed the insurance companies, one of which is probably the largest farm insurer in this province. I appreciate their support, their consultation and their advice to get this resolution presented. I again appreciate the support of all sides of the House.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

Mr Young moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to promote zero tolerance for substance abuse by children / Projet de loi 30, Loi encourageant une tolérance zéro concernant l'abus de substances par des enfants.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): A few weeks ago 14 high school students were arrested on drug trafficking charges. There was nothing particularly special about this school. It was not labelled by police as a school that had a particularly bad drug problem. Rather, it was a school practically like any other. That being the case, we have a very serious problem on our hands and it's time we faced the fact that the drug culture is an entrenched part of our youth culture of the 1990s.

The Addiction Research Foundation's most recent statistics show that drug and alcohol use among youth is at its highest level since 1980. Cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogen and alcohol use ebbed during the late 1980s and the 1990s, but it is steadily rising again. Fully 31.9% of grade 7 students - these are children 12 and 13 years old - and over 80% of grade 11 students, 16- and 17-year-olds, consumed alcohol in 1997; 42% of grade 11 students had smoked marijuana last year; over 13% of grade 11 students had tried LSD, a powerful hallucinogen.

I know through my involvement with Parent Watch, an organization in my riding that teaches parents how to recognize and deal with substance abuse, that these figures are not exaggerated. Today, drugs are far more potent than they were in the 1960s. There are new herbal drugs that are technically legal; young people take them and don't actually even know what's in them most of the time, and they can carry deadly side-effects. They're attractive because they're affordable and they're easy to get.

As I stated in this House a few weeks ago, coolers are growing in popularity among young drinkers. Products like Strawberry Shortcake, which is a pink milkshake look-alike, contain 12.9% alcohol. Daiquiri Slush is a frozen treat, like a Slushie or an Icicle that we used to have when we were kids; it comes in a wide-mouthed bottle and you put it in the freezer. It's got 6.9% alcohol. When my generation was young, if we wanted to experiment with alcohol, we had to put up with the horrible taste but now the marketers have got around that. They have fruity, sweet drinks, and the young people don't have to put up with taste; if they drink them cold, they don't even taste the alcohol.

While the popularity of drugs and alcohol are growing, so are the societal costs, including academic failure and family breakdown resulting from addiction and crime. We have health problems, and occasionally, through accident, death. Hardly a week goes by that we don't hear about a serious automobile accident, a drowning, an injury or a death involving drugs or alcohol and youth.

Our children gather for bush parties, where they drink and take drugs in neighbourhood parks and ravines. A pickup truck with 16 teens in the back flipped over on a road outside Ottawa a few weeks ago. It was actually a miracle that no one was killed. They were coming from a bush party.

Many schools put garbage bins outside schools as huge ashtrays, permitting cigarette use in our schools. We are sending our youth terribly mixed messages. Experts tell us tobacco is perhaps the most addictive drug available. Some youth become addicted to it on their first try, introducing them to an addictive lifestyle and condemning many of them to the expense and misery of ill health.

Tobacco kills 30,000 to 40,000 Canadians a year from cancer and other respiratory diseases, often a slow and agonizing death. The cost to our health care system, for which we all pay, is in the billions. I try to answer, how will we justify to our teens, when they become middle-aged adults in the future, that we stood aside and let them head down this path of self-destruction?

Tobacco use and drug use often go hand in hand. A drop of hash oil on an ordinary cigarette turns it into a powerful cannabis joint. As we drive by our high schools, we often witness drug use in the open via this method. You can drive by many of our high schools and see our teens having a last puff as they head into class; we think they're smoking tobacco, but in fact they're smoking a powerful cannabis joint. It makes it impossible for them to learn and it makes it impossible for them to function. A cigarette package is the best place to hide dope, so our school authorities need a truly effective ban on tobacco to keep drugs out of our schools.

The vast majority of marijuana smokers smoked tobacco first. In fact, it's the only place they could ever learn to inhale smoke.

I have made important changes to the bill since it was first introduced last session. I listened very closely to the debate from my colleagues in the other parties, which was approximately a year ago. I also took the input I received from teachers, principals and parents and used it to make this bill more effective. Gone are the fines and penalties for teachers and principals that some of my colleagues in the House couldn't support. Gone are the fines and penalties for students and their parents that some members couldn't support. This bill was never meant to be punitive.

It was meant, and this new version is meant, to get our young people's attention and their parents' attention, to educate them, to help rehabilitate them, to prevent first-time or casual use of substances from becoming a lifestyle and a habit, and to bring our youth back from the edge.

Support for this legislation is critically important. We are witnessing a terrible trend towards increased substance abuse among our youth. For their sake, we must not delay in addressing it. Some say there is no sin but ignorance, but there is another: It is denial. I advocate no measure of tolerance for substance abuse by youth in Ontario. Let us face this problem and insist that our youth and their parents deal with it, while offering them counselling and help.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to rise to speak to the bill from the member for Halton Centre. When you look at the title of the legislation, on the surface it's motherhood and apple pie. But with this bill, as with many others, the devil is in the details. When you look at the specifics of the bill and what the bill is supposed to do and how it can be implemented, it is a disastrous piece of legislation.

What you are doing with this bill is that you're taking a serious problem and putting such an absolutely bizarre degree of dealing with it that it lacks credibility in terms of enforcement. If this bill were passed, it would be an absolute nightmare for schools to try to implement, particularly as it deals with cigarettes, lit or unlit. Schools are realistic. Schools understand that just because there are smoking bans and kids under the age of 19 can't purchase cigarettes, it doesn't mean kids are not going to smoke. Unfortunately, that's a reality and it's a problem.

It's a problem that has to be dealt with through education, through dealing with kids at an early age through the school system, to explain to them the effects of cigarette smoking. You don't do it by taking this tough, law-and-order and muscle approach to try and deal with a problem of attitudes with kids.

When you look at this bill, it amends the Education Act and the Tobacco Control Act. It makes principals and teachers be police officers, bouncers and enforcers. Look at how it's going to work. If a teacher, board employee or principal suspects that a student - no definition. It could be a kid in grade 2 or a kid in grade 12; it could be the kid in grade 2 who, as a joke, took the cigarette from mommy or daddy at home and put it in his pocket, or the kid in grade 12 who smokes. There's no distinction between the two.

So you can take any of those situations and they would give principals and teachers the power to search a locker or to search a kid and use reasonable force to do so - again the term that came up in the bill last week, "reasonable force."

What is it with this Tory government and the use of reasonable force on kids? What is this obsession you have with using violence and force? I don't understand that. It is mind-boggling, why you would ask a teacher to use force in order to get into a locker to see if a kid has a cigarette in there. That is the role of police officers. Police officers are there to enforce the law and police officers have the authority to use force if necessary to do their work. It is not the role of teachers or principals and it is absurd that you would suggest that in this bill.

So you first of all use this force. Then if you find a cigarette, you get to the stage of excluding the student. So now, because the student has an unlit cigarette in his or her pocket, you're going to exclude the student from the classroom. This is great. That'll solve the problem. You're into exam time, you're into May, you're into June. A kid gets caught with a cigarette in his pocket and you're going to take him out of the class, exclude him. Then you're going to put him in a segregated program. You're going to set up programs for kids who have cigarettes in their pockets, for them to take whatever courses they were in to get kicked out of that class.

Think about how bizarre this is. Think about school boards that cannot even deal with carrying on with programs you now have as a result of your massive cuts, and now you're asking programs to set up segregated programs. You take a kid out of French immersion and you're going to set up a French immersion for that one kid because he has to be out of the classroom, according to this bill, and he's been excluded and now you have to have a program for him. Just think of the implementation.

Then you force mandatory addiction counselling. So you're out of your class. First of all they use force to get into your locker if they have to. Then they kick you out of your class and they put you into a special program that they're going to set up for you. God know who's going to fund it. Then you're going to force counselling. You're now going to have mandatory addiction counselling. How is that going to work? Who is going to do that? Are you going to hire addiction counsellors in the schools now?

Or are you going to ask the guidance counsellors, who I'm sure are not experts on addiction, to carry on with their regular responsibilities and to counsel maybe 100 or 200 kids in a high school on addiction.

Then if they don't follow the criteria you set out, you go to the next step. You kick the kid out of the school completely. That solves the problem. Kick a 16-year-old kid out of school because he hasn't followed your addiction counselling program, because he had a cigarette in his pocket. Think how bizarre this is. What is that going to solve? How are we going to deal with the problem by doing that? It gets better.

Mr Young: The bill doesn't do that. Try reading it.

Mr Agostino: It gets better. The member for Halton Centre is heckling and out of control as usual. He's had his opportunity. If he would just listen quietly for a minute it would help.

Mr Young: Why don't you read the bill?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Halton Centre

Mr Agostino: Then there's the provision for calling the police. That's even better now. Now we're going to call the police. So we've kicked the kid out of class, we've put him in a special program, we've given counselling - he doesn't want it - and we've kicked him out of school. As that kicks in, we're now going to call the police.

Again think of this. We're talking about cigarettes. We're talking about a kid with an unlit cigarette in his or her pocket. You are now going to file a report with the police department because it breaks one of the Ontario laws that you're going to pass through this. A police officer is now going to investigate the case of the cigarette in the kid's pocket.

Think about this: Police officers, police departments are stressed to the limit, police departments are absolutely overworked, police departments sometimes don't have the ability, from the point of view of staffing, to come to a break-in at your home and you have to file a report, or if your car gets broken into, because they don't have the manpower to do that, and now you're going to get them to be the cigarette police.

So the principal has to file a report and turn over the evidence, I presume this wrapped cigarette in a plastic envelope with no fingerprints on it, and this evidence then gets turned over to the police, and God know what the police are supposed to do at that point.

That is what this bill is talking about. It is an extreme, Reform-minded approach. It is a law-and-order, lay-the-boots-to-the-kids approach. It is the tough-love vision that you have with every problem you deal with, that if you pound the kid into submission he's going to get better. That is not how we deal with it. There isn't an addiction counsellor or an expert in this field anywhere across this province who is going to tell you that technique works.

Principals that I've spoken to are upset about this bill; teachers are upset about this bill; the police officers I've spoken to laugh at the bill. It is not workable. It is not enforceable. It is an extreme, extreme, extreme reaction and it doesn't deal with the root of the problem. It doesn't help the kid.

To wrap up, clearly the use of violence, kicking the kid out of school, using the police, all that's going to do is aggravate and make a situation that can be dealt with into one that you're not going to deal with. I ask the member again in his remarks to explain to me how kicking a 16-year-old kid out of school because he has an unlit cigarette in his pocket and doesn't want to follow the Gestapo regime that you've set up is going to solve the problem. I do not think it will.

I hope the members of this House see the unreasonableness in this bill and vote against it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm going to take half the time and allow another of our caucus members to speak to this.

In the time I've got, let me say up front I recognize that the member is honourable and is trying to address a problem in our communities, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. There is a problem in our community, where not only young people but older people, some people our age, have an addiction to various types of drugs, and the member's trying to speak to that, but I think his approach in trying to deal with it is way off base. If you take a look at this particular bill, it really is a question of the member grabbing a shovel to swat a fly. In my view, it goes way beyond the bounds of trying to deal with this problem.

Let's just go through the bill very quickly so people understand what the honourable member is trying to do. He is basically saying that any person under the age of 19 who is in possession of unlit tobacco on school property can be searched by a principal or a school board employee. If the school board employee or principal thinks that this child of 13, 15, 17, whatever, has unlit tobacco on their premises, the teacher or the principal or whoever can search that student. I'm not sure, as legislators, we want to give that kind of power to principals or any other school board employees, to search people because they believe they have unlit tobacco.

It goes on to say that in the event there is a search and there is unlit tobacco found on the young person under the age of 19, the principal then has to - it says in the legislation "must" - withdraw the student from his or her regular classes, withdraw the student from his or her regular school activities after classes and put them in an addiction program. Excuse me? An addiction program for someone who's carrying a pack of cigarettes I think is a bit beyond the bounds.

Then it says if the student is found to be in possession of tobacco on a second offence - get a load of this: Young Julie or young Charlie who walks into school, in grade 9 or 10, and for a second time there's reason to believe that this young person has tobacco, they're going to get searched by the principal or by a school board employee, and if they're found to be in possession of unlit tobacco a second time, the principal is going to expel the student and write a report to the police. Give me a break here.

I can just see this young person applying for a job after they're finished college or university. They make their first application and there's a little part at the bottom that says, "Do you have any kind of record with the police?" You can't lie. Most people are honest. They'd say, "Yes, I was caught with unlit tobacco in high school when I was 14 years old." Give me a break. This is a bit beyond the bounds.

The other thing it does is protect those people who are doing the searches, the board employees, the principal or whoever, from any civil liabilities. In other words, in the event of the search, if the principal or somebody happens to rough up the child in some way, they're protected from civil liabilities. Excuse me? The police don't even have that right, so why would we want to give that to a principal?

It seems to me that teachers should stick to the business of teaching and principals should stick to the business of being team leaders within schools and not have the authority to become police within the schools or even have powers that are broader than what we give our own police. It goes way beyond the bounds.

The other thing I want to mention quickly in the time I have is that this is the second such bill this member has brought before this House. He introduced a bill on June 12, I believe, of last year as a private member's bill. It got second reading. This is the important part: His bill, which was a stricter version of this one, got approval on second reading - there weren't a lot of members in the House that morning. Anyway, the bill passed at second reading. The point I want to make is this: His own government recognized, and after the bill had passed second reading, even it wasn't crazy enough to adopt the bill.

They let the thing die on the order paper, as it should. If the bill passes second reading in the House this morning, I would be extremely surprised if the Mike Harris government, with the Minister of Education, Mr Johnson, allowed this bill to go past second reading.

We've already voted on this bill once, it's got its fair hearing, it's got its debate in the House, it passed second reading a year ago under a former version, and the government made the decision that I think any responsible government would have done and said, "We're not going to allow this bill to go beyond the point of debate."

If the member wants to come back into the House with a bill that speaks to how we deal with the effect of drugs on the youth of our communities, I along with all other members of this assembly - I don't care what their political stripes are - are more than prepared to deal with that. But to all of a sudden say that because a young person happens to have unlit tobacco in their pockets is a reason to believe they're carrying all kinds of drugs is really beyond the line.

I want to read out of the briefing note that was supplied with the bill that was sent by Mr Young. I thought, "Wow, this really tells you where this guy's coming from." It says, "As well, the police recently made me aware that when we see the teens out in front of high schools smoking cigarettes, we may be witnessing something else." Like all those young people who are out there smoking cigarettes off school property, because they're not allowed to smoke on school property, are all doing drugs. Maybe some are, but it's certainly not the majority.

I, as well as other members in this Legislature, am fairly well connected within my community. When I go to the Ontario high schools there, Timmins H and VS or O'Gorman or Roland Michener, and I see young people standing out there having a cigarette, I don't see a lot of them doing drugs and I know quite a few of them quite well.

Mr. Young: You can't see it.

Mr Bisson: He says you can't see it. Excuse me, all kids there with unlit tobacco who decide to go out for a smoke outside the school property are all out there taking these oils and putting them at the end of their cigarettes and getting stoned - give me a break. That's not -

Mr Young: You're naïve.

Mr Bisson: He says I'm naïve. I think you're naïve. The reality is that most kids in our society are responsible young individuals who are doing nothing different than we did when we were kids. For us as an older generation to come into this House all of a sudden and start implanting our new moral values really doesn't respect kids for who they are. There is a drug problem within the youth of our community. Nobody denies that. But to somehow say, as he does here in the briefing note, that every kid who's standing out in front of the school in Ontario who's smoking a cigarette is taking drugs goes way beyond the limit of what I think is reasonable.

I wish that people in the public would write to Mr Young for this briefing note and have an opportunity to read through it because the entire briefing note says where this member is coming from. He understands there's a problem, and for that I give him credit. But really he's going way beyond the bounds when it comes to how to deal with this, and believes the problem to be quite different than what it actually is.

I certainly will not be supporting this legislation and urge other members not to, because it really goes way beyond the limits of what we should be doing in this Legislature when it comes to dealing with this problem.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure as well to add comment to the debate this morning regarding my colleague from Halton Centre's private member's bill. At the outset I want to congratulate him. The member continually demonstrates extreme diligence in pursuits and educational matters and is no stranger to the ministry. I think that's indicative, not only of his interest in representing his constituents but certainly his interest in bringing his perspective to the Minister of Education, to myself and to the ministry on behalf of the people of Halton Centre.

I congratulate him in that context and also congratulate him for his continuous work with the ministry in an effort to address concerns in areas of objection through the previous submission. I think he should be congratulated for finding some flexibility in that regard. He indicated in his opening comments the degree to which that has been achieved.

He should be congratulated as well in that he continues to seek opportunities to improve the learning environment of young people in this province, and in that context the member has attempted to craft his bill in a framework that is very supportive of and perhaps complementary to the government's objectives in terms of putting student needs first, and the protection and interests of teachers in this province, by supporting our front-line teachers and ensuring that their time is devoted to academic pursuits and not pursuits that detract from the classroom, and also about our objective in investing in the classroom itself and ensuring that our schools in this province are places of academic excellence.

The member for Halton Centre has undoubtedly -I think other members have addressed this as well - taken a very aggressive stance on issues. I don't see fault in anyone taking that point of view and being aggressive in terms of the issues that he feels are important to himself, and clearly, as he indicated this morning, issues that are important to parents, students and the education community in his area of responsibility.

I congratulate him on that front because he has come forward in a very contentious area, an area that some would not want to address. He's examining the issue of substance abuse - the possession of tobacco - and in part has attempted to highlight what he believes are the inconsistencies in laws that exist between the sale of tobacco product, possession and the location of use of tobacco product by students in this province.

Very clearly there's a focus here that's one of not only just being local in nature, as he's indicated, but one that meets a broader policy perspective and one that perhaps addresses the inconsistencies that exist today. As well, as we heard last week, the member from Halton Centre has attempted to address the area of exclusion, which has reference in the Education Act, but typically, from a practical perspective, the only area -

Interjection.

Mr Smith: I hear the member for Oriole carrying on, as he typically does. As a former trustee he will know that, practically speaking, school boards only recognize suspension and expulsion, as it applies to the Education Act. Now, there are areas in other school boards where that grey area has been addressed by individuals and individual school boards, but very clearly the member is attempting to bring some conclusion to that issue.

I again congratulate him on his efforts as very clearly, collectively, we have to be satisfied that our existing prevention or anticipated prevention and intervention initiatives that we establish for our school communities, the goals we want to see achieved in those regards, are in fact being achieved.

Quite frankly, there is very much more we can do. I conclude by saying to the member for Halton Centre that his work is valuable in terms of the ministry's review of zero tolerance violence policies and initiatives that assist our students in the classroom and assist them in healthy lifestyles while in that education community.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): It's a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill 30. There are a couple of points I will be making.

First of all, nobody in this House, and I don't think anybody in our society, is in favour of substance abuse or addiction. In fact, the member in his briefing note that he forwarded to everybody says he believes one of the problems in our society is that we're inclined towards addiction. It is strange that he and his government would support the Mike Harris gambling halls and the expansion of casino gambling in Ontario, which has a severe problem with addiction. There is inconsistency between what the member is saying and what the actions of his government are. I know that the member is earnest in his beliefs and I know that he will now be opposing the government on its gambling policies.

I will not be supporting this bill. I'll just say that at the outset, and in fact I'm going to talk in a number of areas.

The first and the greatest flaw with this bill comes down to funding. There is no money for alternative programs today. Bill 30 calls for alternative programs, guidance counsellors, all kinds of great stuff. I support all of those. But the government's cutting formula, the formula that the parliamentary assistant was talking about supporting schools and classrooms - I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to follow the gentleman from Middlesex. It's interesting that in elementary schools you get one guidance counsellor for 5,000 students.

Can you tell me in any seriousness that one guidance counsellor for 5,000 students is going to achieve the aims and objectives of Bill 30? It's absolute nonsense that the member for Halton Centre or any other members would believe that if you cut the funding and don't provide the resources, you can actually mandate these things and have them happen in the schools.

I'd like to give you a quote from Bryn Davies, principal at General Brock High School in Burlington, referring to Bill 30. He says: "That's absurd. We can't afford a separate classroom. Where's he" - Mr Young - "getting the staffing to do this? Guidance counsellors have many other responsibilities school wide and they are not generally assigned to the classroom."

Interesting. In fact, the government's funding formula, the cutting formula, is eliminating vice-principals in droves. Principals are being twinned between schools. So you don't even necessarily have a principal in the school; you have a principal supervising multiple schools.

The Minister of Education and Training advocated this, if you will believe it: that principals return to working in the classroom, in other words, become part-time principals. They'll have the full-time responsibilities of principals but they'll do some teaching as well to make up for the cuts to funding that this government has imposed on our classrooms in Ontario.

Again, the aims and objectives of the bill might be to control substance abuse, but when you don't have the people, if you don't have the proper resources, the proper time, the support of vice-principals in schools, the guidance counsellors who are required, the psychologists, the support staff, how are you actually going to be able to address any of the concerns in this bill?

I have a quote here from Sheila Flook, a trustee at the Halton District School Board. She says of Bill 30: "The bill has a flavour of dictatorship" - not surprising when you talk about this government. "I like the idea of strengthening school policy, but who is going to monitor the students? Will the board get extra funding?" I think the answer is, we all know, a resounding no. This government is more interested in taking away funding.

This legislation is a repetition of other pieces of legislation which exist: the Food and Drugs Act, the controlled drugs and substances act. In fact, this bill defines "substance" as follows: "a substance, whether or not a restricted drug within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act...that has an effect on a person's physical or mental functioning if consumed or ingested in any way...." Interesting; a food or substance that's ingested in any way that has a physical or mental impairment on people. I assume the member is talking about a drug like caffeine, found in coffee or Coca-Cola. I assume the member is talking about cholesterol, which has a physical impairment.

Here you've got a kid, he has some lunch, drinks a Coca-Cola, has a hamburger and fries and is in contravention of Bill 30.

Mr Young: That's preposterous.

Mr Caplan: Yes, I know. This bill is preposterous, absolutely preposterous, and the member agrees with me.

Mr Young: You're a disgrace.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Halton Centre. Order. These words become a personal attack to the individual, and you shouldn't do that. You know that.

Mr Caplan: This bill removes the discretion of principals and teachers. In our schools now, principals have discretion whether or not to exclude or suspend students; absolutely they do. I'll quote the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, Mr Froese, who says:

"One of the most important roles of the decision-maker, whether it be a president of a company, a judge or a principal, is the ability to exercise discretion when needed. I believe the bill limits the principal from exercising that discretion.... A key function of a principal is the ability to exercise discretion and make appropriate decisions based on circumstances. Exceptional situations occur in many facets of life, and I believe our public policies must reflect that."

That was in regard to Bill 134, the one that was voted on in second reading, the precursor to Bill 30.

I think I've shown that this is an absolutely ridiculous bill, because of the funding cuts of this government, because of the removal of discretionary ability from principals and because of the definition of "substance." This bill deserves ridicule, not support, and I hope all members will vote against it.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise to speak to this bill this morning. I want to commend my colleague for having the courage to bring this important piece of legislation forward. John Stott, the noted ethicist, said, "There is a dearth of leadership in our society and a set of massive problems," and it's so true. I don't think there is a member of this Legislature who is not daily faced with the many problems that are faced by people in our constituencies.

I'm sure all of us, on a regular basis, have meetings with parents who are trying in some way to support, to meet the needs of their children, whether they have learning disabilities, whether they find themselves in difficulties with the law or whether there is substance abuse. There are many problems in our society today that parents are struggling to deal with. Those of us who have children know there is no problem so massive as the problem that is being faced by our children, because so often we feel powerless in being able to come alongside and provide the necessary assistance.

I believe what this bill does, in its intention and in its reality, is to provide authority for teachers, for principals, as well as parents, to promote an environment of cooperation between those who are in contact with children on a daily basis - and the reality is that many times it's principals, teachers and employees at the school who see more of our children than often parents do. That's a sad commentary, but that is also a reality in today's world.

So if a teacher or a principal realizes that a child is in trouble or on the brink of disaster in their lives in terms of making wrong choices, does it not make sense that we, as a Legislature, provide them with the authority to bring that information forward, to bring it to the attention of the parents and, where necessary, in the event of substance abuse, to bring it to the attention of the police as well so these matters can be dealt with?

We just have to pick up the newspaper today, the front page of the Toronto Star, a new report by 77 United States universities, and I quote: "While 13% of grade 8 girls reported smoking in 1991, the report shows, that figures increased to 21% in 1996." It goes on to say this is "a faster increase than that for boys." And it goes on to say, "And nearly 17% of grade 8 girls used marijuana in 1996, compared with just over 5% in 1991." That's today's paper.

Constantly we read in the newspapers or we hear throughout our constituencies that this problem of substance abuse is continuing to grow. It's not on the decline. Contrary to what members opposite, in their debate on this, are suggesting to people, that this is not an important issue - as the member for Cochrane South, I believe, said, "This is killing a fly with a shovel" - I don't believe parents who have lost a child through substance abuse could agree that this is not an important issue.

It's been suggested that this bill goes too far. Is it going too far to give teachers, principals and the police the authority to deal with an issue that will threaten the lives of young people - and we're dealing here with young people in our schools - who are just learning how to make decisions, who are just learning about the reality of the world they will one day have the responsibility to live in and make choices in?

The school is the place where they should be learning that there are limits, that there are responsibilities, that there are consequences to actions. Is it too far for us to go as a Legislature to provide that kind of authority, that kind of responsibility to the teachers and principals to whom we entrust our children? Is it too far to ensure that information about children and their potential problems and the wrong choices they are making is shared with parents? I don't think so.

Better to bring the parents alongside early and alert them to the choices their children are making so that those parents who have, first, the parental responsibility, but, more important surely, the parental love for the child can be involved in the decisions that are being made.

Is it going too far to ensure that there are consequences for students who are making those wrong choices? Yes, there is the reality that perhaps they will be separated from their fellow students for a period of time during which they will have the opportunity to contemplate their choices, to contemplate the decisions they are making.

Is it going too far to ensure that through our school system there is in place the appropriate counselling for those students who have made wrong choices and who are experiencing substance abuse? I don't believe so. I don't believe it's going too far. I do believe it is taking the necessary leadership role that we in this Legislature have been given by those who have sent us here. I speak of parents and I speak of siblings and I speak of students, who also want an environment in their schools that is conducive to learning, to friendship, to enjoyment of each other.

I commend my colleague for bringing this bill forward. I will be supporting it. I believe my constituents would want me to support it. I encourage every member of this House to consider seriously what this bill will do for them, for the people in their constituency, for the children of this province.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Let me put on the record first that if I'm talking funny this morning, it's not through substance abuse. I just came from the dentist.

Mr Agostino: That's abuse.

Ms Churley: That's what I call abuse. We should do something about those dentists. Perhaps that could be the member's next villain. I know, Speaker, you went through this yourself a couple of days ago, even worse than I, so I will try my best here.

I will not be supporting this bill. I actually have to confess here that I inadvertently supported the bill that, thank God, died on the order paper. I believe I did support it on first or second reading. I didn't mean to. It's one of those mistakes. It was a mistake, frankly, because -

Mr Young: After five years of your government -

Ms Churley: No, I don't think it had anything to do with the five years in my government. If the member wanted, I could spend these whole six minutes talking about the things I'm proud of that we did as a government, and will be for the rest of my life. I think members from all parties, when they get into government, can and do do things that they are proud of, and to just say because it's New Democrats who once held power in this province and never did anything good is at best arrogant.

Going back to why I inadvertently supported the last bill, I frankly didn't read certain aspects of it and I supported the overall direction. There are certain aspects to it that afterwards - I wasn't in here for the debate. I came in and voted on it and found out after that I was not happy with certain aspects, and this was one of them. Although I'm very concerned about this issue, I don't think this is the right approach, for a variety of reasons. A couple of them have been mentioned by the member for Oriole.

Even if you were to put this measure in place, education has been cut. There are fewer counsellors in the schools. There are going to be fewer of them than there are now. Some of the municipalities that used to have the police budget taken care of by the province are now going to have to pick it up. It is just absurd to think that the police - and there are going to be school counsellors there who are going to be running into a school because the kid was caught with an unlit cigarette. It just isn't realistic.

It may be a public relations bill, because it isn't going to go through. The government isn't going to let it go through. This particular member speaks to a particular constituency, and he's doing that again in the case of this bill. That's okay. His concern for young people is something that I congratulate. We have different approaches to how we deal with some of these problems, but I do want to say that I share some of the same concerns.

I don't like to see young people smoking. I think it's a big problem that so many young people are smoking, the

article that the member for York-Mackenzie read earlier about grade 8 students in the United States smoking and the fact that more and more girls are smoking, the fact that lung cancer in women, since women started to smoke as much as or more than men, is going up.

This is a really serious public health problem in not just our province, but indeed our country and across the world. More and more people are smoking. We know that the big cigarette companies, when they start losing a market share in one area, will start marketing to different areas, in developing countries and to kids in sort of underground, careful ways. We know that's happening, and it's a major, major public health problem and a huge expense of billions of dollars to our health care system. It's very sad to see, it seems to me, the age of smokers getting younger and younger every year.

I do think there are two issues being mixed up here, and that is the inference in this bill that if a child or a young person is caught with an unlit cigarette or if you see a bunch of kids smoking or with cigarettes in the school yard, something else is going on.

Certainly there is substance abuse in schools.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): - yes or no?

Ms Churley: I am not supporting the bill. I said that at the outset.

There are two issues here. You have children who do smoke marijuana. We know that. We have children who drink alcohol. Perhaps this is to some Tory members sacrilege to say, but I believe that alcohol in some cases, and studies show this, can be more harmful to people than marijuana. I'm not condoning one over the other, but I'm certainly saying that we see the abuse of alcohol which often leads to domestic violence.

I have a daughter, and I remember she went through a very hard time. A film was made, and she is very embarrassed about it now. I went through an incredible struggle with my daughter, who had a very difficult adolescence. You can imagine the agony and torment I went through over those years. I had the opportunity to witness a troubled teen and her peer group at the time, and what I saw in some cases was not pretty and was very worrisome.

I'm lucky. I feel that I did all the right things when my daughter was little and she had enough grounding and enough love there that when she went through that, she came out the other side perfectly. She is now an absolutely wonderful young woman who has gone back to school and is doing all kinds of things with her life.

I have sympathy for so many other parents out there, because when you're going through that with your child, your biggest fear is they're not going to come back, and sometimes it happens to kids. I believe, frankly, that goes right throughout society, from low- to middle- to high-income, and there is a whole variety, a gamut, of reasons why. Some parents are more equipped in some cases to deal with it than others.

So I am not supporting the bill because I don't believe this is the right approach and it's mixing up two issues. I don't think this is actually going to change anything. I believe these are serious problems that have to be addressed. I support the fact that the member, whose policies I generally don't support at all - we have very different approaches to how we deal with these things, but I do support the concept that there are problems with kids and substance abuse. I think that we do need, once this bill dies, to look at other ways to see as a government how we can deal with that.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's great to follow the member for Riverdale and her reflective remarks on the member for Halton Centre's bill. In my estimation, it's probably the best presentation of her own particular dilemmas in dealing with young people and the problems that we as legislators are facing, focusing on this particular problem.

I think the zero tolerance substance bill the member for Halton Centre has introduced today keys in on those concerns of parents who are extremely worried about what is happening to their children when they are attending school or are on their way to or from school. Unlike the dismissive, ridiculing attitude of the member for Oriole, whom I would probably classify as the perpetual classic denier, that there hardly is any problem in this area, there certainly is a problem.

One could question the methodologies, I suspect. That's why we need to have the bill go to committee, in my estimation, because it's dealing with the issue of authority, it's dealing with the issue of substance abuse, which does not include a definition of "caffeine." I don't know why some of these ridiculous comments get included in the discussion of these items.

In my estimation, this is a values bill. We are trained, as adults, as legislators, as members of society trying to gain some kind of handle to present some kind of alternatives -

Interjections.

Mr Hastings: If the member for Oriole would listen for once, maybe he might learn something.

For example, I know the member for Halton Centre and I tomorrow night - I'm involved in some modest fund-raising for the drug abuse resistance education program that Constable Stu Davidson, who is a community services officer, and the city of Toronto police for the last three years have been dealing with, with direct instructions, in our elementary schools, both Catholic and public, to create a preventive mode for our young people so that they will have a strong values foundation when they're dealing with substance abuse and with violence in their families and in their communities.

It is taught directly by police officers and the teaching community is glad to welcome police officers like Stu Davidson into the schools because it reinforces values that are required today to help and guide our young people.

What we're hearing from across the way is basically that the principals and teachers do not want this particular responsibility, do not want anything to do with it. I suggest to those members that they go out and talk to members of the teaching community, to principals, and they will tell you, yes, they do have some concerns with how the authority may be applied, but they recognize that they need additional tools to deal with this very fundamental dilemma.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Halton Centre, you have two minutes.

Mr Young: Just to sum up, the member for Hamilton East obviously hasn't read the bill. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's misrepresented it very badly. The bill does not kick anyone out of school.

Mr Caplan: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe the member claims that my colleague misrepresented. That is unparliamentary. I ask for that comment to be withdrawn.

Mr Young: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could you turn the clock back so I can have my two minutes?

The Acting Speaker: Give him his two minutes.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. There is certain language in the House that we don't accept. The word that you mentioned is not acceptable and I would ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Young: Withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

The member for Hamilton East is mistaken about the bill. He talked about the bill kicking our youth out of school. The bill is designed to keep our youth in school, and I changed it from last year after debate in this House because I realized that some students who abuse substances actually want to get kicked out of school. This does the opposite.

The member for Cochrane South says the bill would create a police record. It's not true. There would never be a police record unless a criminal charge were laid and there was a conviction. I say to the member, don't be naïve about substance abuse. One of the members who lives in Ottawa and represents one of the areas around Ottawa just came across to me. He met with student leaders recently, 12 of them, and he asked them, "Have any of you witnessed any substance abuse?" All 12 of them said, "Yes, I have seen students smoking marijuana inside the schools."

Young people today say that substance abuse helps them fit in. They're getting mixed messages from parents and educators who on the one hand say that doing drugs is not cool, but they see their older, cooler peers doing drugs. They see it on television, they see it in movies and they know many of their favourite music groups are substance abusers. I hear that some film stars actually take huge sums of cash to smoke on screen to promote tobacco use.

I leave you with this thought. It is easier to nip substance abuse in the bud than it is to deal with it once it has become an addition.

I heard one 17-year-old recovering addict in Halton tell parents recently at a Parent Watch meeting that it almost killed her. She said that most parents underreact. They think their child would never become an addict.

Here I quote her: "Your future's dying. I see kids doing drugs and drinking every day and society says it's no big deal."

I leave you with one final question, my colleagues in the House: Is this the legacy that we want to leave our children?

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 17, standing in the name of Mr Stewart.

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

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 18, standing in the name of Mr Young.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

All matters pertaining to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1158 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMERY SCHOOL COUNCIL

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I want to address my comments to the Minister of Education, the education system and the new funding formula. I especially want to readdress to the minister the concern which has been brought to his attention and to my attention by the Emery school council.

In February this year the parent council at Emery Collegiate asked to meet with the minister or someone from his staff, and they are still waiting to hear after three months. The answer they got after the first three months was that his

schedule was totally full. They are frustrated because the minister and the Premier and a lot of the other ministers have been asked for consultation, to meet with the people in the various communities. Education has been taken very seriously by the parent-teacher council at Emery and in every other community. They feel frustrated that they cannot get a positive response from the minister to come and meet them in their community, to apprise the Premier and the minister of the concerns they have with the new funding formula, with the cuts to education, with cuts to the various programs.

I would ask the Premier and the minister to let me know and come into our community and hear from those people and not be treated like another special interest group. I hope, Minister, that you will meet with this particular council.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): "If you lived in Kapuskasing, what would you do if you're a parent of a child needing an emergency operation when no anaesthetist is available and the air ambulance is already responding to another call?" So begins the letter that is addressed to both Premier Mike Harris and to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Constituents in Cochrane North have organized a letter-writing campaign to draw our attention, as legislators, to the dire shortage of doctors. I want some of these letters delivered to the Premier personally today and urge the Premier to take some time to read these letters and respond. In particular, the Premier should pay attention to the common refrain in these letters, "Why should citizens in the north be treated differently from those in the southern part of the province?" Dr Robert Ng-A.

Fook, who practises in Kapuskasing, stated, "There already exists a two-tiered system of medicine in Ontario - one for the south and one for the north." Indeed, why should these citizens from the north be treated differently?

The situation in my riding of Kapuskasing is absolutely critical and getting worse every day. In addition, the letters recognize the dedication and commitment of our five local doctors, who accomplish the workload of 14 doctors. Their efforts are indeed appreciated.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Mariette Guilotte, one of the key organizers of this letter-writing campaign, for her tireless effort in bringing this issue to the fore. You can rest assured that the thousands of letters that I've received over the last couple of weeks will be delivered to the Premier, and hopefully he'll share this with the Minister of Health and resolve this issue between Ontario and Ottawa.

FIESTA WEEK

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): This week the community of Oshawa will kick off its 37th annual cultural festival, known as Fiesta Week, with a parade of floats and marching bands, followed by awards and six days of international pavilion displays. As part of Oshawa's cultural heritage, Fiesta Week brings together the people of Oshawa for a week's celebration of our city's multicultural heritage.

Fiesta provides over 100,000 people with an opportunity to examine our community's diverse culinary, dancing and musical talents from a wide variety of multicultural backgrounds. During the third week of June, various cultural communities in Oshawa will operate pavilions which will feature the food, dance and entertainment of their particular culture.

This year's annual parade on Father's Day, with over 2,000 expected participants, will make its way around Lakeview Park in the south of Oshawa and complement the Oshawa Waterfront Festival occurring this weekend. New this year on Oshawa's beautiful waterfront is the waterfront festival. The festival will feature music, kids' events, fireworks and many other events. This festival will occur this Friday, adding to the week-long celebrations of Fiesta Week.

The numerous dedicated volunteers, along with the Oshawa Folk Arts Council, have worked diligently throughout the year to make Fiesta Week the success it has been each year, and I'm confident that 1998 will be no exception. I would personally like to congratulate all those volunteers for the thousands of hours they contribute in making the waterfront festival and Fiesta Week happen.

I'd like to invite all members of this House and all the people of Ontario to visit Oshawa and participate in one of Ontario's premier summer festivals.

CHILD PROSTITUTION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): As the House knows, on May 28, Bill 18, my private member's bill entitled the Protection of Children involved in Prostitution Act, was debated at second reading and passed unanimously. It was referred to the standing committee on social development for discussion.

There is an enormous amount of concern all across Ontario with regard to this issue of children being sexually exploited or abused through prostitution. Several social service agencies, various religious denominations, police chiefs across Ontario and cities and regional governments have passed resolutions or sent letters of support, ensuring that this bill gets to committee. Chief Julian Fantino from the London Police Service sent me an Agenda for Action which was the minutes of a conference on the sexual exploitation of children. It states, "Every child is entitled to full protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse."

I concur with the report's findings. I'm sure the members of the House concur with the report's findings. The dilemma we have here is that on Monday I will be asking the social development committee to discuss this at public hearings across Ontario. I believe it is a problem not only in Toronto or in Sudbury, it is a problem all across Ontario. It needs our debate. It needs committee study. I'm asking the social development committee to study it.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a letter from Lyn King of Sault Ste Marie, who says that she has a child with attention deficit. She goes on to say, and I quote:

"My son is nine years old. My son was given Ritalin when he was five and was overdosed...the result was almost fatal for my son. The board of education in Sault Ste Marie provided me support and gave my son a teacher's assistant for his next two years....This year, because of cutbacks, my son has had to struggle without the aid of an assistant. The teacher has 29 students in the classroom. The children sitting in the front row can touch the chalk boards with their hands. At least five children in this classroom pose behavioural difficulties."

She says that parents are "being pressured to medicate their children on Ritalin because teachers cannot cope with the large class sizes and the challenges these students face," and that 29 students in a class is "the norm across our city.... We would not subject animals to this kind of confined and limited space, but this government is doing this to our children....

"Our children have the right to equal opportunity and education in this province. This government is denying them the services they desperately need in order to succeed in education. Studies have indicated that many learning disabled children may end up in conflict with the law because of their academic failures and this government is ensuring their failures. So you save money in education and have to spend the money in the justice system."

Please, the Minister of Education must acknowledge attention deficit -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, is a rapidly progressive neuromuscular disease which is better known to many as Lou Gehrig's disease. ALS is a fatal disease and kills two to three Canadians every day.

ALS victims remain mentally sharp. ALS attacks the motor neurons in the spinal cord and lower brain, which control the voluntary muscles throughout the body. When these motor neurons die as result of ALS, the ability to control muscle movement is lost until its victims are no longer able to move, eat and eventually breathe. There are approximately 600 people with ALS registered with the ALS Society of Ontario and 2,000 to 3,000 Canadians suffering from the disease.

There are many issues individuals with ALS face in their struggle with the disease - waiting for the approval of new drugs on the market, access to assistive technology clinics and access to assistive equipment.

June is ALS Awareness Month. The ALS Society of Canada, the provincial units and the chapters and support groups raise funds in their community during the month of June through the cornflower campaign. The blue cornflower is the official ALS society flower and symbolizes hope for a cure. In the last three years, the ALS society has contributed over $1 million to research. Please support this campaign and offer hope for people with this dreadful disease.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The news reports continue to come in about the damaging effect of gambling on our society.

"Niagara Falls residents with low incomes are gambling in commercial casinos with increasing frequency since Casino Niagara opened its doors, a study has concluded.

"Released yesterday by the Addiction Research Foundation, the study found that, one year after the casino opened, residents earning under $30,000 a year had dramatically increased their visits to commercial casinos....

"`I think this is an indicator that we need to put a hold on this and get an idea of what the real cost will be,' said Wayne Olson, a Toronto member of the Ontario Coalition Against Gambling Expansion."

Just a couple of weeks ago another story: "The number of Windsor-area residents seeking help for gambling problems has increased almost 10% over last year...." This study was by the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling.

In Nova Scotia: "A new study released by the Nova Scotia government on Friday shows gambling is out of control and addicts are not getting the help they need, an anti-gambling group said."

In the New York Times: A story about a new rite of young people becoming involved in gambling.

Look, this is sheer madness that, with all of these reports coming in, with all of these problems piling up, the Mike Harris government would be opening the new Mike Harris gambling halls, the so-called charity casinos.

Stop this sheer madness. Enough is enough.

PAULINE JUNIOR SCHOOL PLAYGROUND

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I was delighted to have the chance to join this morning at Pauline public school in the riding of Dovercourt with a group of grade 4 students in room 6 and their teacher, Martha Davis, as they began the planting of shrubs around the school, which is one big main step in the process that this group of young people has been involved in to get money and attention for the need for a new playground at their school. They have produced a book, a copy of which I have here, which outlines the experiences they've gone through.

It's quite an amazing story, because they certainly have learned a lot as they have gone through this in terms of how you go about designing a playground, how you go about raising the awareness, not just at the political level but through organizations like Friends of the Environment, an organization supported by Canada Trust, and the Evergreen Foundation, groups that they lobbied and from which they then received funding.

They've gone through this. It's been an incredible learning experience for them, for the whole school and for the whole community that they've managed to involve. They have done, quite frankly, their part. They have managed to raise over $10,000, which is being spent on improving the playground with respect to shrubs and trees that will be planted. They have learned a lot about the political process in terms of what they went through and they obviously are looking now to the school board and to the government to also provide the larger amounts of money that are needed for the full playground development that is there.

I just want today to congratulate them for what they have done and for the awareness that they have brought to all of us about what can be done when young people come together like this.

KELLEY ADVERTISING

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 85th anniversary of Kelley Advertising in Hamilton. Founded in 1913 by Russell T. Kelley, who also served the province of Ontario as MPP for the riding of Hamilton-Wentworth and Minister of Health from 1946 to 1950. Kelley was Hamilton's Citizen of the Year for 1944 and one of the pioneers of Canadian advertising. His agency, originally called the Hamilton Advertisers' Agency, was the first business of its kind in the area.

For the past 85 years, Kelley Advertising has operated from its Hamilton head office despite the fact that many of its clients do business across the country from Halifax to Vancouver and in many countries around the world. Russell Kelley was a big fan of Hamilton. In fact, when asked one time what he thought Toronto's best attribute was, he replied, "The 5 o'clock train to Hamilton."

Jack McNie, also a great community supporter and co-chair of the Committee for Hamilton Place, former MPP for Hamilton West and Minister of Colleges and Universities, held the reins at Kelley Advertising from the mid-1950s to 1972, upholding Russell Kelley's commitment to Hamilton and our province.

That commitment has lived on as the advertising agency remains not only a cornerstone of the Hamilton business community but an important contributor to a number of causes from the Victorian Order of Nurses to the YMCA, McMaster University, Mohawk College, area hospitals and many other local organizations.

On behalf of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, I'd like to extend my regards to Kelley Advertising and its staff on 85 years in Hamilton, a milestone for both Kelley Advertising and indeed the community.

DROWNING DEATHS

Mr Peter North (Elgin): It is with sadness that I inform the Legislature of a tragedy that occurred in Elgin county over the past week.

Our community has lost three young men as a result of accidents on the pier in Port Stanley. These young men unfortunately passed away as a result of drowning.

I want to extend condolences on behalf of me and my family and the people of Elgin county to their families and to their friends and schoolmates in east Elgin and in St Thomas. I want to take an opportunity to pay tribute to a number of young people who were present at both of these incidents and risked their own lives to try to save the lives of these young men. I also want to pay tribute to the Port Stanley Fire Department and the OPP in the area for the work they did as well.

I want to take an opportunity to encourage all members to remind people who live in their communities to understand and be aware of water safety and the importance of water safety, whether it's a family pool, a farm pond or a small lake that's in their community. Make sure you take the time to remind people over the coming summer. It's very, very important.

CORRECTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I rise to correct my record of yesterday, referring to Hansard, page 1546, where I am quoted as saying, "The member for Scarborough East last night during the show attacked the character and credibility of the principal of this school, and he was not there to be able to defend himself. In fact, he went so far as to call this gentleman a liar...."

The member for Scarborough East has asked me to review the tape and assures me that he did not use the word "liar." He has just provided me with a copy of the tape. I have not had the time to review it, but I accept his word on that, and I apologize for that mistake and retract that, correct that record. However, the remainder of my concerns and my request to the Premier to review his conduct still stand.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday a question was raised in this House and it questioned my personal integrity and referred to my conduct as minister. The Hansard record must be corrected. I am not nor was I found guilty, as stated in this House, of having broken the law. Charges laid against a private company were dismissed by a justice of the peace based on an argument that the company had committed an officially induced error.

I believe it is important to assure my colleagues here in the House, for the record, that never did I indicate to any individual or organization that they may operate, in defiance of the law, without a permit.

In a recent dispute between two private parties, where I had no formal standing and could not participate, an accused party argued that I had led them to believe the law had been overlooked. That accusation is false. I want my colleagues here in the House to be informed that I was unable to attend a hearing on a certain day because I was right here voting in this House. I was later denied the ability to testify before the justice of the peace. My voice was never heard.

I am an elected member, given the honour and privilege to participate in determining legislation for this province. I take that responsibility very seriously -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Guelph. I wasn't here yesterday, and I apologize to the members. It's not a point of order. I appreciate the fact that you have brought it forward. I caution members that when we talk about personalities, these are the kinds of things that come into play. To the member for Guelph, it's not in order and I'm going to rule that it's not a point of privilege either.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I believe we have unanimous consent for one representative of each recognized party in the House to make a short statement with respect to United Empire Loyalists' Day, and I ask this consent as a very proud descendent of the United Empire Loyalist families.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have agreement on that? Agreed.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It is indeed my pleasure to rise today to recognize the first United Empire Loyalists' Day in Ontario. I want to thank all the members of this House for allowing me the opportunity to pay tribute to Ontario's Loyalist heritage.

Earlier this morning it was my privilege, along with the Speaker and many of our colleagues, to help in raising the Loyalist Grand Union Banner on the courtesy flagpole in front of the Legislative Building. This flag has not flown in an official capacity in Ontario since the early 19th century. Today we fly it in recognition of the role that the Loyalists played and that their descendants continue to play in the development of the province of Ontario.

It was also my pleasure to take

part in a presentation by the Archives of Ontario to the Ontario branch of the United Empire Loyalists' Association. In recognition of June 19, the archives, led by Ian Wilson, has made public the Inspector General's register. This register was the official list of all those making claims for either land or privileged status as Loyalists in Upper Canada. Since it was the Inspector General who was responsible for sanctioning privilege in Upper Canada, we can assume that this is the most complete list of United Empire Loyalists in existence, and of enormous historical significance. This document is on display today in the main lobby of this building.

I would like to thank Ian Wilson and his staff at the archives, in particular Fawn Stratford-Devai and John Barton, for all their hard work in putting together today's display and helping make Loyalists' Day significant for so many people. I recommend that all members take in this display.

Loyalists' Day gives us all a chance to reflect on the contribution of the Loyalists to the development of Ontario. It is worth noting that our land tenure system, civil law system and, most important, our system of responsible government were brought to Upper Canada by the Loyalists. These systems are still in place today.

I have said before and I think it bears repeating: The Loyalist heritage led directly to the development of this great country's bilingual, multicultural and regional tradition under the unifying context of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This makes us very different from our neighbours to the south, and I believe it is a difference that we should all celebrate.

On Saturday night I was honoured to be at the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada's annual general meeting, which was held in Kingston. Over 200 Loyalists from across our country gathered together to elect a new executive and to conduct other business of the association. I wish to pay tribute to the outgoing president of the association, Bernice Flett, who is with us today. Bernice was instrumental in helping me with my private member's bill. Her cooperation and dedication as president of the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada will inspire all present and future members to contribute their talents to preserving the legacy and history of the Loyalists.

I would also like to thank everyone who helped make today a success. Dennis Clark, our Sergeant at Arms, and his staff were extremely helpful, as were Karyn Leonard and her staff at the interparliamentary and public relations branch. On behalf of everyone involved in organizing today, I want to say a sincere thank you.

I hope tomorrow, June 19, all members of this House will take some time and reflect on the sacrifices made by the Loyalists when they came to Upper Canada, and as well reflect on the contributions that Loyalists made in making this province and indeed our country one of the best places in the world to live.

At this point I would ask that all United Empire Loyalists in the galleries rise and be recognized by this Legislature.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On behalf of my Liberal colleagues I want to join our friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough in paying tribute to all of those who have c