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

November 22, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Nov-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 22 November 2001 Jeudi 22 novembre 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HÉRITAGE

SUD-ASIATIQUE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HÉRITAGE

SUD-ASIATIQUE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HÉRITAGE

SUD-ASIATIQUE

MEMBER'S STATEMENTS

CULTURAL SUMMIT

OSPCA LEGISLATION

UKRAINIAN FAMINE AND GENOCIDE

BLUE LIGHT PROGRAM

IN NIAGARA FALLS

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

ANNIVERSARY OF HMCS PREVOST

JOEMAC COMMITTEE

BOWMANVILLE

SANTA CLAUS PARADE

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

(RENTAL HOUSING UNITS), 2001

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

HATE CRIMES

ORAL QUESTIONS

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

OSTAR INITIATIVE

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO'S LIVING LEGACY

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

TENANT PROTECTION

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

MEDICAL SCHOOL TUITION

PODIATRIC SERVICES

HOME CARE

CHILDREN'S MEDICAL SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

VITAL STATISTICS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(SECURITY OF DOCUMENTS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES STATISTIQUES DE L'ÉTAT CIVIL

(SÉCURITÉ DES DOCUMENTS)

Thursday 22 November 2001 Jeudi 22 novembre 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

Mrs Munro moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 129, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de

protection des animaux de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for York North has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Imagine for a moment the picture of a cute puppy or kitten. It may be fluffy and cuddly or awkward and unsteady,

but it tugs at your heartstrings. You overlook asking any questions. You dismiss unsavoury conditions. Maybe it is alone and forlorn. It needs you. Your heart rules. You have just contributed to a

puppy or kitten mill. You have just filled the pocket of that puppy or kitten mill operator, who doesn't care what motivated you -- your sympathy for that forlorn puppy or kitten, your concern for

rescuing that animal. You gave money to secure that operator's ability to stay in business.

That description is the background for the bill I have introduced and we are debating today.

Today it is estimated that there are about 400 puppy and kitten mills operating in Ontario. They provide a supply to meet a demand, as I described in the

scenario a moment ago.

This bill, if passed, would provide the following:

(1) A clear definition of what constitutes a puppy and/or a kitten mill.

(2) Making the business of a puppy or kitten mill a provincial offence.

(3) Applying substantial penalties to those convicted of the said offence.

(4) Assisting the process through the use of telewarrants where applicable.

(5) Giving the authority to the judicial process to impose a lifetime ban on convicted offenders.

The issue we are looking at today in looking at the particular parts of the bill depends very much on the question of what constitutes a puppy or kitten mill.

Usually one of these has many breeds of dogs and cats, with puppies and kittens available year-round in order to capitalize on popular, easy-to-sell breeds. However, and I think this is the most

important distinction, the number of cats or dogs, even the number of breeds, is not the defining criterion; it is the lack of care and the ongoing neglect. That is the most serious issue and the

cornerstone of this bill.

In this bill we are debating today I have defined a puppy or kitten mill as a place where standards of care that are outlined in this bill are not met: providing

the animal with adequate food and water; providing the animal with adequate medical attention when the animal is sick or injured or in pain or suffering; providing the animal with adequate

protection from the elements; not confining the animal in a way that would provide danger to it. These are the keys to this bill.

One of the things that has certainly surfaced in the last while is the fact that there are these places around the province where animals are kept in inadequate

conditions, and it has certainly been brought to the public's attention that this is inappropriate and should be something that carries with it a provincial offence status. That's what this bill

purports to do.

I think it's very important to understand that often the work that's done in establishing whether this is a puppy or kitten mill is based on the issue of

neglect, of long-term lack of adequate facilities or care for these animals.

As I described in the scenario at the beginning, very often people don't make adequate decisions or adequate investigation into where their puppy or kitten has

come from, because we all recognize how vulnerable we are emotionally to seeing an animal that needs us. But it's incumbent upon everyone to make sure that they have asked questions, that they have

satisfied themselves, because when those conditions are overlooked or ignored, when people don't ask those questions, they are contributing to this problem. That is why in this piece of legislation

the question of long-term neglect, the question of inadequacy for animals, is the key.

I've talked to a number of people, veterinarians and dog breeders and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and they all agree that it is

this long-term neglect that is the critical issue that must be dealt with. They all agree that it is those kinds of conditions that contribute to long-term problems for puppy or kitten purchasers.

It is the fact that the nutrition of the animals has been neglected; it's the lack of veterinary care that will then contribute to further long-term illness; it is the inadequate housing that will

expose animals to the increasing risk of skeletal development problems; and it's the condition of overcrowding that will certainly potentially endanger the life of the animal. It is skimping on the

best-management practices that will mean that the animals are living in conditions of parasites, of various debilitating diseases and conditions. It's the kind of thing that means that when they

are rescued, they may or may not be able to make that transition into a home.

But the most important thing, I think, for all of us to keep in mind is the fact that it is a situation where we, as potential purchasers, must make some kind of

decision here, not based on the emotional, not based on the spur of the moment, not based on the notion of rescuing this animal from this situation, because the effect of all of that is nothing

more than keeping these operations in business.

So it is the intent of this legislation, then, to give the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals a very clear-cut definition which allows them

to look at these issues of inadequacy and be able to establish once and for all that this is a provincial offence, that it carries with it a very significant punishment. It certainly allows the

judiciary to impose a lifetime ban. But it sends a clear message that we are on the side of protection. We are on the side of making sure that purchasers of puppies and kittens are going to be

protected from the possibilities of this kind of long-term, frankly, financial investment of an animal that has had a very poor or inadequate beginning; whose heritage, if you like, whose breeding,

represents a lack of concern and commitment; who is there just to appeal to that emotional, on-the-spot situation.

This bill seeks to provide protection for the animals and the purchaser.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I want to say I'm happy that the member for York North has taken some of the proposals from my bill that I

introduced in September, where I called for much tougher measures to ban puppy mills. I commend her for taking the interest in the follow-up to my work over the last four or five months in

basically shutting down what I consider a criminal practice.

There are 400 of these criminal operations operating throughout the province of Ontario, and this provincial government has refused to act. So I hope this bill

is taken in the context that it is a good first, tiny step, but there has to be action by the provincial government in either passing my bill and not blocking my bill, or doing some serious

amendments to the OSPCA Act, which is woefully weak.

The Ontario SPCA Act doesn't even allow SPCA officers -- the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -- to inspect these operations. They have to get a

search warrant, which is most disturbing.

One group of criminals, as I call them, operating north of Toronto have been operating since 1965, the infamous Misener puppy mill operators. Since 1965, they've

been abusing animals under the nose of this government and nothing has been done. All they get is slaps on the wrist and they continue to operate in Fenelon Falls, north of Toronto. That's why we

need some serious, tough measures.

I commend her for doing a couple of things in this bill, but it doesn't do a couple of essential things. First of all, we need a provincial registry. Right now,

if you want to be a kennel operator or breeder in this province, you require no provincial licence; you don't have to be registered. Anybody can claim to be a kennel operator or can claim to be a

breeder. We need the province to issue a licence if you want to be in charge, in care, of animals. This is not in this bill.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Like the gun registry.

Mr Colle: Secondly, do you know, Mr Speaker, that over 90% of the pets sold in pet stores across this province come from these disgusting puppy

mills? There's nothing in this bill to stop that practice. In my Bill 100, I ask that those pet stores that sell pets from puppy mills also be fined and shut down. This is going on in plazas across

this province. We need also to get provincial legislation to close those pet stores down that do this.

We also need to give the SPCA powers to inspect and also make it an offence if you obstruct one of these humane society officers from entering the premise, and

to make sure that they're given co-operation. Those are essential if we're going to be tough with these criminal abusers of companion animals, which is going on systematically across this province.

Not only does it abuse these helpless, defenceless animals; it's taking advantage of people who unknowingly go to pet stores or go to these puppy mills and buy these helpless, defenceless pets. We

have to protect people too who don't realize they've bought animals from these disgusting criminal operators.

So you have to get much tougher. I've had a campaign going across the province. I've had thousands of people, heartfelt letters, petitions that say, "We want

tough laws." Even the SPCA is very upset. In their press release just the other day, here's what Vicky Earle, the head of the SPCA, says: "The most comprehensive package in the government's hands,

however, is the proposed amendments to the Ontario SPCA Act. I don't understand why these have not been introduced, after so much work by us and by government officials have been put into

them."

Right on the desk of this government and the Solicitor General is the solution. He has not acted on putting in tough anti-puppy-mill, anti-animal-abuse laws. I

hope the people out there realize that this bill will not divert attention from the fact that this government is allowing these puppy mills to operate and the sale of these defenceless animals to

take place without the government doing anything.

This bill will not close them down. It will, hopefully, not let the government off the hook. On December 6, I will have my chance to introduce my comprehensive

Bill 100. I'm going to have people here from across the province, holding this government accountable to close down these criminal animal abusers which are operating under this government's nose

wilfully.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate on the bill that's been introduced by the MPP from York

North. The bill in essence amends the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. There are a number of key features to the bill that have already been spoken about, but I think

the current situation has to be understood in terms of what's trying to be accomplished here.

The federal government, through the Criminal Code, has as an offence to cause or to commit "unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal," convictions

which have a high evidentiary burden in terms of the rules that are set -- and I think that's what the public has to understand. The rules in the criminal context are set and established by the

federal government. The province is responsible for enforcing those rules. The penalty under the criminal

section is two years' maximum ban and $2,000 maximum and/or six months in jail. The federal

bill, which is Bill C-15, got its first reading March 14, 2001, where they brought in a lifetime ban as the maximum penalty, five years in jail, maximum, no set fines limit and restitution for

rehabilitation costs.

Currently, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has no offence or penalty sections. Inspectors and agents may issue orders -- ie,

conditions -- and remove animals if the orders are not met. They can also lay charges under the Criminal Code in an arrangement with the federal authorities.

With respect to search and seizure, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant for other than a public place if reasonable grounds exist that an animal is in

distress. That's something that I think the member from York North is trying to address in a very constructive way.

Also the inspector may enter premises other than dwelling places without warrant if an animal is observed in immediate distress. So as to the grounds to move in,

there have to be reasonable grounds or an observation of an animal being in distress. Last summer we had two situations dealing with puppy mills where action was taken in very difficult situations.

The member from York North has indicated it is an industry that has a number of participants. I think the language she used, the numbers that were involved in this type of activity, were that

there's an estimation of 400 puppy mills that are in operation in Ontario, and that doesn't address the issue of kitten mills.

What the member is trying to do is to bring in a number of measures. There is the standard of care for cats or dogs that are being bred or kept for sale, and

trying to raise those standards, and they should be raised, in terms of trying to provide protection for the animals. Also there is toughening the offence and penalty sections to bring in the

standards of care that are necessary for that industry.

I think those are the measures we have to look at as we move through this exercise, because what we have here is federal jurisdiction in terms of criminal

activity that is very clearly set out in terms of the types of conduct that will not be tolerated and the penalties that will be dealt with, and then we also have a provincial aspect in terms of

the operation of these -- in essence, they're commercial operations and they're operated for profit.

All the member is saying is that we want a standard of care for those operations and that we also want measures in place that will make sure animals are properly

looked after. There's going to have to be a regulatory regime to enforce those standards, to make sure that what we're trying to accomplish here happens, so that we can avoid the distressful

situations we faced last summer in two locations, and so that can be constructively addressed.

I think the member is attempting to do that and I fully support her efforts in this matter.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate. The Legislature I think acknowledges it's a serious problem. We're

dealing with many institutions or entities that significantly abuse animals.

I've always had a dog, one of my best friends, obviously. My wife may be watching, so I've got to be careful here, but my dog Belle is one of my best friends and

this provides an enormous sense of companionship and comfort to many people like myself. So I'm very supportive of real measures that will do whatever we possibly can to eliminate the abuse of

animals.

The bill today, in my opinion, is a step forward but is nowhere near as comprehensive as it needs to be. My colleague Mr Colle from Eglinton-Lawrence, who has

been working on this issue for some considerable period of time, has a far more comprehensive approach and, in my opinion, it is far more likely to be successful. So while I'm supporting the member

for York North's bill today, I would hope the government members will not use it as an excuse to not support my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence's bill, which will be debated here, I gather, on

December 6.

He mentioned some of the deficiencies in this bill we see here today. One of them is the lack of a provincial registry where organizations that want to breed

puppies will be required to register them. The Conservative member said, "Oh, that sounds like the gun registry. We don't want the state involved in anything like that. There are freedom and rights

that people have and the state has no authority being involved in registering these puppy breeding operations."

Some of us may choose to disagree. If an individual wants to be involved in these operations, I for one believe there should be some public scrutiny over it,

that we owe it to those animals to ensure there are proper standards that are being met, and my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence has proposed a way of dealing with that.

Conservative members may say, "This sounds like having to register guns, and we are against that, so we're against registering these puppy breeders," but I would

say that if an individual wants to be involved in this operation, then one of the responsibilities should be to register and to meet some standards.

My colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence is also proposing some significant assistance to the SPCA to help them do the terrific job they've done for Ontarians for

decades, and this bill doesn't go near far enough in providing assistance to them.

As we rise today, I think most of us agree that this is a significant problem. There are significant abuses going on out there now that none of us want to

tolerate and all of us want to solve. The bill today is, as I say, a step forward, but I believe we should be dealing with the far more comprehensive approach that my colleague from

Eglinton-Lawrence has proposed. I'll support this bill today, but I look forward to the debate on December 6, when we will come forward with a far more comprehensive approach to dealing with this.

If it's seen to be treading on the individual rights of the puppy breeders, so be it, if that's what's required to protect defenceless animals.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I rise in support, at least in principle, of the bill before the House today, the private member's bill

by Ms Julia Munro, and I'm pleased to have this bill in the House so we can debate it. I know there's another bill coming a couple of weeks from now. Mr Colle has introduced Bill 100, Puppy Mill

Ban and Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, 2001. I want to say at the outset that I do support this bill in principle, but if we pass this bill today, which I'm sure we will, I really don't want this

bill's passage to mean that the bill we'll be debating on December 6 will not pass because there will be a recognition that a similar bill passed. Hopefully it will be sent to committee today.

What I would like to see happen is that we send this bill to committee today -- and it should go to committee -- and that Mr Colle's bill passes on December 6.

The possibility of having the two bills dealt with at the same committee I think is a good idea, because Mr Colle's bill is stronger and I think that if we had both the bills being looked at at the

same time -- I don't think anybody really cares at the end of the day whose name is attached to the bill that passes. Ideally, like a lot of important pieces of legislation, we would prefer it to

come from the government, because as everybody in this place knows, a government bill, a whipped bill, has a much better chance of passing than a private member's bill. It is very difficult to get

a private member's bill through the House.

I understand that the government has got a very full agenda. I also understand, from having been in government myself, the absolute competing issues that a

cabinet and a caucus have to determine as to which bills they're going to sponsor as government bills. I understand that quite frequently a lot of important bills that everybody supports in

principle and believes are important to have passed in this House just don't make it on the legislative agenda; I understand that. Therefore, I think that occasionally some of the private members'

bills that we bring before this House, which government members support -- the full intention is there that it move forward and go through committee hearings and get passed. It seems to me that

with the idea of having both bills come forward to be dealt with at the same time, so whether it's Mr Colle's bill ultimately that rules the day or a hybrid of components from both bills, at the

end of the day we might have a strengthened bill.

What this bill does is it only amends the existing act to establish standards, but it doesn't ban puppy mills. I think that is really important. I know Mrs Munro

has talked about the abuse of animals, the connection between the abuse of animals and violence toward people. That's a very important issue to bring forward because there is overwhelming evidence

now that suggests that the two are linked. I know here we are talking specifically about the breeding of these animals for profit, but on the other hand there is also the larger issue and we've

seen the horrific results of animal abuse on our TV screens all too frequently. I guess it brings tears to everybody's eyes. They look at some of these dogs that have been dragged by vehicles and

beaten and burned and caught on fire and abused in the most horrific ways. That, I know, is to be dealt with under other bills and circumstances, but I can't believe there is a person out there who

does not support moving forward on this bill today.

Mrs Munro introduced this bill on November 7, and it does amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. What it does is it enables

inspectors and agents of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to obtain telewarrants when it would be impractical to obtain a warrant in person. It establishes standards for

the care of cats and dogs by persons who breed cats or dogs for sale, and it does create an offence for the violation of any of these standards. The penalty for the offence is a maximum fine of

$60,000 or a maximum prison term of five years, or both. The court making the conviction may also prohibit the convicted person from engaging or being employed or involved in the breeding of cats

or dogs for sale for any period of time, including in the care of an individual, for the remainder of his or her life, and in the case of a corporation, forever. I think that is strong and I

applaud that aspect of it. That's a very important part of the bill.

But Mr Colle's bill goes further in that it attempts to eliminate the disgraceful practice of cruel and inhumane animal breeding for commercial sale as pets.

Puppy mills, kitten mills and other pet mills are, by definition, operations that breed animals repeatedly for financial gain, and they are kept in substandard conditions. Again, we have seen on

our TV screens and in the media horrific descriptions and views of some of those puppy and kitten mills. We've mostly seen the puppy mills, but we know it's happening to other animals as well. What

I've been told is that there are about 400 operating in Ontario. I'm sure some are worse than others. We don't want to see these things left open; we want to crack down and we want to see them shut

down.

This particular ban will not ban legitimate and humane animal breeders or kennels. I also think that balance has to be kept. Of course, we don't want to ban and

shut down the legitimate ones and the humane animal breeders. What Mr Colle's bill does is strengthen significantly the power of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to

inspect, enforce and shut down illegitimate pet mills.

This bill before us today, as I understand it, will set up a licensing regime to be administered by the OSPCA and all breeders and kennel operators will be

required to be licensed to operate in Ontario. The OSPCA will have the power to issue these licences and will set the licence standards, and the OSPCA may revoke the licence at any time if

conformity with the act and its regulations are being violated.

I don't know if anybody in this Legislature has had an animal that has suffered cruel treatment, but I have. At one time, I had a dog that I foolishly, in some

ways, took on. It had suffered incredibly cruel treatment and eventually I had to have that dog put down. The dog was so neurotic that it could not recover from the treatment it had received. I

tried everything I could to give that dog a good home and to treat it humanely and well, but it was so scared and had developed such neurotic habits that you couldn't leave it alone. It would just

chew up anything in sight, all of the time. I remember coming home one night and I couldn't open my door to get into my apartment and I couldn't figure out why. The dog had jumped up on a couch

with big, big cushions full of foam and had literally ripped them to shreds. My whole hallway was about knee-deep in foam, but that's just the least of what the dog would do. Also, one could not

trust the dog. It was frightened of people. Although it wasn't a violent dog, it was so terrified all the time that there was some concern that it might bite people as well.

So these animals that survive this kind of cruelty often are not living happy lives. For some of these animals, they are treated so inhumanely and such awful

things happen to them that they cannot recover. The cruelty that's been inflicted upon them continues throughout the rest of their lives.

I just want to say that I believe that all of us in this House would support a ban on those puppy and kitten mills and that is why we have to work together,

looking at both of the bills. I'm wondering if Mrs Munro, when she does her

summary, can perhaps let us know why she chose not to include that component, the ban of the puppy mills, in her bill. To

me, that is the weak component of this bill and a very important aspect of it. You can write into the bill a provision to protect the legitimate and humane animal breeders or kennels. After what

we've seen, the evidence that we have of the profit-making desire of some of these people who run these mills, who don't care one iota about the animals -- all they want to do is keep them alive so

that they can sell them. The minimum standard is to keep these animals alive so that they can be sent to pet stores, or whatever, and sold.

I would say to Mrs Munro that I'm very pleased that the bill is before us today. I'm pleased that we have this opportunity to debate it.

I do want to have an opportunity, and we will have an opportunity, to debate Mr Colle's bill on December 6. I know that Mr Colle is promoting his bill out there,

and he'll be pleased to know that I've received some of those bright red cards that are out there in everybody's ridings. Some of them have come back to me, and even some good New Democrats have

sent them back to me, I would say to Mr Colle, and Tories as well. That shows it's an issue that crosses all party lines. People do not care whose bill it is, which party brings it forward. From

time to time there are some issues that people out there are so concerned about that they want to see all three parties working well together, in a co-operative way, to ensure that we have the

strongest bill possible passed, that will have the most impact and the largest effect on getting those puppy mills and kitten mills shut down.

I would like to say in closing that I know that neither in this bill nor in Mr Colle's bill are we dealing with agricultural and farm animals. I understand why

that's not included in this bill, but I've got tell you from a personal point of view, even the animals that we see -- chickens, pigs and all kinds of other animals that are raised to be killed so

we can eat them the inhumane treatment of some of those animals is beyond the pale as well. I understand why it should not be included and is not included in this particular bill, but when we're

talking about the humane treatment of animals, we should be thinking about the humane treatment of all animals.

I will be supporting this bill today. I hope it moves forward to committee, and I hope everybody in the House will agree that Mr Colle's bill should be passed on

December 6 and go to committee hearings as well so we can have the best bill available passed in this House.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise in the House today in support of Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals Act, put forward by Ms Munro, the member from York North. This act is targeted and focused on puppy and kitten mills in Ontario, and I want to take a moment to talk about

these illegal operations.

Most of us here today probably have an animal at home that is an integral part of the family. If you don't have a pet at home, you have more than likely been

touched in some way or another by someone else's pet. Speaking for myself, we have our pet Labrador retriever, Ollie, and I can tell you that Ollie is certainly an integral part of our family. Each

morning, one useful thing he does is he goes out to the end of the driveway and picks up the newspaper. The only problem is, it's the Toronto Star. It's the only paper we can get in our area.

Probably the odd time he pees on it as well, I'm sure. But he certainly is an integral part of our family. Most people will laugh when I say it, but when I arrive home, often I'll greet Ollie first

and then the rest of the members of the family.

Can you imagine for one second someone treating an animal in a negative way: beating them, neglecting them or harming them in many ways? I certainly can't. But

cruelty toward animals is a big problem, and it's not just a problem at puppy mills in Vaughan or Fenelon Falls. It is a problem all over Ontario, in every riding, even in Parry Sound-Muskoka.

I'd like to take note of the fact that there are many responsible, excellent and caring breeders across this province, and this bill is not targeted at them.

Like the breeders of Ollie, our Labrador retriever, John and June Onda in Dunchurch in the northern part of my riding, they do an excellent job. I know when we arrived to get Ollie nine years ago

as a small puppy, they helped us pick what we asked for, the friendliest puppy of the bunch. He certainly turned out to be that way and has been a great pet.

It's not targeting those people who are using dogs and animals for hunting, like the Ontario Sporting Dogs Association.

It's less red tape than other proposed bills because we don't want to burden those legitimate operations with undue red tape. We're trying to deal with a

problem, not make unnecessary work for legitimate breeders.

Puppy mills treat animals in a deplorable manner. They house animals in cages, one on top of another. They are forced to exist in their own feces and urine.

Most carry untreated health problems. Defenceless, voiceless animals are bred quite literally to death. There is absolutely no concern for their health and what genetic deformities might be passed

along to their offspring.

This private member's bill today sends a clear message to those who abuse animals: animal cruelty will not be tolerated in Ontario.

The act in its second reading today targets puppy and kitten mills. It will establish standards of care for dogs, puppies, cats and kittens for the purpose of

breeding and selling. In addition to outlining a standard of care for cats and dogs in Ontario, it will create an offence for the violation of any of the standards. Not only will there be standards

of care for cats and dogs in Ontario, but if these standards are not met, extensive penalties will be enforced. These standards will require breeders and those selling animals to provide adequate

food and water as well as medical attention while the animals are being bred or kept for sale. They will have to provide physical safety while the animals are being transported, and breeders must

also provide adequate space, ventilation, sanitary conditions and the opportunity for exercise.

All these standards are simply common sense, and it's unfortunate these sorts of standards have to be put into legislation. However, like I said before, the

bill includes penalties for failing to comply with standards of care for cats and dogs, and those penalties include fines of up to $60,000 and not more than five years in jail. In addition to any

other penalty, the court may make an order prohibiting the offender from engaging in or being employed or involved in the breeding of cats and dogs for sale for a specified period or, in the case

of a corporation, forever.

I can see I'm running out of time, so I'd like to wrap up by saying that puppy mills should certainly not be tolerated in this province of Ontario. People who

care about animals show them love, compassion and respect. They feed them, give them water, socialize them and see that their medical needs are met. After all, as the author George Eliot said,

"Animals are such agreeable friends. They ask no questions, they pass no criticisms."

I encourage all members to support this bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I've wanted to speak on this issue; it's one that is extremely important to people right across the

province. I have received communications from people who are very concerned about puppy mills in this province. They have been wanting to see the provincial government take some action,

particularly since my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence, Mike Colle, has been across this province indicating what the problems are, taking this cause on with as much vigour as that with which he's

taken on the cause of the Oak Ridges moraine.

Just as he was able to extract from the government action on the Oak Ridges moraine through his persistence and his campaigning, it is my hope that we will see

from the provincial government the same kind of action as a result of his persistence on the issue of puppy mills, which are disgraceful in this province in some instances, the breeding of puppies,

and particularly these mills that they have that are almost factories.

The member for York North has brought forward a piece of legislation that will be a step in the right direction. In my view, and it's a pretty objective view

-- I know you don't think so, because when it's your own member, you tend to say your own member, of course, has a better bill. If it weren't, I suppose I wouldn't be saying it were. But I think

the legislation to be brought forward on December 6 by the member for Eglinton-Lawrence is considerably stronger than this legislation. You can always find a member on the government side who will

find a federal component to any bill, that the province shouldn't take action; it's a federal jurisdiction. I've heard some of those petitions read in the House, a petition that asks the federal

government to take action.

Here is an issue that is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The Solicitor General of this province has not moved forward as we would have

hoped with strong legislation in this regard. My colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence has indicated he wishes to bring forward a bill. In fact, I made way for that bill. I had the designation for a

private member's bill on December 6. I felt so strongly about this piece of legislation, that it needed action before the end of this session, that I traded my place with the member for

Eglinton-Lawrence so that legislation could come forward.

His legislation certainly deals with what the real problems are. To put an end to the practices that have been described in this Legislature and give

unsuspecting consumers assurance that they're purchasing what we would refer to as healthy pets, the Puppy Mill Ban and Animal Cruelty Prevention Act by the member for Eglinton-Lawrence will

legislate the following things, which I think is even stronger than this legislation: it will require the licensing of all pet breeders and kennels to operate in Ontario; it will allow full

inspections of breeder and kennel operators by the OSPCA; it will make it a provincial offence to operate puppy or other pet mills, punishable by fines of up to $50,000 and/or two years in jail; it

allows the imposition of a lifetime ban on individuals found operating pet mills; it imposes fines or jail terms on pet store operators that knowingly and willingly buy or sell pets from pet mills;

and it establishes a publicly accessible provincial registry of pet breeders and kennels.

I think that kind of legislation is significantly stronger than the legislation that the member for York North has brought forward today, and I would hope we

would see full support for the legislation that the member for Eglinton-Lawrence brings forward.

All of us in this House, regardless of what political party we belong to, are sickened by what we've seen with these puppy mills, the mistreatment of these

animals. For many people, the animal that they have, be it a dog or a cat or another pet, is great companionship, a source of comfort, a source of support. You see this very often with seniors who

are perhaps alone and have a pet with them, a pet that has become very much attached to them.

We want to ensure that when people are purchasing dogs, whether it's for children or for seniors or others, those dogs have had a healthy upbringing, that the

breeding process has been such that they've been treated not cruelly but instead very sympathetically, and nourished properly both in terms of the love that is given to those animals and in terms

of the physical nourishment that can be provided.

I think this bill is a step in the right direction. I think the bill by the member for Eglinton-Lawrence is much stronger.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to start off in recognizing the member for York North for bringing forward Bill 129, an amendment to

the OSPCA act; also to recognize two Solicitors General. I've sat on a task force. The Honourable David Tsubouchi and now the Honourable David Turnbull have been working with the Toronto Humane

Society as well as the OSPCA in amending that particular act, and I look forward to that coming forward later on.

I listened to the member for Eglinton-Lawrence being quite critical of this particular bill. The member for St Catharines was a little more supportive,

expecting and wanting it to go further. But if we were to be critical, I'd suggest we be critical of the federal government and their blundering with the Criminal Code, which the problem of cruelty

to animals comes under. I agree with their increased penalties, and we had a resolution in this House to increase those penalties. But there are a lot of problems with that particular bill,

particularly with the definition of "animals."

I also heard the member for Eglinton-Lawrence talk about licensing or registration of these kennels, these so-called puppy mills, which is very difficult to

define. I think it's going to be a lot like the criminal element: will they register their guns? They are the problem, but no, they are not going to register their guns. I would suggest that

probably a move like that would just drive those organizations and those operations further underground.

I also heard him call all of these operators criminals. If in fact they are criminals, then why wouldn't they be charged under the Criminal Code? It's

certainly open there. If in fact they are criminals, that's the Criminal Code and that's where they should be charged. But I would disagree that they are all criminals -- some possibly with a

profit motive, but some evolve into these situations in a very innocent way.

The member may ask, how do I know? As a veterinarian in practice, I've been in these premises and I've seen how they have evolved. At that time -- it was quite

a while ago when I was in practice as a veterinarian -- there weren't really the teeth to do very much about it. Later on, as I worked in a diagnostic lab as a veterinary pathologist doing

necropsies on these animals -- certainly I'm empathetic to the concerns coming from the other side of the House, but I see the very practical approach the member from York North is using in this

bill. She is looking at standards, taking a code of practice, giving it more teeth and putting it into a bill. I believe that is absolutely, at this point in time, the right direction to be going

until the full OSPCA Act amendments come forward from the minister.

I really agree it is the right direction. The wrong direction is to try and identify a puppy mill or kitten mill with a maximum number of bitches or queens

that might be there for breeding purposes or the maximum number of litters in a year that a queen or a bitch might have. That isn't the problem. The problem is how the animals are raised, how

they're housed, how they are looked after. If you wrestle with this whole problem of defining a puppy mill or defining a kitten mill, it is literally impossible. I know it creates all kinds of

emotion to use that term, and it is great if you want to build emotion in society and build toward getting something accomplished.

What the member from York North is presenting, the code of practice that has been used by the OSPCA and others, is very similar to the codes of practice for

other species of animals raised on farms. I compliment her for bringing this forward to recognize these standards and have them enshrined in law, provided this bill passes second and third reading.

Again, compliments to the member from York North.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mrs Munro: I want to thank all those who have taken

part in the debate this morning. I want to comment on a couple of points that have been

raised.

To the member from Toronto-Danforth, who believes this does not ban puppy mills, I think she has missed the point of the definition. It does ban, because what

we are saying is, "If you can't meet the standards, you're out of business." It's that simple.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt referred to the member opposite's bill as a more comprehensive approach. I just want to call attention to the fact that

when you look at that comprehensive approach, you find it catches everyone and crosses already existing jurisdictions. Municipal bylaws exist that provide the operational requirements, inspection

and so on and so forth. But what that comment actually leads to is what I believe is the most important part of being able to distinguish between the two bills.

The member for Eglinton-Lawrence's bill is very much in the mindset that criminals register guns. He believes that puppy mill operators are going to sign up on

a provincial registry. In fact, it is quite clear that that is not the case; that's not what people do. My bill provides a mechanism where you put them out of business because they can't meet the

standards of care. It is care and the opposite, neglect, that is the critical piece in being able to assure the purchaser that any animal comes from the appropriate environment and background.

That's what this bill is intended to do. I certainly urge all members of the House to support the bill.

The Acting Speaker: That completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item 33. We will take the questions at 12 o'clock noon.

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HÉRITAGE

SUD-ASIATIQUE

Mr Gill moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 98,

An Act to proclaim May as South Asian Heritage Month and May 5 as South Asian Arrival Day / Projet de loi 98, Loi proclamant le mois de mai Mois de

l'héritage sud-asiatique et le 5 mai Jour de l'arrivée des Sud-Asiatiques.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is an honour to initiate debate on Bill 98, the South Asian Heritage Act, 2001. I would

first of all like to thank the members of the Ontario PC caucus for their generous support and encouragement of this bill. I would especially like to thank our Premier, the Honourable Mike Harris,

who has offered his assistance through words and, more importantly, through actions when it comes to encouraging and supporting the South Asian community in Ontario. I would also like to thank my

caucus colleagues who have volunteered to speak in favour of this bill, Mr John O'Toole, Mr Doug Galt, Mrs Marilyn Mushinski, and the Honourable Tony Clement. These are among many of the

hardest-working members in this Legislature and I do appreciate their personal support and friendship.

The South Asian Heritage Act, 2001, is a bill that all members of this Legislature should support, and I am certainly looking forward to their support this

morning. It offers the opportunity for us to come together, not only as members of political parties but as members of this great chamber, steeped in history and pride, to recognize and celebrate

the contributions of Ontario's South Asian community.

The South Asian Heritage Act, 2001, is a bill that does two simple but very important things. It proclaims the month of May as South Asian Heritage Month and

the 5th day of May as South Asian Arrival Day. This is the first such bill in Canada. Our actions and words today will leave an everlasting mark.

My friends, let us make no mistake. Today's Hansard and comments made by all members of the House will be reviewed by the eager South Asian press, over a

million South Asians living in Canada and many others around the globe. Today, we as legislators are laying a foundation for the well-deserved recognition of the South Asian community. Today, all

members of this Legislature have the opportunity to acknowledge Ontario's diversity and, at the same time, an opportunity to lay a positive foundation upon which South Asian children and adults,

young and old, can see themselves reflected in the fabric of society in our great province.

I'm going to outline the many contributions of South Asians in Ontario, but first I would like to acknowledge the work of the members of the Indian arrival and

heritage month committee who have led the way in promoting South Asian heritage in Ontario. There are several members, and it would be difficult for me to mention all their names because then we'd

be using up all the time. They have played a key role in bringing people of South Asian backgrounds together and are a key inspiration for the creation and introduction of this bill.

The South Asian community is strong and proud. I am proud to call myself a member of this community. As South Asians, we take pride in our heritage, in our

culture, and in our individual religions and in our community. For South Asians, the month of May has been a time of celebration and commemoration of our arrival from the Indian subcontinent to the

Americas, beginning on May 5, 1938.

In Ontario, the first South Asians who arrived here worked in our thriving sawmill industry and helped to open up the frontier. Many of them chose to settle in

those small communities across Ontario. In 1897, Sikh soldiers from the Hong Kong regiment travelled across Canada on their way home from England after taking

part in Queen Victoria's jubilee. One

headline at the time read, "Turbaned Men Excite Interest: Awe-Inspiring Men from India Held the Crowds."

A few years later, my grandfather, Sardar Mewa Singh Gill, hearing news of this wonderful country, joined his friends and headed to Canada. They took a ship,

now infamous, the Kamagata Maru. Upon reaching British Columbia, the federal government of the day, fearing a wave of undesirable immigrants, bombarded the ship with cannons and refused to allow it

to drop anchor in Canada. Undeterred by the unfriendly welcome, my grandfather jumped the ship Kamagata Maru in Mexico and with his friends made his way north to Canada. This was in the year 1914.

They lived and worked in Canada for about five years, helping to build the railroads, and then returned to India.

In India, tales of Canada were told to us as young children many years later, and it was upon the advice of my grandfather that I, as a young man of 17, joined

my parents and siblings to travel to Canada some 34 years ago.

Another parallel is the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh, who also left India at the age of 17 to come to Canada and had the honour of achieving the highest public

office in British Columbia, as the Premier of BC the first South Asian descendant to be Premier of a great province of Canada.

From small communities and humble beginnings, Ontario South Asians have lived, worked and raised their families in Ontario since the early part of the 20th

century. While the Ontario South Asian community is as vast and diverse as Canada, we share a common bond: our ancestry. Most South Asians come to Canada directly from India, but many others come

to Ontario from such places as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, Mauritius, Fiji, the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and many others. Today, South Asians

number over 700,000 in Ontario and are proud to contribute to many aspects of culture, commerce and public service across this province.

This contribution has not gone unnoticed. Speaking to the 10th annual Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce awards and gala dinner this past June, Premier Harris

said, "The Indo-Canadian community has consistently founded companies that have created jobs and enhanced the economic vibrancy of Ontario." The Premier went on to state, "Our province is the

preferred destination of South Asian immigrants to Canada. That's a testament to Ontario's quality of life and economic strength, and we intend to keep it that way."

The Premier spent that June evening saluting the accomplishment of South Asians such as Anita Gahir, a 13-year-old up-and-coming golf great, who has won a

number of major tournaments, including the US Kids World Championship. South Asians have not only excelled in golf but also in sports such as figure skating, where young Emmanuel Sandhu represents

Canada internationally. In boxing, Jamie Behl, a young lady of 26 years, has held the Canadian 48-kilogram boxing championship for the past six years and is currently ranked second in the world. As

a matter of fact, only yesterday Jamie finished her training and left for the world championships, where she hopes to return with a gold medal. I'm sure my colleagues here at Queen's Park will want

to wish her well.

It is with pride that I acknowledge that this year, for the first time ever, a young South Asian, Neelam Verma -- who is in the members' gallery today, and I

would like to recognize her -- has won the Miss Canada Universe pageant and will be representing Canada in the Miss Universe pageant in Puerto Rico next spring. Miss Verma is here this morning in

the members' gallery, as I said. Neelam, I know all members of this Legislature join with me in offering our best wishes to you as you represent not only your hometown of Etobicoke but Ontario and

Canada as well.

Today, South Asian culture is on permanent display at the Royal Ontario Museum, thanks to the kind and generous support of Christopher Ondaatje. Last year,

thanks to the support of the Ontario government, the federal government and many kind sponsors, the Arts of the Sikh Kingdom exhibit was held at the ROM. In addition, South Asian author Rohinton

Mistry, a resident of the proud city of Brampton, is well known throughout Canada for his wonderful and award-winning novels.

I know the time is running short. I would request all members of this House today to help me and pass this bill.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased and delighted to lend my wholehearted and strong support to the bill.

If we look ahead at the province of Ontario, 90% of our population growth will come through immigration in the next 10 years, the next 25 years. The majority

of that will come from the east, from South Asia and from China. We depend on our ability to attract the best and the brightest from around the world to want to come and live in Ontario.

I have a metaphor for my view of Canada: I've always said it's like a flower garden. Originally there was one flower in this garden, our First Nations, our

native people, but over the history of this country we've been able to attract the best and the brightest flowers from around the world to want to come and live here. Of course, among the best and

the brightest flowers is our diverse South Asian community. It's going to be even more important in the future that they feel this is a place in the world that they want to come to live. By the

way, it's going to get more competitive for it.

This act is one step, but an important step, in ensuring that people, when they're looking at where they may want to go and live, say, "I want to go to

Ontario." I also always say that, like any flower garden, it needs nurturing and caring. I hope that this bill, along with actions in the Legislature, will help that to happen.

I represent a community in the northwest part of Scarborough. Within a kilometre of where I live there are the largest mosque in Toronto, or one of the largest

mosques in Toronto, a very large gurdwaras, two Hindu temples and a Buddhist temple, reflecting the changing complexion of Ontario. As I say, if we look ahead, our diversity will become even more

important.

One of the things we in this Legislature have to make sure we do is that we make our diverse faiths welcome and we do what we can to ensure that they are able

to practise their faith as freely as possible. That often includes changes in the workplace and ensuring that we accommodate a variety of religions in the workplace. Another thing that we need to

do much more of is called access to trades and professions.

Ontarians may not realize it, but immigrants, on average, have a higher level of education than the rest of us in Ontario. If you look at the average education

of immigrants to Ontario, they already have a higher level of education. I often feel sorry for the country of origin because they've invested a lot to educate these people and they choose to come

to Ontario. We have an enormous brain gain. We've often in the Legislature bemoaned our brain drain, but Ontario every year gets 100,000 people to come to Ontario, better educated than the rest of

us. We have an enormous brain gain but we're still, to this day, not taking advantage of it. As we all know, there are medical doctors driving cabs. I met recently with an individual from

Kitchener, and there's a group of doctors -- I think there's 52 or 53 foreign-trained physicians, more than that -- living in Kitchener-Waterloo who can't practise, and yet Kitchener-Waterloo is an

underserviced area. All of us need to push far more aggressively for this access to trades and professions.

I often mention that, like any flower garden, there are weeds that creep in. We collectively need to root that out. All of us were disturbed immediately after

the September 11 incident at how many in our Muslim community, our Arab community, felt the brunt of a completely unfair and unwarranted attack on them. I've always said that whenever this happens

to any community, we all have a responsibility to step in and respond to it. We can never allow a community to be isolated and attacked by that fringe element in our community that would use an

event like September 11 to attack a community. I'm happy that response eventually took place. The Friday of the week of the September 11 event I did visit, along with other members, a mosque to

lend my support to the Muslim community.

I represent an area with a large Tamil community. I've often said here in the Legislature that there are 300,000 Tamils living in the greater Toronto area; 300

of them are in gangs. That's one out of 1,000 in a gang. But when many in the community think of the Tamil community, they think of Tamil gangs. I have a local school called L'Amoreaux Collegiate.

A year ago the valedictorian and the two top students in that school were from the Tamil community. Many of us attended an event just a week and a half ago -- Mr Gill might have been at it --

called CANTYD. The young Tamil community was honouring the achievements of the young Tamils in our society.

My point is that as we recognize this enormous strength in our diversity, when we see attacks against one of the communities, we all must step forward and

speak out. I often speak with the Tamil community and say, "Ontarians recognize" -- when you hear the word "Tamil," think of the 999 out of 1,000 that are hard-working, caring, dedicated and, I

might say, often among our best and brightest young people. Think of those 999. The police will deal with the other one out of 1,000.

I go back to how I opened my comments, and that is, the future of Ontario depends on our ability to continue to be a society where the best and the brightest

from around the world say, "I can go anywhere in the world, but I want to go to Ontario." We truly are a beacon for the world. If you look at the challenges in the world, here we are in Ontario

with this enormous diversity. In my community we've got Christian churches, the mosques, gurdwaras, Hindu temples, all within a very short distance from each other.

While the rest of the world is struggling with how we all live and work together, we have a model here. I'm proud to support this bill and say it is another

step forward in making sure that Ontario continues to be that kind of an environment.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On behalf of the New Democrats, Raminder, we congratulate you, the member for

Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale -- it's a

long title -- for introducing this bill. He of course has delineated very well the proud history and heritage of Canadians of South Asian heritage, and

it's something that people need to hear to feel acknowledged and recognized as equals in this country and in this province.

I want to argue that multiculturalism is a beautiful thing, but we have to make it work. I suspect that there are a lot of South Asians in this province and

this country, however, who feel that they are not as equal as they would like to be; that many of them would like to be in positions of responsibility and power, and they think they're not getting

there for some obvious reasons of issues of race. There are a lot of South Asians who probably are arguing, "Why are we at the bottom of the rung in terms of economic benefits, in terms of wages?

Why is it that having a good education still leaves us at the bottom rung as people of colour?" I think they want to ask those question.

I just don't think it's good enough for us, Mr Banker, to be able to just say, "This is a proud day and we should just be happy and celebrate our heritage." We

have to show the underbelly of that problem that we have in this province.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): We saw the belly you showed in 1995.

Mr Marchese: I want to tell the member from Mississauga Centre that he doesn't have a proud history as it relates to issues of people of

different colour, of people with disabilities, of aboriginal people.

You'll remember that the New Democrats introduced employment equity in this place. Mr Sampson wasn't here, some of you were not here, but your previous members

were. When the New Democrats were in power, we introduced a bill called employment equity that was designed to bring about fairness to people who traditionally had been discriminated against, and

those were aboriginal communities, our First Nations people, women, people of colour and people with disabilities. The New Democrats said, "We have to recognize there is discrimination in this

society."

Of course, all politicians want to be so nice. They all want to be so nice about how proud we are to be non-racist in this country. Politicians don't want to

talk about racism at all, especially on the happy occasion today of the introduction of this bill. They would rather be nice today. A few of them already are not liking what I'm about to say today,

and we might be lucky enough to hear from them. But we said, "There is discrimination in society, it's documented," and we introduced employment equity to bring about greater fairness. We said,

"Where there are large communities of people with disabilities, people of colour, the workplace needs to represent them fairly." It wasn't doing that and it's still not doing that.

When this government got into power in 1995, defeating the New Democrats, they said that was a quota bill and it was bad. They said it was reverse

discrimination, and those poor people of colour would have to fight as equals with the rest of them. We know that people of colour are not as equal as they want to be. They know that if you're

black, you don't get treated as well as if you are white. They know that. You can hide that as much as you want, but people of colour know that they suffer the effects of their colour. They know

that. They seek justice and they seek fairness and they seek a society that is anti-racist and they look to government to do that.

Employment equity was such a measure -- a measure.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): This is below even you, Rosie.

Mr Marchese: I'm not sure whether Mr Wettlaufer from Kitchener Centre, normally my friend, is going to say anything today about this bill, but

I'm looking forward to his comments.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Marchese: The member for Kitchener Centre would like me just to be polite and tell you how wonderful you all are, and, "Isn't this a proud,

proud country where we have everyone coming as immigrants, and aren't we all so happy to be here." Yes, we are, but we want to be treated equally and fairly in this society. Don't you want to be

treated equally and fairly? Of course you do, and of course the few people of South Asian origin who are here want to be treated as equals, but they know they're not getting the same fair

shake.

What did you do in response to employment equity? You axed it in a matter of weeks. It was repealed. It was gone. Why? Because the government said, "We are all

equal in this society." Ha. "We are all equal," they said, and they argued, for those of you who support that government, "If you've got a problem with racism or discrimination, you can go to the

Human Rights Commission." You can go there and wait for years and years, if you're lucky enough to be heard at the Human Rights Commission, which these people have axed by way of support. They're

proud to say, "Oh, things are moving real fast." Of course, because they're not being dealt with.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Kitchener Centre will come to order. If I hear from him again, he's going to be out. Thank you.

The member for Trinity-Spadina.

Mr Marchese: The member for Kitchener Centre is not happy with my comments. Of course not.

They got rid of the Anti-Racism Secretariat. They said, "We don't need it. We're all equal." Do you people of South Asian origin feel like you're equals in

this society? How many of you are out there, day in and day out, in the workplace and in that society, saying, "I am an equal. I get the same wages as everybody else; I have the same employment

opportunities as everybody else"? Raminder, please, you're lucky to be here. How many of us, how many of you are in this Legislature? You --

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Yes, they're proud. We've got New Democrats -- please, you're in the wrong seat. You're not in your seat.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham is not in his chair and if I hear from him again, he'll be gone.

Mr Marchese: We have New Democrats as well of South Asian origin. Raminder mentioned one. He didn't say he was a New Democrat, but he is the

Premier of British Columbia and his name is Ujjal Dosanjh. He's a New Democrat. We're proud of that. I don't think he mentioned the Alberta leader of the New Democrats, who is Raj Pannu. I don't

know if you mentioned him, but he's a New Democrat. He's the leader of the NDP. We're proud of that.

You can mention many great Canadians of South Asian origin. That's not the point. There are many great Canadians from every linguistic or racial group, but

does that mean all South Asians share the same success? No. Can they all say, "We are equal because we were able to be Premiers of certain provinces" and that any South Asian can do it, just like

Ujjal did in British Columbia? I tell you, no. Those individuals are the exceptions. The rest of the folks have to worry about whether or not there's racism out there.

September 11 has shown us that racism has not disappeared. We know that the temples and mosques of people of the Hindu and Sikh communities have been

vandalised and attacked since September 11. Why? On what basis? Because racism is still in our society and it's so very likely not going to go away. This government got rid of ESL programs from the

Ministry of Citizenship. This government got rid of the Welcome Houses that received immigrants and prepared them for orientation into Canadian society. They eliminated all that. How do you do

that? How do you build bridges? You don't build bridges by just simply saying, like these Tories, "Don't worry, you're all equal. This bill will just make it all better, because you're all

equal."

You all know that. You have so many of these Tories around here -- good people all. My friend from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey is a good man, but I don't

know how they can defend certain things.

Governments have to be leaders. Governments have to lead, and you lead by example. The way you've led is to destroy employment equity. Gone. You axed it. You

axed the Anti-Racism Secretariat, the ESL programs from the Ministry of Citizenship and the Welcome Houses. What does it say to those communities? What does it say to them when you do that?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): We axed the quota bill.

Mr Marchese: David said, like Stockwell used to say with his eyes popping out, "It was a quota bill." These people intentionally, deliberately

give you a distorted view of what that bill was. We said that workplaces had to create targets and they had to meet them. The Tories conveniently, politically, brilliantly said, "It's a quota

bill." You don't have to explain quotas, you just have to say, as they did, that it was a --

Mr Tilson: So many women, so many disabled, so many people of colour, so many aboriginals. That's all quota --

The Acting Speaker: When I'm standing, you're quiet. If I hear from the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey again he'll be gone.

Mr Marchese: The member from Simcoe Centre smiles ever so sardonically. I don't know how Raminder feels, but I tell you, I would feel pretty

bad to be in your shoes, as I would have felt to have been a Liberal when we were doing the employment equity bill and some of the members had to attack that bill too. It was very odd, I've got to

tell you.

But I'm proud. As an immigrant, I'm proud to be here, proud to receive immigrants from all over the world; proud and happy. As a government, we need to create

bridges. As a government and as politicians, we need to break down barriers and not raise them up. You don't do it by getting rid of the Anti-Racism Secretariat. You just don't do that. You cannot

be happy, the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, to say, "We got rid of the quota bill because it had quotas for women, quotas for people with disabilities, quotas for aboriginal people,

quotas for people of colour." All these communities have been discriminated against. You just say that so nonchalantly.

What do you offer in its place? You offer nothing, no bridges whatsoever. You offer nothing to those communities that could say, "We're proud of what these

Tories are doing." What have you offered, except to give them words that you treat them as equals, that they are equals? What have you given them and what evidence do they have that they have

advanced economically in this place, that their wages are as equal as the rest, that they compete fairly with white folks in society? What evidence do they have? They know. I don't have to tell

them; they know.

September 11 has brought to our communities racial profiling, which New Democrats attacked because racial profiling produces the example of Mr Bhupinder

Dhanoa, when he was abused so disgracefully on a trip he made November 17. An innocent, law-abiding Sikh man was forced off his flight in Toronto because another passenger complained he was staring

at him. They stopped the plane and got him off because some other person complained he was staring at them too long. Raminder, please, what do you say to that? You ought to be standing up, you and

the rest of them, like the member from Mississauga Centre. I want to hear his proud remarks about this.

Hon Mr Sampson: You bet.

Mr Marchese: You bet, my foot. Except for racial profiling -- that's what you people are good at.

You have power, members of the South Asian community, and your power is your vote to determine who is on your side, to determine what's best for a

multicultural society. And for multiculturalism to be meaningful, we all have to feel we have a place in this province.

This bill acknowledges you. Fair enough, and I support that. I'm saying we need to do more. Those gestures have to be visible to you and to me, and they, as

governments, have to lead, not just through measures with this bill, which are good enough for me to support but insufficient and inadequate to deal with the larger problems that many of you are

facing. I say "many of you," and I feel the fact that as Ontarians some of you are suffering more than some others. You have power to use it.

We have power today to celebrate May as the month of South Asian Heritage. No problem; it's good to recognize. All I'm saying to Raminder and the rest of you

is, let's look at our society and see whether we have failings and how we deal with those failings. If we value multiculturalism, let's make it work and let's make it meaningful and let's put into

place as governments, not just bridges, but let's break down barriers so that we all feel genuinely equal in this society. That day will come. The day will come when people of all heritage will

mix, will intermarry and it will be a beautiful Canada when we have the power to intermarry and break down yet another barrier. When that happens, we will have achieved greater equality as people

of all nations.

Raminder, I support your bill. There's much more to do and I wanted to speak to how much needed to be done.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 98 from my good friend from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. For

my first year and a half year here I had the privilege of sitting beside him in the Legislature.

What an embarrassing speech we've just heard, going on about partisan politics, talking about their employment disequity bill that they put through. Getting

jobs in this country is about specific skills. That's what the ethnic communities want and that's what most people in Ontario want, except the NDP. What an embarrassing bill that was before us.

I want to speak on contributions that have been made to our society by various ethnic groups, and I want to speak from personal experiences, having lived for a

year in Indonesia, from 1988 to 1989. The first one is looking at life in a different sort of way, and both are right. Is the glass half full or half empty? While over there, I tended to like to

have my hair cut shorter, and I went in with the right words to the barber and asked to have my hair cut shorter. For six months it got longer and longer and it started down the back of my neck. I

was a bit frustrated until finally accidentally I found out that what they measure there is not what is left, but what you take off. It's the same whether you cut grain or cut hay or cut hair. When

I went back and told them I wanted it cut longer, I got my hair cut just the way I wanted it. It's just a communications issue, and if you think about it, it makes more sense to measure what you

take off.

The next one, on debate -- and they never really got into debate because it was important not to embarrass the person they were visiting with or what we might

call debating with. They referred to it, in translation, as "saving face." I think the members on our opposition benches could learn from that bit of culture, saving face just a little bit,

especially when I heard this last speech. By the way, I lived on the island of Java in the city of Yogyakarta, in the centre of Java, not to be confused with the capital, Djakarta. They're so

polite over there, they have a word for no -- "tidak" -- but I never heard it used while I was there. The strongest no they ever use is "mun kin besok," which is translated as "maybe tomorrow."

When they repeat that a couple of times, that really translates as an absolute no, but they're so polite they do not use that.

Last June I had the opportunity to attend a banquet here in Toronto with about 1,500 people from South Asia of the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce. What great

food they had that evening, but also what a great quote. I'd like to read the quote to you from the Premier of the province, Mike Harris. He said, "The Indo-Canadian community has consistently

founded companies that have created jobs and enhanced the economic vibrancy of Ontario. Our province is the preferred destination of South Asian immigrants to Canada -- that's a testament to

Ontario's quality of life and economic strength and we intend to keep it that way."

I was so pleased that evening that Steve Gupta, who has property in my riding at Port Hope, received a very special award. He is one of the many, many

entrepreneurs who have contributed so much to our culture.

This bill recognizes South Asians' contributions to our Canadian mosaic. I would encourage every member in this House to support this bill. I'd also encourage

every member in this House to have an experience of some of those different cultures we're so fortunate to have come to this great province of Ontario.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus and my leader, Dalton McGuinty, in support of this bill of the member for

Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, private member's Bill 98, the South Asian Heritage Act, 2001.

Many times I get asked, who are the South Asians and what community do they consist of? I'm happy to tell you that the South Asian community itself is a

multicultural community of various backgrounds. For instance, right here in Toronto we have many communities that have their very own cultural initiatives, their very own language, their very own

way of doing things. The Pakistani community, of course, is now over 80,000 members strong in Toronto; the Bengali community, over 6,000 people; the Ismaili community, over 25,000 members. The East

Indian community is one of the largest -- 180,000 persons who trace their ancestry to the subcontinent and to India. From Sri Lanka we have the Tamil community -- in Toronto, 170,000 people. Each

one of these communities has a distinct social and cultural life and is very proud of their background, heritage and language.

In Toronto alone, when we look at this great city, it's been declared by the United Nations as the most multicultural city in the whole world. Over 52% of

people from Toronto were not born in Toronto; they were born outside of Canada. In the greater Toronto area, we have over 40% of our residents and citizens who were not born in Canada. These are

really staggering numbers.

In Toronto alone we speak over 100 languages. The United Nations says there are 189 countries. We have people here from 170 countries. The question we should

ask ourselves is, why do all these people from each corner of the globe want to come to Canada? Toronto especially is the recipient of the majority of them. Why do they want to come here? The

answer is not that difficult. They believe that in Canada we have a very tolerant society. But not only that, they believe that here we have an equality of opportunity and a sense of justice and

fairness, and a sense that each one of us will be treated equally. Certainly there's a great sense of having an opportunity they will not have in the country of their origin. While there may be

many reasons why people come to Canada, essentially that's the essence of why people come here.

It is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to try to ensure the doors are open. Not only do we need people; even for our economy it's important that we get

people coming here from all over the world. Our economy is dependent on the growth of not only the ethnocultural communities but of the population base. So I'm delighted that I am part of this

Legislature and part of a Canadian government that has opened its doors.

We've heard the speech before from the member for Trinity-Spadina. He says much more needs to be done. We're not a perfect society, but at least we're taking

steps in the right direction. What might some of these steps be?

The first step Mr Phillips was talking about that we have taken, and these are just baby steps, is a step to ensure that when foreign-trained professionals

come to this country, and we have a need for them, they be given a fair chance to practise what they practised where they came from.

It simply can't be that our immigration officials in our embassies abroad are saying, "We will give you extra points for coming to this country because you're

educated and you are practising a profession," and then when they come to Toronto, what do they find? Do they find the doors open in terms of practising their profession? There is a greater

sensitivity and consciousness now among those professional organizations and they say now, "Maybe we should be changing our outlook a bit." Just yesterday I was delighted to speak in front of the

professional engineers of Ontario. I was delighted to see that many members were from South Asia. I was delighted to see that, because the engineers of Ontario have opened the doors a bit more --

they've done the right thing -- than other professions.

It can't be that we have a great number of educated persons who come from outside the country and end up as taxi drivers, as restaurant cleaners or as pizza

delivery persons. I say to you today that you have the power too, while we celebrate this bill, to open the doors and to make your input in terms of saying to them, in terms of my own private

member's bill which I introduced into this Legislature -- it was passed unanimously, but the government decided in its wisdom just to table it and do nothing about it.

We have a responsibility to all those who are professional persons and who come to Canada, whether they be doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, engineers,

accountants or lawyers, that the doors be open so they can practise in their professions.

We're proud, as Canadians, to have a sense of fair play and a sense of justice. It is in this direction that we must open the doors. There are other areas of

course, and I'm talking about the Anti-Racism Secretariat, I'm talking about the Ontario Welcome Houses and I'm talking about the decimation of the diversity council of Ontario. But aside from

that, we are here today to support this bill.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to join in debate on Bill 98, the South Asian Heritage Act. Let me first of all congratulate and

recognize my good friend Raminder Gill, the member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, for his efforts in putting this bill together to recognize the contributions of Ontario's South Asian

community and to welcome all those who are listening and visiting today in the gallery.

I just want to mention that I'm a little bit saddened; in fact, I'm a little bit off my message that I had taken some time to prepare. I'm absolutely saddened

by the statements by the member from Trinity-Spadina. He said, "Mr Gill is lucky to be here." That fundamentally defines the problem with their employment equity position. It is so patronizing, as

if skilled people cannot make it on their own. I really just can't embrace that kind of misconceived patronizing attitude toward Mr Gill; as if they're not professionals.

I might return with the response that the member from Trinity-Spadina might consider himself lucky to be here, along with other members of both sides of this

House whose birthplace is -- or their mother's or father's -- another country. I think it is embarrassing actually that you would use this opportunity, a celebration. And I point to other people in

the gallery here today: Mr Harry Mann, who's a good friend, a consummate professional in both India and in Canada and a very successful individual, no thanks to your particular attitude toward

making people feel that they aren't equal by the very nature of the policy you put forward that implies that they can't make it.

It is that attitude that is fundamentally very flawed, patronizing and the lowest form of insult that I can imagine. I think of members in my community such as

Tunu Sohdi, whose family has run a very successful business in my riding, who have integrated in every aspect of the community and are full members of the community, without exception. I think of

other members of my community. I, for one, will be sending this Hansard and those remarks to my friends; specifically, Dave Patterson, who's a very good friend of mine, who's from the multicultural

council in Durham.

In a recent speech, the Premier spoke with the Indo Canada Chamber of Commerce and stated that Ontario is the "preferred destination of South Asian immigrants

to Canada." This fact is reflected not only in my community but, as I said before, throughout the GTA where South Asians today number over 700,000. South Asians in Ontario give a lot and ask for

little in return. They simply wish to be recognized, to be welcomed and to share in the opportunities of this great province. Their contributions serve to make Ontario for all of us a better place

to live, to work and to raise our families and, indeed, to celebrate our cultural uniqueness. They add much-needed skills to our economy, as has been said before, and diversify our very rich and

mosaic culture. This is about celebrating diversity. This is about celebrating the success of the South Asian community.

I know other members in this caucus want to be part of the celebration with Mr Gill and his friends in the gallery here today. It is my humble experience to be

able to share my commitment in supporting Mr Gill's initiative and his ongoing ability to articulate and celebrate the wonderful opportunities that we collectively share. That sharing is an equal

aspect of our society. Economies these people have left were often fraught with war and dislocation. They came here for opportunity.

Mr Gill's family came from India, it is my understanding, 34 years ago. Others from the South Asian community come from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,

Uganda, Kenya, Fiji and Guyana. I am pleased to support Mr Gill's initiative. I commend him for his effort and his research. I will certainly be supporting this legislation.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Dr Ubale, Drs H. and S. Sahay, Mr Jain, Shantu Maher, Vic Gupta, Stien Lal, Kanta Aurora, Sam

Hundal, Bobby Hundal, Sam Appadurai, Bahaden Madhani, Ayoub Vohar Banji, Ravi Shankar: who are these people and what do they have in common? Let me start off by saying that none of them needed a

quota law to achieve success. They are all personal acquaintances of mine and they're all of South Asian origin. They have all enriched and made a huge difference in the lives of many

individuals.

Dr Ubale is a well-known and highly respected pioneer in the field of human rights. Drs H. and S. Sahay are family practitioners in Scarborough, who put the

term "family" back into family practice. Mr Jain is a journalist and a teacher who has never wavered in advocating the values of strong cultural roots.

Shantu Maher was one of my closest friends in England as a late teen, who, from personal example, instilled in me the principles of tolerance, patience and

good humour. Surviving the terror of racist persecution, she and her husband were refugees from Kenya. She turned everything negative into something positive and introduced me to the wonderful

culinary art of Southeast Asian cuisine.

Vic Gupta is a young man going far, who is proud of his heritage and passionately defends justice and fights injustice.

Stien Lal was a deputy minister in a number of provincial ministries, and a highly respected leader in his community. I have always been impressed by his quiet

dignity.

Kanta Aurora is an active member of AWIC, which is the Association of Women from India in Canada.

Sammy Appadurai is a very active leader in the Tamil community in my riding.

Bahaden Madhani I have known for seven or eight years. I actually came to know him as a very strong advocate for volunteers when I was the Minister of

Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. He is past president of the United Way and recently received the Order of Canada.

Of course, I think most people here know Ravi Shankar as one of the greatest artists and philosophers in this world.

South Asian journalists, authors, artists and athletes represent our country and our province on the international stage, and make substantial contributions to

arts, business, charitable organizations, academia and medicine. Our Premier has acknowledged and commended the South Asian community for its contributions to Ontario's economy and continuing

effort in creating opportunities and founding companies that enhance economic life in our province.

As you know, I'm a great supporter and promoter of Ontario's diversity and would like to take this opportunity to applaud the very tremendous efforts of my

colleague and good friend Raminder Gill and his success in bringing members of the South Asian community into the political life of this province. I am delighted that our government is once again

reasserting its commitment to the conservation of culture in Ontario.

It's interesting that you will notice that most of the people who are talking between themselves and not listening to this submission are from the opposition

benches.

In my own riding I have been privileged to work with organizations such as the South Asian Family Network to preserve Ontario's rich multicultural tradition

for future generations.

I believe that Ontario's diverse heritage is not only a source of pride but a source of strength, optimism and confidence that help to build a better

future.

In celebrating the contributions that the South Asian community has made, we celebrate the great opportunities and uniquely diverse character of our province.

Building a better future for the people of Ontario has always been the core of our government, and we have accomplished much to ensure that our province will continue to flourish. In recognizing

the South Asian community as an integral part of our province, we embrace a vision of Ontario that promotes a sense of community, values and cultural diversity, and encourages the entrepreneurship,

perseverance and hard work that make it the great province that it is today.

The Acting Speaker: Response, the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

Mr Gill: I want to thank all the members of the Legislature who participated in the debate this morning. They've all touched on some things I

want to note here. South Asians today constitute a significant ethnic group in Ontario. Over 700,000 citizens of Ontario trace their roots to the Indian subcontinent. I know the member across said

I'm very lucky to be here -- I am very lucky to be here. Recently, the harder I work, the luckier I get. Some other people, like Ujjal Dosanjh, Raj Panu and Herb Dhaliwal, who is the Minister of

Fisheries, also are very lucky, but they are also at the same time very hard working. We're very proud to be here. Many of the people in the IT sector -- certainly it's not the lowest rung of

society. South Asians are working very hard to achieve their proper place.

South Asians living in Canada have played an active role in building Ontario and Canada into the nation it is today. South Asians arrived in the Americas, as I

said before, in 1838, after slavery was abolished in the British Empire. From various locations around the globe, South Asians migrated to Canada, and in particular Ontario, to live, work and raise

their families.

Many South Asian Canadians, including my father, served in many wars and many of them can still trace their family heritage to their participation in one of

the 17 Indian divisions mobilized by Great Britain during World War I.

Today, South Asians from around the world choose to call Ontario home. Their contributions in business, culture, sports and public service serve to enrich our

province and all of our lives.

The South Asian Heritage Act, 2001, is recognition of the contributions of South Asians and a chance for children young and old to see themselves reflected in

Ontario. This bill will also provide them with an opportunity to celebrate and share their culture with Ontarians. I do ask for everybody's support, please. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for ballot item number 34.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now revert to dealing with ballot item number 33.

Mrs Munro has moved second reading of Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Is it the pleasure of the House

that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have the division following dealing with ballot item number 34.

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HÉRITAGE

SUD-ASIATIQUE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Gill has moved second reading of Bill 98,

An Act to proclaim May as South Asian Heritage Month

and May 5 as South Asian Arrival Day. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mrs Munro has moved second reading of Bill 129. All those in favour will please stand and remain

standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until their name is called.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are zero.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to committee of the whole House.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I move that it be considered at the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Munro has asked that the bill be sent to general government. Agreed? Agreed.

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HÉRITAGE

SUD-ASIATIQUE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 34. We will open the doors for 30 seconds.

Mr Gill has moved second reading of Bill 98. All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63; the nays are zero.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to send this bill to the justice

and social policy committee.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Gill has asked that the bill be sent to the standing committee on justice and social policy. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBER'S STATEMENTS

CULTURAL SUMMIT

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Last night I hosted a cultural summit here at Queen's Park -- it was a first. A large representation

from the Ontario cultural industry was in attendance. The panel of speakers included William Thorsell from the ROM, arts educator Gino Falconi, Jim Garrard from the Toronto Arts Council, David

Mirvish, Jane Jacobs, radio personality Tony Monaco, Steve Ord from Alliance Atlantis, Dorothy Duncan from the Ontario Historical Society and Hennie Wolf from Visual Arts Ontario.

The summit served two purposes: to showcase the diversity and strength of the cultural industry, and to provide a forum to give a public voice to this vital

and strong community.

Dalton McGuinty spoke of the value of culture and how that we, the Liberal Party, will be the new era of co-operation and will breathe a new life into our

cultural industry. We understand the value of culture. The Ontario Liberal caucus is a strong public voice that believes in the tangible and intangible values of culture and heritage for our

communities and our working families.

Unfortunately the neo-Conservatives seems to know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

OSPCA LEGISLATION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to talk about Bill 129, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act,

2001. This is my private member's bill, which passed second reading today at noon. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who came out today to support my bill. I would also like to

thank MPPs Norm Miller from Parry Sound-Muskoka, Doug Galt from Northumberland and Joe Tascona from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for taking the time to speak in favour of my bill this morning.

The issue of puppy mills is not a new one, nor is it one that is easily solved. The OSPCA estimates some 400 puppy and kitten mills are operating in Ontario.

This bill, should it go through committee and pass third reading, would create a provincial offence for operating a puppy mill that does not exist today. By creating a provincial offence for this

type of operation, we would give the province the ability to crack down on these despicable business practices and not wait for the federal government to take this issue seriously. Although Bill

C-15 has been tabled, there does not seem to be a lot of political will on behalf of the federal Liberals to carry forward with aggressive changes to the animal cruelty

section of the Criminal

Code.

Bill 129 outlines a set of standards of care for all dogs and cats. These standards of care will address the issue of long-term neglect, which is not currently

in legislative form. I look forward to continuing debate on this issue and creating further awareness.

UKRAINIAN FAMINE AND GENOCIDE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): As MPP for the area of Parkdale-High Park, I stand today to recognize and acknowledge the memory of

the terrible famine and genocide that occurred in Ukraine in 1933. Ukrainian Canadians have set aside the week of November 18 to 25 to commemorate this event, as it coincides with the date

proclaimed by the President of Ukraine and the statement of that country's ambassador to the United Nations.

All of us in Ontario need to remember this period. There was an unprecedented loss of population to hunger in 1933, precipitated by the actions of the

occupying Soviet regime. Also lost were many of the university elite and government officials, resulting in a lack of records, but recent documentation now puts the number of people starved to

death at a horrendous seven to 10 million.

This unfathomable act was deliberately hidden from view but had no less real, brutal implications for its victims, its survivors in the country of Ukraine and

the many family members in Canada and elsewhere. Its occurrence is a lesson for the entire world, one that would have prevented other genocides had its existence been known sooner.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is to be congratulated for their work to increase public awareness of this event. I know everyone in this House appreciates the

effort they are making to have this tragedy taught in our schools and to secure a permanent commemoration memorial so that the lesson is truly never, ever forgotten.

In the gallery today are 18 members of our Ukrainian Canadian community, led by Ms Mary Szkambura, and several famine survivors: Benjamin Chmilenko, Pavlo

Makahon, Valentyna Podasz and Nicholas Latyshko. I ask everyone in the House to join me in acknowledging the people who are here with us today.

BLUE LIGHT PROGRAM

IN NIAGARA FALLS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I rise today to speak about a community initiative called the blue light program that began in Niagara Falls in

1998. A constituent of mine named Yvonne Zanussi contacted my office about the program that her son learned of from the Internet, and since then she has been promoting the program in Niagara

Falls.

In my riding, citizens have been asked to shine one significant blue light amid their Christmas displays in memory of police officers who have lost their lives

in the line of duty. Ideally, that visible light, inside or out, will shine throughout the Christmas season.

At present, the blue light program has been endorsed by the Niagara Falls city council and the Lions Club of Chippawa, which has offered both financial support

and the participation of their members.

On Tuesday, we had representatives from the Police Association of Ontario here at Queen's Park, and I believe this program is a unique way of showing tribute

to their fallen colleagues.

I want to encourage all the members of this House to promote this program in their ridings. Please contact my constituency office and we will be more than

happy to send any information about the program. I would like to congratulate my constituents on the initiative for promoting this program.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Yesterday evening I was invited to address Professional Engineers Ontario at their graduation exercises. Many of

these graduates were foreign trained. I wish to congratulate Professional Engineers Ontario for their foresight, especially Roger Barker, the registrar, because they changed their equivalency

status and criteria and they adopted an appeal process which opens the doors to qualified foreign-trained professionals.

You will remember that Dalton McGuinty and I and some of our colleagues introduced a bill in this Legislature which said, "Open the doors to professionals who

are foreign trained because they have equivalency." They come from all over the world, and yet when they apply to Ontario, they find the doors are closed. We're asking this government today to open

the doors.

I have personally given this Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities a number of cases to act upon. She has failed to do so. We have a list of 550

physicians who would like to appear and who would like to work in their professions and are unable to do so. Why? Because the doors are closed. They are waiting for an internship program. We know

there are 30 internships today, when indeed we could overcome our problem of the shortage. We can open the doors. We're asking this government today to open the doors, because people like to work

and get on with their lives.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have received a copy of an internal memo circulated at the Family Responsibility Office and I find it very

disturbing. The memo notes that the FRO is moving back to a case management system where all the cases will be owned by a client service associate. I support this, as the Provincial Auditor, in his

1990 review of the FRO, was very critical of the lack of ownership of cases. In too many cases, no one monitored if money went out to women and children on time or took needed enforcement

action.

But the memo states, "Each client service associate will have approximately 2000-plus cases as a result of releasing all the system-owned cases to the existing

group of CSAs." It further states, "We know ... at FRO" files "increase twofold every day and could have a lifespan of approximately 20 years or so." The recommendation is for the FRO to review its

timelines and internal policies to see if they can realistically be met.

If this plan goes into effect without this government hiring more staff at the FRO, I can guarantee that the FRO will completely break down. No one can handle

2,000 FRO files. No one can deal with the enforcement activities for even half the files. No one can answer phones in the call centre for three hours every day and still get support payments out to

women and children on time.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services must ensure more staff are hired to deal with this change. Women and children should not be put at financial risk

by not receiving their support on time because of changes being made by this government.

ANNIVERSARY OF HMCS PREVOST

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to inform members of the House of the 60th anniversary of the first commissioning of HMCS Prevost,

located in the great riding of London West.

London Division RCNVR was organized on August 8, 1938. In 1941, a decision to create independent commands in all shore establishments brought about the search

for appropriate names. It was decided that all naval divisions would be named after ships that had served in the Great Lakes during the War of 1812. Such was the beginning of HMCS Prevost, named

after HMS Lady Prevost, a schooner brig serving with the Lake Erie squadron, so named in honour of the wife of Sir George Prevost, the then Governor General of Canada and Commander-in-Chief of the

British forces in North America. The commissioning pennant was hoisted on the November 1, 1941.

During World War II, HMCS Prevost enrolled 480 officers, men and WRENS into the Royal Canadian Navy. My father served for five years in the army during that

war. He joined, not because he had to but because he thought it was the right thing to do. He fought, not because he hated the enemy but to serve his country. He accomplished great things, not only

because of his own skills and dedication but because he was part of a large, dedicated team. My father's attitude and accomplishments are typical of those who served through HMCS Prevost, and it is

really those people whom the anniversary celebrations honour.

Mr Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly, please join with me in congratulating HMCS Prevost for 60 years of dedication to the service of our

country.

JOEMAC COMMITTEE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise today to inform the House about the JOEMAC committee. Most of the ministers know that the JOEMAC

committee is an acronym that stands for Justice over Everything, Making Appropriate Changes. It wants justice to be balanced. It's asking that Clinton Suzack and Peter Pennett be returned to

maximum security. It is the voice of the MacDonald family, the Sudbury community, now the Police Association of Ontario, our own city council and our chief of police. We are asking -- no, we are

exactly what we want of him and of our government.

This is not a partisan political matter. This has everything to do with justice. This has everything to do with sending out a strong signal to society that

community safety is everyone's concern.

I call on the Ontario government to provide the JOEMAC team with resources. Provide us with those avenues that you have in order to help convince the federal

government and the Solicitor General that indeed he should meet with the MacDonald family and with the JOEMAC committee.

BOWMANVILLE

SANTA CLAUS PARADE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to recognize the Bowmanville Santa Claus parade on its 40th anniversary. Since its

inception, this parade has followed a strict tradition of being non-commercial. This is a parade that represents only the customs of fun, fellowship and of course the traditional visit of jolly old

Saint Nick.

Indeed, the Bowmanville Santa Claus parade is one of Ontario's largest, non-commercial Santa Claus parades. Yet, each year more than 100 business organizations

and individuals generously donate to the parade committee. Each year since 1961, service clubs, schools, churches, bands, youth organizations and community groups bind together to form a great

parade committee.

I'm pleased to report that the perfect weather indicated on the 40th anniversary resulted in the largest turnout in many, many years, and children from all

ages watched Santa arrive to the festival of music.

I'd like to congratulate the parade committee chair, Valerie Gardiner, and members Sharon Smith, Roger Leetooze, Susan St John, Valerie McCormick, Stacy

Belanger, Greg Belanger, Betty Irving and Rob Flynn. They were assisted by literally scores of volunteers and hundreds of marchers who played instruments and built floats. But more specifically, I

want to recognize and congratulate the St Elizabeth elementary school for their "Winter Wonderland" float, which won the gold prize. I'd also like to thank my driver, Andy Hendricks.

This Saturday, Scugog township will have their parade. I invite everyone to Port Perry to enjoy the parade.

VISITOR

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I may bring to the

attention of the House and indeed to all members of the gallery visiting today -- our guests from the Ukrainian community, our multiculturally represented children in the gallery -- we have a very

special guest in the House. This is one of the youngest MPPs ever elected to this Parliament, the son of Ukrainian-born immigrants, the member for Bellwoods between 1951 and 1975, the first-ever

Minister of Citizenship for our province, the first-ever Minister of Social and Family Services and the first stand-alone Solicitor General, who was responsible for bringing in the human rights

legislation to our province. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the Honourable John Yaremko.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the minister for bringing that to our attention.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

(RENTAL HOUSING UNITS), 2001

Mr Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the demolition of rental housing units in the City of Toronto.

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

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding private members'

public business.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list for private members' public

business: Mr Bradley and Mr Colle exchange places in order of precedence, such that Mr Bradley assumes ballot item number 55, Mr Colle assumes ballot item number 37, and that the notice requirement

for ballot item number 37 be waived.

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

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, with agreement from the Liberal and NDP House leaders, I believe

we have all-party consent to move a motion regarding the terms of this afternoon's debate.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Speaker, with the unanimous consent of all members of this House, I move that G109 be called as the first order of the day

this afternoon, that the time for debate shall be divided equally, and at the end of debate today the Speaker shall put the question on third reading and the vote may be deferred.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion respecting

the finance committee consideration of Bill 125. This concerns the advertising.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to advertise its intent to hold public

hearings in Ottawa on Friday, November 30, 2001, respecting Bill 125,

An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to make related

amendments to other Acts, notwithstanding that the House has not yet decided second reading of the bill.

The Speaker: Mrs Ecker moves that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to advertise its intent to hold public

hearings in Ottawa on Friday, November 30, 2001, respecting Bill 125,

An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to make related

amendments to other Acts, notwithstanding that the House has not yet decided second reading of the bill.

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

HATE CRIMES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm seeking unanimous consent to move a motion. This is an urgent

matter which relates to the federal justice minister's statement yesterday that she is willing to protect gays and lesbians from hate crimes if the provinces agree. She intends to deal with this

next week.

The Ontario government is already on record supporting this move. Almost exactly two years ago, on November 15 in this House I asked the Premier to join with

me in calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to protect gays and lesbians from hate propaganda. The Premier agreed and a joint letter was sent to the Prime Minister and the

federal Minister of Justice.

I am seeking now unanimous consent of this House to urge Justice Minister Anne McLellan to move promptly to make it an offence under the Criminal Code to

commit hate crimes against gays and lesbians.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The third leader has moved unanimous consent. Agreed? I'm afraid I heard some noes. Sorry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. The members might not have heard. It was very clear. I did hear a no, unfortunately.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Attorney General. On Thanksgiving Day, 2000, Michael Tilley was killed outside of a

grocery store on St Clair Avenue West. He suffered from depression. He was homeless. He sold the Outreach newspapers on the street. The killing was like all killings: it was meaningless.

Incredibly, it was caught on videotape. We now know what the sentence was, as the result of a plea bargain agreed to by the crown. The sentence was on the minimal side of what lies within the

sentencing guidelines.

My question is with respect to the victim's family. They're here in the gallery, the family of the victim Michael Tilley, themselves victims: Christine, Edward

and Gerry.

Minister, they say that the administration of justice treated them like it was some kind of a fast food industry. They say they have no closure. They say they

received no meaningful input. What do you say to these victims of crime in the members' gallery today?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The first thing I say is that my sympathies and the sympathies of

all in this Legislature are with the family in this tragic and senseless loss that they experienced.

I go on to say that crown attorneys each and every day across this province make difficult but necessary decisions. They make those decisions based on the

facts that exist in any particular case and they make those decisions based upon the precedents that have been developed over years. They make those decisions with the interests of justice being

paramount in their minds, and where there is a plea bargain they present that settlement proposal, that resolution, to the judge, who then has a difficult decision as to what to do about the

sentence. Of course, there is discretion left there.

In this instance, my understanding is this matter was placed in front of a very experienced and very well respected judge, and undoubtedly he seriously

considered the matter at issue and ultimately made the ruling that he did.

Mr Bryant: I'm not talking about what the judge found. I'm talking about the way in which your justice system treated these victims. The whole

purpose, as you know, of the victims' rights movement was to recognize that the victims were being revictimized, that people were not getting access to decisions, that they weren't getting the

opportunity to provide meaningful inputs, that victim impact statements were paper tigers, that they were useless, that they weren't being encouraged or assisted.

The story that I heard today from these victims is a horrifying story if it is an indication of the justice system that persists today, despite all these

promises from your government to in fact restore victims' rights.

They met with the crown for the first time and had some questions about the status of the case, wanted to know some facts, wanted to know about what the crown

was going to do. Your attorney didn't bring any paperwork with him and so he didn't have any answers for them.

Victim impact statements -- mandatory; provision of information to victims -- mandatory; recourse for violation of victims' rights -- we have called for that

through private members' bills on this side of the House. Will you agree to these new victims' rights so that some good can come out of this revictimization today?

Hon Mr Young: The member opposite undoubtedly knows that this government has done more to entrench and enhance the role of victims in court

cases than any other government has ever done in th