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

November 4, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Nov-04 (PDF)

L010 - Thu 4 Nov 1999 / Jeu 4 nov 1999

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

POLICE RECORDS CHECKS BY NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS DES DOSSIERS DE POLICE PAR LES AGENCES SANS BUT LUCRATIF

ANIMAL PROTECTION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DIWALI

YOUNG ONTARIANS

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ORANGEVILLE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

OPP AUXILIARY

GALLAHER THOROLD PAPER MILL

DIWALI

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PRÉSERVATION DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RED TAPE REDUCTION

REMEMBRANCE DAY

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

POLICE SERVICES

SPORTS FACILITY TAXATION

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

ONTARIO'S AIR SERVICE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

BUSINESS CLIMATE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TUITION FEES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

IMMIGRANT SPONSORSHIP

VISITOR

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS

MARRIAGE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HENLEY ROWING COURSE

PARAMEDICS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND BALANCED BUDGET ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES ET L'ÉQUILIBRE BUDGÉTAIRE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

POLICE RECORDS CHECKS BY NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS DES DOSSIERS DE POLICE PAR LES AGENCES SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Mr Kormos moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act respecting the cost of checking the police records of individuals who may work for certain non-profit service agencies / Projet de loi 9, Loi concernant les frais de vérification des dossiers de police à l'égard des particuliers qui pourraient travailler pour certaines agences de services sans but lucratif.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Kormos moves second reading of Bill 9. You have 10 minutes.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'll tell you straight off that this was prompted by the government's announcement in, I believe, April of this year of what's called Christopher's Law, and that was the pedophile or sex offender registry. That was one of the recommendations in the verdict of the jury in the inquest into the death of Christopher Stephenson. I think most of us recall it with some great horror. The public wasn't well served at all, when one takes a look at the history of the predator who ultimately murdered Christopher Stephenson back in 1988.

The jury undoubtedly went through an incredibly difficult task merely listening to the history of events, but compiled and put forward an incredibly comprehensive list of recommendations. At the outset, I think all of us have to acknowledge that this government was responsive in terms of proposing its sex offender registry, and we're told that's going to be reintroduced in this new term. Specifically, that was recommendation 44, requiring an offender to register with the police in the jurisdiction where that offender will reside or is residing.

But what of the other recommendations? One of the responses to the sex offender registry proposal alone is that it's not a very comprehensive approach to the problem, is it? It addresses but one recommendation. I understand as well that the government has made a commitment of some modest funds, as I recall it, to be utilized over the course of three years, basically to help agencies utilizing volunteers to develop programs to screen applicants.

One of the other recommendations in the verdict of that jury was that Canadian police forces be encouraged to co-operate in providing consensual background checks on prospective volunteers to volunteer organizations at a minimal charge. That prompted me to make some inquiries about what kinds of charges were being imposed on volunteer agencies. There were, among other things, some incredible ranges across the province, depending upon where you are. Understand that you're talking about organizations like Big Brothers, the Boy Scouts of Canada, the Girl Guides and minor hockey associations. These are organizations that have scarce funds to begin with.

By virtue of my office canvassing some of these organizations, we learned some information that might be of some value or even some modest interest to people here. Last year, the Boy Scouts of Ontario did 10,000 record checks, according to them. It's an incredible number of record checks. They indicated that 10% of those record checks were done by the OPP, and I give credit to the OPP, because the OPP apparently does not charge anything for record checks.

But the vast majority of people applying to volunteer with Boy Scouts are in urban areas where the OPP don't service the municipalities, where they're serviced by a municipal or regional police force. That's where you get into the disparities.

For instance, in Sudbury the charge by the Sudbury police is, fair enough, $10 for a record check for a volunteer. But the charge goes up to $16.05 for a prospective employee. Again, these are non-profit organizations. They work on very limited budgets and fundraising has become increasingly difficult for these organizations.

In Niagara region the cost of a background check by Niagara Regional Police for volunteers went up in the last four years, from $10 to $15. That's for a volunteer. The charge for an employee is $45, one of the highest in the province.

In Oshawa, the Boy Scouts of Oshawa paid $5 for a background check before 1995; after 1995, they paid $10 for a background check.

In Windsor, volunteers pay nothing for their background checks; however, potential employees for a non-profit organization that works with youngsters or the elderly or other vulnerable people are charged $35.

One of the interesting comments made by Big Brothers in Niagara region, for instance, was that a large number of their volunteers come from among the student population. A large number of Niagara College students volunteer as Big Brothers. They have to pay their own fee for the background check, that new $15 fee up from the $10 historically.

Some policy changes were made in Niagara Falls as a result of the increasing fees being charged by police forces. Big Brothers tells us that at one point in its history it wanted a background check not just on the actual big brother applicant but on any person over 18 in that big brother's household, assuming that the child who was the little brother was going to be brought into that household. That indeed was an astute thing to do, but that policy has been abandoned because of the cost of record checks. What we've seen is an incredible disparity across the province in what's being charged.

Another thing that was of great concern, and I'm not going to name the organizations: We discovered a huge number of volunteer organizations that don't do record checks. Many volunteer organizations in hospitals and senior citizens' homes don't do record checks of volunteers. Many organizations with volunteers dealing with persons with disabilities don't do record checks. I don't want to accuse them of any sort of negligence in that regard. However, it seems unfortunate that, however sad and tragic it is, there are huge numbers of volunteers out there who aren't undergoing police record checks.

My proposition is simple. I can tell the government members that they can expect, I believe, some incredible co-operation from the opposition. I can't speak for all opposition members, but I suspect it will be the case that there will little resistance to any proposition of a sex offender registry. There will undoubtedly be criticism about how broad and effective that will be, and the fact that it will be but one piece of a broader plan that's going to protect vulnerable people, but there is going to be little opposition to it.

If we're going to give effect to the verdict of the coroner's jury on Christopher Stephenson, we should be giving effect not just to the sex offender registry proposal; we should also be giving effect to the proposal that there be universal access to police record checks. It seems to me that's the only way to really guarantee it, because the trend is clearly that the fees being charged are increasing. That's the evidence; there's no two ways about it. I could get on to a partisan rant about why that's happening, but I won't because I think it's self-evident.

The fact is that if we clearly stated that no police force shall charge a non-profit organization seeking to screen an employee or a volunteer, you would get uniformity across the province and ensure that there's an incentive rather than a disincentive (1) for volunteers who are called upon to pay their own costs in applying, and (2) for agencies that can accumulate some incredible charges in the event that they have to screen volunteers and whose budgets may actually restrict or prevent them from considering new volunteer applications.

Big Sisters in Niagara region, for instance, has a huge demand right now for volunteers. I would hate to see the day, and I suspect we're close to it, when mere budgetary constraints say that we can't consider any more volunteer applications even though we need the volunteers, because of the fact that they're going to have to pay for each volunteer application by virtue of paying for the police records check.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the private member's bill introduced by the member for Niagara Centre.

This government recognizes the important role that community organizations play in our society, and we are well aware of the contributions made by volunteers who serve these organizations. There are many programs in place that support both non-profit groups and their volunteers, including a number in the Ministry of the Solicitor General. For example, we support community groups across the province in their efforts to organize grassroots crime prevention programs.

At the same time, this government is committed to making Ontario a better place for all citizens to live, work and raise a family. Everyone has the right to feel safe on our streets, at their places of work and in their homes. We intend to keep our promises to the people of Ontario and to take positive action to ensure they can live free from fear of crime.

In other words, we must balance the very valuable contribution made by our volunteers with the need for a safe and secure society. For the vast majority of volunteers, police checks will be a minor inconvenience. But for the very small number who use the cloak of volunteerism to prey on vulnerable members of our society, the police check is an absolute and effective deterrent.

That leaves the question of whether police should have the right to charge for conducting background checks of volunteers. On that score, we believe it should be up to the local municipalities, the police services, to decide whether to make such charges and, if so, at what level. We object to this bill because it essentially removes the decision-making process from the police services when it comes to requests for police record checks.

Some police services have found it necessary to charge for background checks, while many others in our province are providing them free of charge. The Ontario Provincial Police, I'm very proud to say, has a policy of providing background checks for volunteers free of charge. As we've heard from the member from Niagara, Windsor does, and my community, London, provides services free of charge.

Our government has faith in our police services and their professionalism. We believe police services should have the discretion of making these decisions at the local level. Municipalities can work with their police services, and it is inappropriate to interfere with that decision-making process by introducing this legislation, which is too prescriptive towards local police services and municipalities.

You might be interested in knowing that a consortium of leading voluntary sector organizations, with support from the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, is now implementing a recently announced strategy: the Ontario screening initiative. This initiative promotes community safety by helping the voluntary sector to understand the importance of screening, train resource people who will help community groups implement screening and make screening material widely available.

This screening initiative will help community groups improve the way they select, train, place, supervise, evaluate and monitor both volunteers and paid staff to maximize protection of the public. I am confident that this initiative will go a long way to improving public safety.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has worked with Volunteer Ontario, a province-wide organization established to advocate for volunteers in non-profit organizations and to help design guidelines to assist these agencies and organizations in maximizing public safety in the hiring of candidates for volunteer or paid positions.

However, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police also recognizes the need to charge for background checks for volunteers and for job applicants. The association based its recommendation on a time-and-motion analysis. Their estimates are that the average cost to provide a background check to their department is $40. But this is not being proposed. Current fees are either non-existent, as we've heard, or extremely nominal. It is unreasonable for municipalities to recover the cost of providing this service on a user-pay basis.

If prohibited from charging for police record checks, if prohibited from recovering the cost of staff and time of police services, they will be facing pressures of existing time and cost resources.

Background checks for screening volunteers is one element in protecting the public. However, employers and volunteer organizations recognize the need to employ other measures for screening and ongoing monitoring to fully protect their clients. All of these measures must work together to ensure public safety in this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I rise to support the bill that has been proposed by the member for Niagara Centre today. I think there's a recognition that the checks are most appropriate for various organizations of a volunteer nature in our communities across the province. The real question is, who shall assume the cost of those checks?

Many organizations struggle to obtain enough funds to carry out their mandate within an area. Many volunteer organizations have to hold their small raffles or perhaps have a bingo or have other ways-a turkey raffle, a ham roll-various ways of raising money for their organization.

The demands on the various volunteer organizations today-particularly when governments at all levels appear to be moving out of certain areas of responsibility that they had previously assumed-is onerous, because they're called upon to do more and more and play a more significant role in terms of numbers and of their responsibilities within our society. That's why I become concerned when I feel that there might be a financial penalty being imposed upon them for this particular requirement by the provincial government. I think all of them would agree with the requirement.

I think all members of this House agree that that was most appropriate.

Our concern remains in allowing those volunteer organizations to be viable, not to have some of their funds diverted to a cost of this kind that is incurred by checks that are done by the police department.

On the other hand, we don't want to see our police services across this province penalized because they have to have more people on staff and more resources to carry out this responsibility. It seems to me that in the funding formula that is available for policing services in this province, it would be appropriate for the provincial government to take into account that new responsibility that police services might have across Ontario.

I'm sure they could develop an appropriate formula with the various police services boards across Ontario and their representatives meeting with the Solicitor General's department in consultation with the department of treasury-that is the Minister of Finance in this province. As a result a formula could be developed and municipalities might be compensated then for this task which is carried out by the police services.

It's a concern, particularly for many of us who served at the municipal level for a number of years, that more and more responsibilities of a costly nature are being placed on the backs of municipalities.

I know in my own area, for instance, that after the exchange of services between those that were previously provincial and those that today are municipal, our municipal government at the regional level, the regional municipality of Niagara, calculated that the difference was $18 million. In other words, they had to assume a net $18-million increase in financial responsibilities.

That, of course, has to be dealt with in a couple of ways. It has to be dealt with, first of all, by even further cuts to municipal services. I think we all know municipalities were among the first to start to make the cuts; because they were on the front line, they had to do so. They don't have the same taxing resources that senior levels of government have, so that's one factor. We saw some of what I would call essential services start to be eroded at the local level.

A second consequence would be that they had to raise taxes, or not lower taxes as much as they might have, because of assuming these new responsibilities from the province, I must say sometimes you had a combination of further cuts that municipalities had to make and some cost increases.

Another aspect of this is seeing user fees increase for various services provided by municipalities. As we know in this House, user fees tend to be most onerous on those who are least able to pay. Those in the lower-income brackets, those who do not have the financial resources, are always impacted more adversely by user fees than others, so I believe this bill tries to address that.

Again, to review, there is a recognition that this is an appropriate measure to go through, that there should be those appropriate checks taking place.

Second, we know that there's going to be a cost incurred and that it can be a cost which is difficult for police services to bear and a cost which is very difficult for volunteer organizations to bear.

The third aspect of it is having our province provide the necessary funding to be able to carry out this new responsibility which has been placed upon the municipalities and the police forces.

I think the bill addresses this particular aspect. The second step is that the province come forward to offer its assistance financially and otherwise in this regard.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to add my voice in support of this particular bill, and I want to do a couple of things. I want to go through what this bill is trying to attempt and some technical parts of the bill and also the reasons why we need such a bill. I think the member from Welland-Thorold-I believe the riding is still called Welland-Thorold? Niagara, whatever. One thing about this new House is that all the ridings are changed, and you've been used to calling somebody the member for Welland-Thorold for all these years.

To get to the new title takes a bit of adjustment, even for Speakers, I notice; they tend to still call me the member from Timmins-Cochrane South or something.

What the member is attempting to do is to alleviate some of the financial burden that has been placed on volunteer organizations when they go out and do a criminal check on a potential volunteer who may be working with youngsters of the province or working with seniors. Unfortunately, there are I guess you can call them predators who like to associate themselves-and this is not the majority of people who volunteer, but it does happen-in volunteering with kids or with seniors, sometimes not for all the right reasons, and I'll just leave it at that.

Volunteer organizations want to do the right thing. They want to, first of all, make sure they provide good volunteer services for the communities they serve, and they want to make sure that the people who are doing the volunteering are there for all the right reasons and are going to be there in order to assist the particular organization to advance the goal or to provide the services they are trying to put forward.

What the member, Mr Kormos, is trying to do here is to say it is a financial burden and becoming increasingly so with the financial burdens municipalities find themselves having, with the lack of transfers and the downloading from both federal and provincial governments; that it is becoming increasingly expensive for them to do business. I have seen that situation. Big Brothers and Big Sisters in my community have mentioned this particular issue to me. I know that other organizations, such as the people who do the Meals on Wheels programs and stuff, have mentioned it to me.

They're saying it becomes a bit of a problem after a while. Every time a potential volunteer comes through the door and they've gone through the proper interview process, they've determined this person is a likely candidate to volunteer in the organization and to be given some responsibility, they're having to go out, in some cases, and pay to get criminal checks done on people.

I've got to say, as Mr Kormos has said, the Ontario Provincial Police have actually been quite good on this. That's where I've referred most of my people. I've said, "Go to the province," because the OPP, as far as I know, don't charge for those criminal checks, and I think that is a really good thing.

The problem is that some municipalities, when it comes to their municipal police forces, charge $5, $10 or $15 per criminal check.

Mr Kormos: Or $35 or $40.

Mr Bisson: As much as $35 or $40, Mr Kormos is telling me. I know it is being charged, and it makes it a little bit more difficult for the member agency to go out and do the kind of screening they've got to do for their volunteers.

What Mr Kormos is trying to do by way of this bill is to say let's basically compare apples with apples and put ourselves in a situation where municipal police forces basically do the same thing as the provincial police force, which is not to charge when it comes to doing these particular checks.

I think this saves us money in the long run. I think the municipality not charging the user fee will encourage the volunteer organization to go out and do proper criminal checks and will free us from potentially having problems further down the road when it comes to an obstruction of justice or when it comes to an actual charge for something the volunteer might have done. We all know that costs money at the end of the day.

So that $5, $10, $15 or $30 user fee that would be waived by way of this bill in the long run could be recuperated by way of dollars we're not going to spend further down the road when it comes to dealing with the victims of the abuse, the victims of the crime that's been perpetrated on them, and also on the part of the province in having to deal with the court aspects, the criminal aspects and the police investigations etc, what it costs to investigate the wrongdoing that might have been done.

I think the official word we were given by, I believe, the parliamentary assistant-the member from London-Fanshawe got up here, as all parliamentary assistants do on private members' day, he was given a document, you know, "Here's the document." It came down, I believe, not from the minister. I don't believe the minister brought down the document; I think it's the bureaucracy. You guys came to government and, boy, you're going to take control of that bureaucracy. I'm finding out more and more the bureaucracy runs this government, and it really surprises the heck out of me.

At least we as a government had some ability to deal with that. Here I see the parliamentary assistant coming in, he gets the official document from the ministry and he has to stand there as the parliamentary assistant and read, word for word, every part of the line he was given by the ministry, which was, "No, we're not going to do this."

Well, I know the Conservative backbenchers and the Conservative ministers of this crown are free individuals, I know that. I look at my good friends, Mr Wettlaufer and Mr Ouellette, and others, free-minded individuals all-

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I mean that in all sincerity. We may not agree philosophically on where you're trying to take us, unlike the Liberals-they like where you're going, but they don't like how you're going to take them there. They just want the power to do it for themselves. I don't agree with where you guys are going, but you are free individuals, and I believe some of the free individuals in the Tory caucus agree with Mr Kormos and see this as actually a good thing.

I believe that because I know my good friend Mr Wettlaufer especially would not stand up in this House and vote in opposition to this bill, because I know he cares about this. I know he, as do all of us in this Legislature, wants to make sure we do the proper thing when it comes to making sure our volunteer agencies have the kinds of volunteers who do the work out there for our communities for free and making sure we know, as much as humanly possible, that those volunteers are not going to utilize their positions for the wrong reasons.

I'm not going to go through all the examples, because they are disgusting. We're all aware of what has happened in minor hockey, and we're aware of what has happened in other organizations. We're also aware of some elder-abuse issues that have happened in regard to seniors. I don't want to go through the examples, because I think enough said; we know that goes on.

What we're trying to do by way of this bill is to allow the volunteer organizations to go out there and do the kind of screening that needs to be done to make sure that when volunteers come forward, we, as much as humanly possible, have checked into the ability of that person not utilizing that volunteer position in order to advance some perverted fantasies he or she might have or whatever it is they're up to. We're going to make it easy for the organizations to deal with it.

I want to talk about one technical aspect of the bill. I think it's important to mention, because I know government members are very busy and don't always have the time to come into the House and read the bill in detail. I don't bemoan that. I was a very busy member when we were in government. You get all these cabinet briefing notes, you sit on parliamentary committees and take all those trips and junkets where you've got to travel around the world at government expense to represent the government. I understand it's a very-

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Not you, Mr Wettlaufer. I know you're not like that, but I do know how busy it gets.

For those of you who have not had the chance to read this bill, I just want to make one point because I think it is very, very important to make this point, and it is under

section 3 of the bill, in case members wonder if this gives the volunteer agency some ability to go out there, willy-nilly, and do criminal checks on anybody they want and to abuse their power in some kind of way. Not at all. The bill deals with that under

section 3.

Basically what it says is, "This act does not authorize a police records check that is not otherwise authorized by law." Simply put, it means to say there has to be a waiver that's signed by the volunteer organization. Somebody takes responsibility from within the organization to make sure that this is being done for the right reasons, and the police in the end have the right to say: "Hey, listen, we think you might be abusing your power. We want to investigate this." There are some checks and balances that the member, Mr Kormos, has put into this bill. The fine legal mind that he is, I must say, he has looked on both sides of this, and I think it's very important to say that.

Again, I want to say to my good-I won't say "my good friends in the Conservative caucus"-acquaintances in the Conservative caucus that I don't agree philosophically with most of the places you're going. I think your legislation, by and large, goes in the wrong direction on most aspects, especially when it comes to economic development, but that's for another debate.

But I do know there are free-minded individuals within the Tory caucus. I look at Mr Wettlaufer, Mr Ouellette, Mrs Marland, Mr Tilson, individuals all, honourable members-

The Acting Speaker: The member would know we should refer to other members by their riding and not their proper name.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I used to know what all their ridings were, but they all got changed. I'm such a busy member, critic for everything in northern Ontario, having to do all my things, I haven't got time to come and read the chart. So, please, if I mentioned your name, it was not meant as an insult, because I think you're all honourable members.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: It's still Mississauga South? Well, there you go, I do know one of them, as it turns out.

I want to say to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin-see, I got yours right-that these members in the Conservative caucus I think support what Mr Kormos is trying to do. I certainly hope, and I somehow suspect, that a number of Conservative caucus members will stand in support of this legislation, because they understand what the member from Niagara something-

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Niagara. There we go, I just learned a second one. They understand that the member from Niagara, Mr Kormos, is not advancing a partisan bill; he is trying to advance a bill that responds to an actual problem that exists in all our communities.

I would say to the members opposite that I look forward and I anticipate that they will stand up and vote in favour.

Je regarde les communautés comme Mattice, Jogues, Moose Factory et autres. Ces communautés-là n'ont pas un gros montant de services provinciaux ou fédéraux à leur disposition pour répondre au besoin de leur communauté-pas comme la grosse ville de Toronto ou la grosse ville d'Ottawa. Les volontaires jouent un rôle qui est clé dans ces communautés-là et c'est ça qui bâtit l'esprit de la communauté.

Ce projet de loi que M. Kormos met en avant est pour dire que si on fait l'ouvrage comme volontaire, ces gens-là ont besoin de s'assurer que les volontaires sont du monde qui ont été vérifiés quand ça vient à des records de la police, pour s'assurer que ces individus sont clairs, n'ont pas de problèmes et ne sont pas là pour les méchantes raisons.

Je veux laisser le restant du temps qu'il y a sur l'horloge pour mon bon ami M. Kormos, le membre de Niagara, pour être capable d'avoir encore une couple minutes à la fin pour finir son débat.

Je vous remercie monsieur le Président, membre d'Algoma-Manitoulin.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I first congratulate you on your election as Deputy Chair. I know you're going to serve the House well.

I would like to speak very briefly in favour of the principle of this bill, which I think is a sound one, but I'd like to raise concerns about a couple of the details.

One detail involves the definition of the organizations that are covered in the bill. I think there's a case to be made that it may be too narrow. I hope, should this bill proceed, that the definition will be looked at with a view to seeing whether it covers all the organizations that might properly be covered under such an initiative.

The second concern I would like to raise is, is it necessary to mandate this for the municipalities? Are they going to do the right thing on their own? I think maybe we should give them a little time to see whether or not they get the clear message that I think does come from the people of this province as a whole, which is that charities should not be burdened with this kind of cost.

Other than those two reservations, I think the bill heads in the right direction, and I hope the House will give it favourable consideration.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I too want to rise in support of the bill that has been put forth by the member for Niagara Centre. As a former member of a police services board, we had to deal with this issue. Police services boards have been treated much like any other department in the city, and with all the downloading that has taken place to municipalities, dating back to the cuts that have occurred since 1995, police services boards have been forced to have to do more with less.

One of the issues we had to deal with as a police services board was this very situation. What we found was that, as a police services board, we were getting a number of inquiries from organizations wanting us to do background checks, whether that was Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, block parents and so on. Because we found that it was taking so much of our time, we had to initiate a fee. That caused a hue and outcry from those organizations because of the cost. They too have been affected by downloading, and they don't have the support they previously had and they have to do more fundraising.

It's something that is very important. We need to ensure that the individuals involved with these organizations do have a very clean background; we've got to ensure that's the case.

At the same time, I don't believe we can leave that burden, that financial cost, on the backs of the municipalities. There's been too much downloading, and to just go and say to the municipalities that, "You will do this free of charge," I don't think is fair. It's just another form of downloading. I think it's incumbent on this government and this province that we offer financial support to these municipalities, that we ensure that the individuals do have these good, clean backgrounds.

I want to commend the member for his efforts in bringing this forward, because we all recognize the important role these groups and organizations play in our community. I just wanted to speak in support of that and thank the member for his efforts.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate on Bill 9 that's been brought forward by the member from Niagara Centre. I think the act's title speaks to what he's trying to achieve here. It says it's

An Act respecting the cost of checking the police records of individuals who may work for certain non-profit service agencies. The non-profit agencies that have been targeted by the member are geared toward youth, also towards seniors and disability groups.

I join with the member from London with respect to the definition of "agency." It may be too narrow, because what we want to deal with and encourage as a principle is for non-profit agencies to make sure that the volunteers who work for them are within the principles of that organization and are free of any criminal record that would be covered by this particular piece of legislation. It's important that we look at that particular definition with respect to making sure we're covering off the principle of what we're trying to achieve.

I think the other principle that the member from Niagara Centre is trying to accomplish here is encouraging the agencies to have police record checks occur with respect to their volunteers. That's something we shouldn't try to discourage as per the member from St Thomas's diatribe with respect to downloading. This has nothing to do with downloading. This has to do with making sure that non-profit agencies have the wherewithal to make sure that their organization's principles are carried out by the volunteers that decide to join them.

Quite frankly, there is only one taxpayer. We should just basically focus on it with respect to how we're going try to accomplish this. When you deal with other communities-for example, in my area we have OPP in the Simcoe county area and Orillia, New Tecumseth, Springwater and Essa. From what I find out from the member from Niagara Centre, the OPP do police checks for non-profit agencies, but for free. We need to have sort of an equal playing field, and I think that's one of the matters he's trying to accomplish here, with respect to municipalities where there is in fact a fee charged to these agencies.

The cost-saving principle, what we're trying to accomplish here, certainly is designed to encourage these agencies to have their volunteers pass the test that they think is important for them to be able to continue as volunteers.

The cost saving is strictly an issue that we have the one taxpayer, and we want to encourage non-profit agencies to go out and have these police record checks performed and they want to make sure they have the best volunteers there. I don't think this type of fee sits well with respect to accomplishing that purpose. The member from Niagara Centre is trying to accomplish that goal through this particular piece of legislation. Obviously, he has researched it very well, and it is an area that can result in tremendous cost to a particular agency that does rely on a lot of volunteers.

We all know those types of agencies that would rely on volunteers: Big Brothers, for example, Big Sisters, associations that deal with the physically disabled, and obviously seniors' groups.

I think this is a good piece of legislation. It may have to be fine-tuned with respect to the definition of "agency" to ensure that the cost-saving principle is adhered to.

I'm pleased to have spoken on this bill. I'll sit down now, but I voice my support for it.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'm going to speak in support of this bill. I'd like to speak to it from my background as a foster parent and a CAS board member for some 24 years.

There are a lot of people in this province who volunteer but have probably not recognized or are even aware that they're volunteering. At foster parents, we believe very much that we're volunteering and appreciate the privilege. We receive compensation for it to cover expenses, and no more. That's fair. There are costs associated for new foster parents to get a police check, and I'm supporting this bill that would reduce that cost to people who want to serve the community and want to serve the children in the community.

But I hope the police forces can be a little liberal in their

interpretation of who are volunteers. I say that because when children come into our family, some will stay for two or three months, some will stay for 10 years, and some will stay forever with us, but whether they're there for a short time or whether they're there permanently, they in fact become part of our family. For many of these children, they have no other family and they view our parents as their grandparents and our natural children as their brothers and sisters.

But under the current law, if my wife and I were going to be away for a day and we wanted one of our parents to come into our home and stay with the children, they have to get a police check. So they have to spend money to help look after the children that the provincial government has responsibility for. Indeed, if they want to go to a cottage and stay overnight with relatives, they have to have a police check.

I guess the ultimate, that we find rather funny as foster parents, is that if one of our natural children who is in their 20s or 30s, who was born and raised in our home with these foster children, moves away and then comes back and wants to look after the children for the night, they have to go down and get a police check and pay for it. Some of our natural children find it rather funny that they have to pay to stay in their own home. I hope there can be recognition that although they're not recognized directly as foster parents or volunteers, there can be accommodation that they not pay.

I could not support police checks more, but I believe this is a step in the right direction to provide the opportunity for more people to be involved, to serve the community, without having to pay for the privilege.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair.

I'd like to join with my colleagues the members for London-Fanshawe and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford in regard to the concerns expressed regarding the definition of organizations and services. However, on this issue, having gone through it just last week-I went through the check for providing a service for my son's hockey team-I found it very appropriate to know that the individuals and the parents who are participating in it had to go through this process.

That's the concern I have, that the process is evolving right now. What happens in future days when there is a change during the period when-say one of the adults helping out with the team has a problem during the time from when the process starts to the end. Where is the requirement for notification of an infraction or something that's taken place? Right now everything's clear with those individuals, but during the time those individuals or students or kids are exposed to it, there may be a change in the obligations that are put on some service. As I'm saying, the process is evolving.

The member's bill hits it right on when we need to look at some of these aspects of the costs that are incurred by individuals. Locally, I know that the parks association that I'm working through volunteered to cover the cost for that. They have funds for it and they do fundraising for those aspects.

Some of the areas in regard to the bill, though-there are a lot of volunteers and there's a tendency for the same individuals to be providing the same volunteer service. At this time of year it's usually hockey or ringette or, as the case may be, figure skating, where they're helping out. Then in the spring there's soccer and there's baseball, and the same individuals are required possibly to have an expense incurred over and over and over again.

I'm working with an individual, Scott Montpetit, in my riding on this very issue about the cost involved to people within the region of Durham. Apparently there are about 2,500 volunteers who may be subject to this cost, which amounts in the riding of Oshawa or the region of Durham to about $25,000 to $50,000. So where does the cost get put and who would have to pick it up and how will it play out are the big questions.

The member has raised a good issue. I think the volunteer organizations, including myself, are very supportive of the issue. I will be voting in favour of the member's bill, to send it for some more review and definition refining on the clubs and organizations that are involved.

As well, the duplication of events: What happens when one volunteer-for example, in the spring, kids' activities get very busy; they have the scouting movements and the soccer and the baseball that take place-may be expected to provide the services a number of times. Possibly looking at cost-effectiveness or one-time fees for an association that is able to cover the cost may help out in that situation. As I said, it is evolving and we expect to see a lot of changes.

Also, the number of participants that are involved: On my son's hockey team, for example, there are five mandatory, but when it comes time to practise on the ice, there are about 10, 12 on the ice. Who is to say how many should be subject to that specific need or cost? I think they were possibly looking at some defining of how many people per organization is a free fee and how many additional ones may be required to pay some costs in there.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I think the last speaker put his finger on it more than anything else I've heard here this morning. The issue is not so much whether or not these checks are necessary. I think we've all agreed on that. It's hard to believe that 15 years ago these checks weren't done except in very unusual situations, but there is general agreement now that these checks ought to be done.

But once you start talking about whether or not one organization can pay and another one can't pay, you're going to get involved in a whole variety of issues about seeing the financial records of organizations and things along that line, which in my opinion is totally unnecessary.

What this bill is really addressing is who is going to pay for these checks. That's what this bill is all about, not that the checks are necessary. They are necessary, but who is going to pay for them?

To have a volunteer organization pay for these checks, in my opinion, doesn't make any sense. Volunteer organizations rely on donations out there, and for them to utilize their money for these kinds of purposes, to my way of thinking, is totally inappropriate.

On the other hand, we also have to be realistic about it. This is a great inconvenience and could potentially be a great cost, particularly to smaller police forces. That's really what the issue is. There are many small police forces that are overloaded with these kinds of requests.

I would suggest that once this bill goes to committee some sort of mechanism would be worked out. Since it's in the provincial interest, not only in the local interest, that these checks be done, since it's in the interests of all of us, there ought to be resources made available by the provincial government to make sure these smaller communities that otherwise couldn't afford to do these checks will be able to do that. I think that's really the essence of what this bill is talking about and I think those kinds of details can be worked out in committee.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'll fill in the time, Mr Speaker.

I'm delighted to hear debate on both sides of the House with respect to the bill presented by Mr Kormos. I also would like to add that there are municipalities where indeed they find difficulties more than others. This is due to the changes that take place in the various communities. I can speak for Metro here, where I feel more at home with some of the issues, and this one as well. We have dealt on a number of occasions with issues such as this one. I think the bill as presented indeed deserves to have a second look, to be looked at in more depth, and indeed have justice, if you will, to the content of the bill as well.

From a municipal point of view, I have to tell you that often municipalities receive complaints from the various organizations which don't have the funding they used to have to do a number of things, provide the services in the local municipality that they normally did and continue to do.

On the other hand, the police have their own problem with funding cuts and stuff like that. If you speak to some of the municipalities-for example, Metro-they will say: "We need more policemen. You're complaining about the services we provide. We need more help. We need more funding." How do they provide those services? Exactly like that, with proper funding.

To add to that I think would be a strain on both the providers, those agencies that normally people in need go to, and our police forces, which are under stress and strain on a continuous basis.

I think the bill as presented today deserves attention and I congratulate the member.

Mr Kormos: First let me thank the participants for their comments to this bill and their generosity. I guess the parliamentary assistant wasn't as generous as others, but I understand. As my colleague Mr Bisson indicated, I understand you've got a job to do; fair enough.

When we're talking about policing, I also understand that it costs money for police to process record checks. Of course it does. It costs police to attend to your neighbour's home when there's been a B and E too. Everything that police do costs money.

We as taxpayers-and I for one am prepared. I say yes. As a taxpayer-my views are shared by the people from my community and I think most Ontarians-am I prepared to pay for police to do record checks to ensure that, among others, we could protect kids to whatever extent we can so they don't become victims of the incredible atrocities against children that we've witnessed in our province, even in the recent past? I'm prepared to make that sort of investment as a taxpayer. I think that's part of policing should be in a community.

I don't think one should have to pay, with all due respect to you, a user fee for that service, any more than one should have to pay a user fee for the police attending at your house when it's been broken into and entered. In my view, they're parallels. It's the same kind of policing. It's the same kind of service that police should be able to expect from their police forces.

I told you I was mortified, I was just scared out of my boots, by the number of agencies-and for obvious reasons I'm not going to name them, but do some checks in your own communities-that don't do record checks. This is not yet even now a widespread phenomenon. It is in some sectors of volunteer services, but I was frightened when I discovered some very specific areas where there was a trend not to do records checks, where that simply hadn't become part of the process yet. I think that poses great danger and potential risk.

On the scope of the definition of agencies, of course I agree. This is a grossly imperfect effort to get this down here for first reading. I think we should all be in a position where we should be encouraging the access by volunteer and nonprofit agencies to their police forces for the purpose of record checks, and to do that we should be eliminating the fees to ensure that nobody is deterred, that there are no disincentives to utilizing record checks.

You spoke of the problem, of the fact that if you do a record check by virtue of wanting to work with minor hockey, you've got to get a second record check when you want to work with Boy Scouts or with some other agency, or the third one or the fourth one. The reality is that in most of our communities, when you find a volunteer in one service you find him or her in half a dozen other services as well. That's the nature of the beast. That simplify amplifies the problem for either that individual or for that agency.

I repeat again the observation by Big Brothers of Niagara that Niagara College students provided one of their biggest single sources of volunteers, students who were being called upon in this case to pay the fee out of their own pocket. I think we should be doing things to encourage students like Niagara College students to volunteer their time in things like Big Brothers and to not have the imposition of a user fee for the purpose of a criminal record search put upon them.

I hope members join together in this bill. I hope this bill has an opportunity to have some consideration in committee so it can be fine-tuned and have some responses from various organizations, if necessary, but I think if we're going to give effect to things like the coroner's inquest, the verdict of the jury into the death of Christopher Stephenson, this piece of legislation, along with other pieces of legislation, should be passed. I call upon members to do what they think is the right thing in this case.

ANIMAL PROTECTION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I move the following resolution:

Be it resolved that this House strongly urges federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan to revamp federal animal abuse laws and implement the following recommendations:

(1) That penalties for animal abuse be increased from the current maximum of six months imprisonment to a maximum of five years and that the law allow for a fine much greater than the current $2,000.

(2) That persons convicted of intentional animal cruelty be subject to a possible lifetime ban on owning animals.

(3) That persons convicted of intentionally injuring an animal be required to repay the cost of care for that animal.

(4) That the Criminal Code be updated, simplified and consolidated, with regard to animal cruelty.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Galt moves private member's resolution number 1. Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and congratulations to you, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, on being appointed Deputy Chair. All the best.

I also welcome in the gallery children who are here today from Grafton public school, interested in this particular resolution.

I'm certainly very pleased to bring forward this resolution to discourage crimes against animals. As a veterinarian I have maintained a lifetime interest in animal welfare. While the vast majority of people love their pets and treat their animals with respect, sometimes animals are treated in the most horrendous fashion. This was certainly brought home recently in an instance that occurred in my riding. Nikita, the one-year-old Rottweiler, was dragged behind a truck in Bewdley and suffered extensive injuries. While this matter is still before the courts, it underlines the need to stiffen penalties for those who would abuse animals.

Since the Nikita incident, my background has made me a lightning rod for people who want tougher penalties for animal abuse. I have received many letters and petitions from concerned and outraged citizens across the province, all with a common theme. These are the letters and petitions, not few in number by any means.

These people want penalties for animal abuse to be increased from the current maximum of 6 months imprisonment to a maximum of at least five years. They want much greater fines, to an unlimited maximum, levied on animal abusers than the $2,000 now allowable. They want persons convicted of intentional animal cruelty to be subject to a possible lifetime ban on owning animals. They want persons convicted of intentionally injuring an animal to be required to repay the cost of care for that animal. Finally, they want the Criminal Code of Canada to be updated, simplified and consolidated with regard to animal cruelty.

Mr Speaker, you will recognize that these themes form the basis of the resolution I am putting forward today. Since the summer, I have been going through extensive research into animal cruelty laws, and have found that the general penalty in SPCA acts across Canada-up to three months imprisonment and up to a $5,000 fine for a first offence, and up to six months in jail and up to a $10,000 fine for subsequent offences-may not be adequate to discourage people from doing cruel acts to animals.

I have concluded that the most efficient way of accomplishing the goals of greater protection for those who cannot speak for themselves and discouraging that small minority who would abuse animals, is through the existing Criminal Code. I discourage putting penalties into our own SPCA act, because that would duplicate what is already in the Criminal Code, and I see that the answer is in the Criminal Code.

As a result, I wrote to the federal justice minister, Anne McLellan, in September, asking her to follow through on her commitment to improved animal protection laws. I'm disappointed to say that to date I have received no response from the minister. How can average citizens, like the many who have written to me, hope to have their voices heard when the minister will not even respond to an MPP who represents thousands of people?

This resolution, if passed, becomes a formal position of the Ontario Legislature. It is also a way, so to speak, to hold the federal minister's feet to the fire. It raises public awareness that cruelty to animals is indeed a crime that will not be tolerated in a civil society.

I have often said that prevention is certainly far more important than penalizing people for acts. There's no question that the various humane societies in Ontario have been doing an admirable job of making the public aware that cruelty to animals is not acceptable, but more is needed.

A discussion paper was released more than a year ago, back in 1998, looking at the options for increased penalties for animal abuse. I certainly give the federal government credit for releasing this paper. However, discussion is not enough. The time has come to act. Today I'm calling on Anne McLellan, the federal justice minister, to make good on her promises of tougher animal cruelty laws. In speeches as recent as August, the minister made a commitment to that act. But in a call to her office just yesterday, I confirmed again that no action had been taken.

I hope the members of this Legislature, regardless of political affiliation, will join with me to stand in front of those who cannot speak for themselves. They will find themselves in good company.

At this time I would like to recognize the efforts of our local humane society in Northumberland, in particular with regard to the Nikita incident. It will give you some indication of just how strongly people feel about animal abuse. Since the Nikita story received widespread coverage in the media, the Northumberland humane society has raised almost $60,000 in the Nikita fund. This money has been used to pay for Nikita's care and will be made available to care for any other abandoned animal that has been abused in Northumberland.

That is a strong and lasting legacy for a young Rottweiler and for the people who chose to stand in front of her. I'm very proud to call these people my constituents.

I have been in several discussions with the honourable David Tsubouchi, the Solicitor General. He has indicated that he is interested in setting up a task force to consult on the need for changes in our Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This task force will be struck in the near future and will be consulting before the end of this year.

In closing, I'd like to point out that animal abuse is a terrible thing. I'm told by constituents that the penalties must be put in proper perspective, that they cannot be in excess of the type we have for spousal abuse or child abuse or elder abuse. I think the type of penalties being proposed for the Criminal Code are in order.

It's also interesting to note that when animal abuse occurs, some signs come up. One is that the perpetrators become desensitized if they're not caught and penalized for it, and further acts are carried out in the future, some that become more extensive than the one at hand. The other is that it can be a symptom of other acts of cruelty that these people are carrying out and that certainly should be checked for. This cruelty ranges from random acts of violence against neighbourhood pets to such atrocities as nailing kittens to the floor, dousing them with gasoline and then setting them on fire.

As a matter of fact, just yesterday another cat was mutilated in Toronto, the eighth in a series of bizarre attacks on domestic animals in this city. These are the offenders we have in mind today. People convicted of such vicious crimes against innocent pets must pay for those actions as a punishment and as a deterrent to others who might consider similar unspeakable acts.

I ask today for the support of my colleagues to ensure that changes are made to the Criminal Code in a timely fashion.

There is no question in my mind, and in those of many of my constituents in Northumberland, that the hallmark of a civil society is a service to others. This is a service we can all perform here today to help protect the loving pets cherished by so many people in our society.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's a great pleasure for me as the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale to stand today and join in this debate.

I would like to start by congratulating the member for Northumberland not only for the bill he has before the House today, but also for his luck in having it drawn so early. It is my hope that we can take advantage of that timing by moving forward and putting some pressure on legislators and legislatures to move forward and enact this type of harsher penalty.

I did find one point of some concern that I would like to raise, and that is that the member spent quite a lot of time focusing on what I think he referred to as inaction on the part of the federal government, and yet later in his remarks he mentioned that he had been in contact with his own minister, Mr Tsubouchi, who talked about a task force. We know that in the last House, Bill 153 was presented to us. Your government has a choice, as well, to move forward with initiatives that would strengthen penalties in this area, and I encourage you to keep the heat on within your own caucus and government to move forward in that way.

I represent a riding that is very different from the member for Northumberland's. Mine is an urban riding, while his is principally rural. Yet a huge proportion of the residents of my riding have pets-a lot of cats, where perhaps dogs are more prevalent in his community. I stand with him in support of moving forward and strengthening penalties towards pets, who are of course very important and play important roles within families.

In addition to the case the member mentioned that took place in Northumberland, we have seen so much written here in the city of Toronto about gratuitous violence that has been perpetrated by sick individuals on harmless and defenceless pets, particularly cats. It is my hope that by moving on this issue today, we can help to put pressure again on governments to move forward and strengthen penalties in that area.

The one thing I would like to add by way of comment is that I think we also need to encourage, in this discussion and others surrounding issues like this, the notion of personal responsibility. Too often, harm comes to pets not only from humans but from other pets as well. In the city of Toronto, where we live in a more dense and urban environment, too often cases are brought to my attention where dogs, as an example, are let off their leashes. People are unable to control them, and those dogs are inflicting violence on other dogs.

In an untimely case in my riding, a dog, Sandy Bear, was off her leash in Moss Park and was lost by her owners, Chris Pritchard and Tracey Young, to another dog that was not being taken care of in a responsible fashion by its owner. We also see the whole evolution towards the breeding of dogs as offensive tools, and this is a concern for those of us living in urban areas. So I think we need to be sensitive to the issues of personal responsibility as they affect pets.

Too often, it seems to me, animals are brought into households without proper consideration of the kinds of responsibilities the owners have towards those pets. As we debate this issue, I would like to add those issues so there is consideration of the notion of personal responsibility, that that is indeed brought to bear, and that individuals who bring pets into their households take responsibility for the proper care of their pets, but also that they take responsibility for the actions of those pets when they're let off leashes and into other environments.

In closing, just to recap, I'll certainly be supporting the member opposite and look forward to working to see that this House, and others, move forward and enact tougher penalties so that people can take more responsibility, and when they don't, they can be punished in a proper fashion.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): That's right, it is Niagara Centre. Thank you very much.

I, too, rise in support of the resolution. Some people might recall that I used to get people angry in here; a couple of times I got people angry here. One of the occasions was when I talked about Charlie the beagle. Charlie was my beagle. Charlie has been dead now for three years, I think. Quite frankly, I probably wasn't the best animal companion because I was the victim of bouts of anthropomorphism. There were times when I would talk to the dog, and I'm sure there were people who suspected that more than a little bit of my political positioning was based on advice from the dog. Mind you, I probably could have done far worse.

Down in Niagara region, some of you folks may know Bernie Webb, who was the inspector-director of the SPCA down there. Bernie is retired now, but I worked on a lot of matters with Bernie Webb over the course of quite a few years. This just gives me an opportunity to praise him, because Bernie was an incredibly committed advocate for the well-being of animals, and he worked incredibly well with members of the community to assist community members who had animals and ensure the mutual well-being of both.

In fact, the humane society gave me a break more than a few times because Charlie was a beagle. He's the only dog I know that got expelled from dog-training school. I recall asking a dog trainer at one point if he'd help me train my dog and he said, "Sure, I would." I'd been referred to him by another friend who had Labs that did field trials. He said, "What kind of dog have you got?" I said, "It's a beagle." He said, "Does it bark?" I said, "Yes." He said, "It's trained."

The problem is that beagles follow their nose. If Charlie got off his leash or chain outside, he'd be gone two or three miles, four miles away, and I had to bail him out a few times. But then others have done the same for me. Eventually, it got to the point where somebody would call the humane society and say, "There's this very tired beagle that has been out running for hours lying asleep in my front yard," and the humane society wouldn't bother sending somebody out; they'd just call me and tell me to go get my dog up on Fitch Street or Northland Manor or wherever it was he happened to be.

I share, and I hope we all share, the incredible shock and repugnance at news reports of incredible treatment of animals. Nothing good can be said. These are sick, twisted people.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): Low-lifes.

Mr Kormos: That's about as low as you can go.

Mr Galt wants to make sure-and I share with him. We're not trying to trivialize the vicimization of people, for instance. We realize we have horrendous problems in dealing with protecting people from violence and abuse. But I am convinced that the same sort of people who would display violence and horrible indifference to animals' pain would also be inclined to be violent, with great indifference to human pain. I have no doubt about that. I haven't got any psychiatric or psychological studies here, but I don't think you've got to be a rocket scientist to make that kind of connection.

It was because of the resolution that I took a look at the Criminal Code. We really are talking about sections under

part XI, cruelty to animals, that are incredibly dated, I suppose in part because they date back to an era when there was a literal sense of property in an animal, that you could do whatever you wanted with it. It was yours to do what you wished. I know it has been incredibly frustrating for many judges in many courts, because the "unnecessary suffering"

section is at the end of the day a mere

summary conviction offence. That puts an incredible limit on a judge's power to impose penalties.

One of the most important parts here is the lifetime ban on ownership of animals. There is current provision for a ban on owning animals, but the problem is that it's a relatively limited period of time: It's a period not exceeding two years. Sorry, but at the end of the day-again, we don't want to prejudge any cases that are before the courts-if some of the allegations that we've read about in the papers regarding treatment of animals are proven to be true, I don't have any qualms about telling that person that he or she shouldn't be allowed to own any animal ever again.

"Sorry, you've crossed the line; you've gone beyond anything that could be tolerated," as you pointed out, "in a civil society."

This is not a difficult exercise; this is a matter of merely rewriting the sections under

part XI, putting the bill before Parliament. Their rules are perhaps not quite as restrictive as this government's rules, but their rules are pretty restrictive as well in terms of their capacity to control debate. I quite frankly don't see why any opposition member in the federal Parliament would engage in any lengthy debate or require any lengthy committee process. The fact is that Mr Galt's proposal, which I suspect is shared by the vast number of Ontarians, if not all of us, could become law in a New York minute. It's simply a matter of political will.

I find it incredibly frustrating, as I think a whole lot of people do, that governments can't respond that way. I understand a little bit why they can't. There's all sorts of stuff going on, politicking and machinations, and people's attention diverted.

I don't know if you referred to other provinces, other legislatures that have made similar calls upon the federal government to do this very sort of thing. But I trust that you, Mr Galt, with the assistance of your staff, will ensure that other legislatures, should this resolution pass-and I suspect it will-are advised of that fact so that like-minded people in other provincial parliaments can do the same thing and can, if they wish, do it in relatively short order. That, I suspect-I hope-would be reasonably persuasive with Ms McLellan, the federal justice minister.

This is one of those things where-what more is there to say? I mentioned Bernie Webb and our local humane society, and the incredible work they've done with incredibly limited resources. The municipal support for these people has at the very least been kept stagnant, if not become more restricted.

City councillors or regional councillors tend not to understand that animal control, which involves animal protection as well, is very much a public health and safety issue, that it's very much in the interests of the community to have a well-funded, well-supported humane society/SPCA with good staff, staff who work hard. These are the folks who, when you've got that skunk under your front porch, crawl in there and do the unpleasant task that most of us are reluctant to do. That's why we call the humane society, because we don't want to do it; if we were prepared to do it, we wouldn't call the humane society.

The fact is we call the humane society.

Beyond that, when you see these incredible incidents of violence to animals, psychotic physical abuse of animals, these are the people who have to, more often than not with very limited resources, engage in investigations and undertake the prosecutions themselves. I don't know what happens in your jurisdiction, but in many jurisdictions it's the humane society itself, the SPCA, that does the actual prosecution. It's only in the more serious cases that the crown attorney's office, for instance, undertakes it. That puts an incredible burden on the resources of the SPCA or local humane society.

So we support the resolution. Again, I encourage Mr Galt to make sure other legislatures know about its passage today, move quickly on it. Obviously amendments to the Criminal Code aren't going to assist courts in dealing with cases that are already before the courts, but some acknowledgement publicly that the price of poker has gone up for people who are going to be violent and abusive and who are going to mistreat animals should have, hopefully, some impact. Again, the one single goal, if for nothing else, of permitting a court to impose bans on ownership beyond two years clearly would serve the best interests of all our communities.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): It is an honour to rise in the House this morning to speak in support of the member from Northumberland on his resolution concerning crimes against animals. This is obviously something that everyone should be concerned about. All of us were appalled at the recent media reports indicating that several domestic animals had been killed in the most obscene manner. This summer in Toronto, as referenced earlier, several cats were found mutilated in a senseless, brutal and unprovoked attack on these defenceless animals. Also this summer, there were cases of people severely injuring their dogs by dragging them behind their vehicles.

In a civilized society, this type of behaviour simply cannot and should not be tolerated. As a dog owner and breeder, I have been particularly involved in addressing this issue. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of interviewing on my local cable program Victoria Earle, who is the chief executive officer of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I'd like to pay particular attention to the fact that she, along with members of that organization, is here today joining us.

I'm very pleased that they were able to come and hear the kind of support that is here in this House for this resolution. I certainly to take this opportunity to thank this organization for the outstanding work that has been done over many, many years in protecting our animals.

I also had the pleasure on September 20 of this year of opening Violence Prevention Week at the police headquarters here in Toronto. Again, I thank Victoria Earle for this invitation.

I must say how appropriate it is that this resolution is being brought forward this week, during Crime Prevention Week. I would go back to comments made a moment ago by the member from Niagara Centre where he made reference to the fact that intuitively he believes there is a link-I want to assure the member that it is a well-known link-between violent crime against animals and violent crime against humans. Several studies have shown that animal cruelty is associated with increasingly violent behaviour and is an indicator of the potential threat of continuing violence, abuse and criminal activity.

Most important, in a study done by the Ontario SPCA in 1998 with women who have left abusive situations, 61% of these had pets abused or killed by their partners, 43% had pets threatened by their partners and 48% reported that concerns over safety of their pets prevented them from leaving the abusive situation sooner. However, in Canada what is the penalty for such a crime? Under the Criminal Code of Canada, most charges relate to the wrongful infliction of pain and suffering or the wilful neglect of an animal.

For this type of crime, as we've already heard, there is a maximum fine of $2,000, six months imprisonment or both, together with the possibility of being banned from owning animals for two years. Obviously, by the recent examples, these penalties are not stopping this kind of behaviour.

In the United States there is a recognition of the link between animal cruelty and violent behaviour towards humans. Many American states have addressed this by strengthening their animal cruelty laws. However, this has not been the case in Canada. After years of contemplation, the federal government has promised to introduce amendments. This still has not been done. The member from Northumberland has demonstrated leadership on this issue in presenting this resolution to this House. This resolution sends an unequivocal message to our federal government.

It is a privilege to have a pet. Pets are recognized and accepted as important members of our families. They bring us both joy and comfort to our sometimes hectic lives. They also play very important roles as special-needs dogs, providing pet therapy by visitation and a host of other important social roles. Ontarians believe that animals are to be respected and treated humanely and protected from needless cruelty and harm. I believe the changes outlined in this resolution, if enacted by the federal government, will go a long way to achieving this.

The Criminal Code must be updated, simplified and consolidated. Currently, the code contains many inconsistencies and gaps. There is much unnecessary and confusing language throughout the code. These changes will make it easier to prosecute those accused of such crimes. It is intolerable that such an indignity should happen to animals. We and our pets deserve to live in a society free of violence and intimidation. We believe the changes this resolution urges will function as an effective deterrent to this reprehensible behaviour that threatens not only our pets but also the safety of each human being.

I ask the federal government to join us in saying that violence of any kind will not be tolerated.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My family and I live in a rural area and as such have a lot of involvement and contact with pets and with farm animals, though I'm now convinced that our dog believes she is a human and our cats believe they're God. But in our involvement it has become apparent to us that the cruelty that really is at the forefront is cruelty to pets. We used to live on a provincial highway, then we lived on a county road and now we live on a city street. We haven't moved, but the status of our road has changed. In fact, the municipality is just Velcroing the street signs on its trees now for us.

What I see that I have great trouble believing people can do is take and drop animals off in a rural area. They don't want a pet and they're not prepared to accept the responsibility of that pet. We have a cat that someone literally threw out of a car window without stopping and required a fair amount of veterinary care to fix. That's absolutely abhorrent. I cannot understand people being that uncaring towards animals.

Certainly I am encouraged and pleased to see some action taken. I would like to urge individuals in this province, though, to get more involved if they are aware of a neighbour or an acquaintance or someone they know being cruel to animals. As we live in a more and more insular society there is a tendency to not get involved. I would urge people to get involved, because of the connection that has been referred to by several other members between cruelty to animals and cruelty to people.

I do find it a little disturbing to think at this very moment somewhere in Ontario there is in all likelihood cruelty happening to an animal, and an animal that's unable to respond. So while I certainly appreciate this initiative, I would urge the government to do all they can as fast as they can.

The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale referred to the previous bill, Bill 153, that died. I would urge that reconsideration be given to it. That is something substantive that could be done by this government, and done quickly. Every day that passes by produces pain for an animal in this province.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am pleased to join the debate with respect to the resolution that's been brought forth by the member for Northumberland with respect to discouraging crimes against animals.

For too long now the federal Liberals have ignored any changes to their soft approach on crime, whether it involves animals or humans, for that matter. Maybe, as usual, it will take the efforts of this government to make the federal Liberals see the light with respect to crimes against animals, in the same way that we've made their finance minister say that tax cuts are a good thing.

This resolution to discourage crime against animals is crystal clear: Toughen the penalties so that if you choose to abuse animals, you will face serious consequences and not a slap on the wrist. Mind you, Liberals would rather soften penalties instead of toughening them.

In the discussion paper Crimes Against Animals, Department of Justice Canada, the Liberals talk about animals as being property or possessions. Tell that to the child who finds his best friend, Kitty, horribly mutilated and dead on the front lawn. Tell that to the senior who has her only companion in life, Fido, attacked and killed by unleashed pit bulls. I say the criminal law should protect animals from abuse, regardless of their status as property. We read in here about horrific incidents involving pets each and every day. It's obvious that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

I hear from my constituents that something must be done about those who commit crimes against animals. When I tell them that the federal Liberals must strengthened the law, they are resigned to seeing absolutely nothing done. What a shame. What an outrage.

This resolution urges the federal Liberals to punish these offenders with up to a maximum of five years in prison, instead of six months, and sets fines much greater than $2,000. It also asks that the Criminal Code be updated, simplified and consolidated with respect to animal cruelty.

There are too many statistics out there demonstrating that many of those who commit crimes against animals go on to commit crimes against humans. Then there are those who say, "They are only dumb animals. What's the big deal?" Tell that to the young child that loses Kitty. Tell that to the senior who's only companion in the world is killed or mutilated. If we can't take the time to protect those creatures that are totally dependant upon us for their survival and offer unconditional love in return, it's a sad statement indeed.

I urge all members of the House to support the resolution of the honourable member from Northumberland to demand that the federal Liberals make meaningful laws to discourage crimes against animals.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I also would like to offer my congratulations to the member from Northumberland.

I too agree that the abuse laws need to be amended. I think we need to look at and consider that pets are our friends. We look at the penalties. If I was to abuse another one of my fellow men the same way that somebody abuses an animal, the offence to me would be very serious and I would be severely penalized for that. Unfortunately, those same penalties don't apply to individuals who hurt and abuse animals.

Unfortunately, we read far too often in the newspapers about these offences taking place. I can relate to an incident just his past week within my own riding where, unfortunately, a barn was being used as a puppy mill. The London Humane Society went and visited that barn and recovered a number of small animals that had been abused. Unfortunately, in that case, they don't know who's responsible for it. If you saw those animals in the news clips, the abuse those animals had almost brought tears to your eyes. It's not right that somebody has the opportunity to do things like that.

I want to commend the efforts of the Ontario SPCA for what they have done in trying to help these defenseless animals. It's not included in this legislation and it's something that I hope we talk about in this House, but I think we've got to take it, at some point, a step further, and that concerns the aspect of owners of animals and the vicious dog attacks that are occurring around this province.

In the past month in my own riding, a gentleman was walking down the street-unprovoked, attacked by a dog. Then somebody went out to his defence and he was attacked. Eighty stitches that gentleman received. You know, if it was a child, that child probably wouldn't be with us today.

I commend the member for what he's doing, but I think we as the Legislature for this province need to take it beyond the abuse of the animals and put the onus on the owners of animals too and the fact of their harming other people. So you have my support, member, for this legislation, and again I commend you for your efforts in bringing this forward.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this legislation.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I too rise in support of the resolution put forth by Dr Galt, the member for Northumberland, who is a veterinarian and has seen many terrible things himself as a result of his profession.

It has been mentioned in the House that the federal government had a discussion paper. Justice Minister Anne McLellan had a discussion paper, I believe, regarding cruelty to animals which came out in the fall of 1998. Hopefully as a result of that she will bring forward changes to the Criminal Code, which remains largely unchanged for over 100 years. My understanding is that most of the provisions in the resolution come from that very report. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale mentioned a private member's bill put forward by Isabel Bassett.

That bill I believe carried but it never reached with respect to provincial legislation. Although the resolution is directed towards the Criminal Code, there's much that needs to be done from all sides, provincially and federally.

Most of us have had a pet somewhere in our lifetime. Some rural areas, depending on the area, of course, may have more dogs and suburban areas may have more cats. I've got two dogs and a cat.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I bet the cat rules the house.

Mr Tilson: No. Actually, my dog, a Labrador retriever, rules the house. His name is Crosbie, named after John Crosbie, and that dog does rule the house. I say that because these animals become part of our family; they become very close to us.

We on all sides of this place are shocked when we hear terrible stories in the media, and they seem to come out on a regular basis, such as the one that's coming out now, this strange person who seems to be mutilating cats, in which there's a $60,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of that person. I don't think the provisions in the Criminal Code, if that person is apprehended and charged, will adequately deal with such terrible offences.

My riding, which includes the town of Caledon, the county of Dufferin, parts of the county of Wellington and parts of the county of Grey, is typical of many terrible stories that have come out in the last number of years about puppy farms, or puppy mills, I guess they're called, where animals are found in terrible conditions. Those people should be charged very seriously, and the laws that we have provincially and federally are inadequate to deal with the people who are committing those offences.

There are people, particularly in the city, who get pets and they can't look after them any more for whatever reason. They bring them out to the country, to areas like my riding, and they just dump them on the country roads, particularly dogs. They perish, or they join packs of dogs which in turn attack farm animals, sheep and cattle. Those people too, if they are caught, should be apprehended, because that's a terrible offence as well.

I've only got time to talk about one offence which occurred in my riding. It was reported in all the media across the country and has to do with an Irish setter by the name of Holly, outside of Shelburne, in 1996. She was a three-year-old Irish setter and she was dragged behind a car at 30 to 40 kilometres per hour. There was a witness who saw this happen. The dog suffered a broken paw, head injuries, friction burns, long scrapes and deep cuts with bone showing through. It's a terrible story, and I'm sure members can tell similar stories.

The owner pled guilty and said she was simply trying to train the dog; she was trying to stop the dog from running out and barking and doing other sorts of things, and she simply dragged the dog. I read the police report, and the witness witnessed the dog flopping on the ground from side to side as this car was pulling the dog, perhaps to its demise. But it did survive and was ultimately returned to the former owner. The lady pled guilty and she is prohibited from owning an animal for two years, which is the maximum sentence. The member from Niagara Centre talked about that, and I agree with his comments.

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

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): My congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, on your election as Deputy Chair.

I rise to compliment the member from Northumberland on his resolution, not as much the resolution, but the content and what it aims to accomplish. This is the type of legislation that I think both sides of the House favour and would like to see move forward very expeditiously.

I would perhaps, in making my comments in this brief time, like to tell the member to look in the provincial jurisdiction area on what can be done to do something quickly without waiting, if you will, for approval from other levels of government. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere within the provincial jurisdiction we have enough room and power to move quickly on our own. I say that for the benefit of the member who has introduced the legislation and for the public at large. I think it is important to send a strong message that we as a society don't tolerate crimes against or cruelty to animals.

We may attach ourselves to the resolution, and we may address more specifically to cats and dogs, family or personal pets.

Someone out there seeing the debate today may say, "Don't these guys have anything better to do or discuss?" Let me say that this is a very serious and very important issue, and I'm pleased to see that there is unanimous support in this House.

To many people-not only youngsters, our kids, but many senior individuals-a pet is not only a companion; in many cases it's the sole companion, the only companion they have, and that means an awful lot to some of those individuals.

This would be a deterrent to some people out there not to cause crime to pets, to animals. I'm not saying that an increase in fines or other penalties, other punishments like jail or what have you, somewhere along the line won't see some of our fellow man cause distress to an animal, but at least a more severe penalty would be a deterrent in causing crime to animals.

If a particular person no longer wishes to have a pet, there are may ways of disposing of that particular animal in a very humane way. There are other people who may want it. There is the humane society that usually offers wonderful help for people like that. So there is no need to cause harm to an animal because it's no longer appreciated or wanted.

Having municipal experience, if you will, we had a lot of problems with stray cats. There is a lot of help that municipalities offer with respect to animals people no longer want, animals that are abandoned and stuff like that. I would say-and this is the message we have to send to the public-that there is no need to dispose of an animal in a very undignified way or cause harm to an animal. There are agencies, there are institutions, there are many ways of disposing of that pet. Perhaps there are other people who would love to have such a pet and take care of it.

I would like to add a few more things, but I can see we're drawing to a close. Especially at a time when we're dealing with an issue that meets favour from both sides of the House, I would like to add that this is one of those resolutions I'd like to see moving forward.

In concluding my remarks, I hope the members can look deep into the existing legislation we have in our own jurisdictions and see what can be done to accomplish most, if not all, of the intent of the resolution here. Again, I would like to compliment the member for bringing this to the House and hope to see it move forward expeditiously.

Mr Bisson: I want to add my support to this bill. I want to say, first of all, to the member for Northumberland, we know well that the member, prior to coming to this House and serving now in his second term, was in the profession of being a veterinarian, as I understand it, and understands this issue from the perspective not only of a legislator but also, unfortunately, from some of the experiences he might have had when he was in veterinary practice. I commend the member for bringing this bill forward.

I want to say a couple of things on the bill. First of all, I somewhat fear that we put ourselves in a position where possibly an offence like cruelty to animals may be dealt with more severely under the law than, in some cases, cruelty to humans. I'm sure that's not what you intend, and I don't mean to inflame the debate.

I hear what you're trying to do by way of the bill, but I want to put on the record that we've got a long way to go when it comes to dealing with the issues of crime, proper punishment and proper programs for dealing with a person who is convicted. The other thing, quite frankly, is that we also need to deal with how many police we have on the street. That's one of the issues I want to talk about another day.

I want to say, in a bit of a lighter moment, that I listened to the member across the way, Mr Tilson-I forget the riding-who mentioned he has a couple of dogs. He has one named John Crosbie, which I thought was very interesting. I take it that it had something to do with the leadership convention at the time. But anyway, I want to say I've got a dog and a cat, like most people. We have Casey the dog, who has been around the house now for about 12 years. Up until a couple of years ago, Casey ran the place.

Remember Al Leach had Tory the dog? Al tried to get his dog Tory to obedience school, and the dog would never listen. He had a heck of a time trying to train that dog. I remember I used to kid him about that, because we went through the same thing with our dog. We never were rich enough to bring our dog to obedience school; we tried to reason with the thing. Imagine trying to reason with this dog, a little poodle-terrier who has decided she's going to run the house. Along came Simba the cat. We brought Simba in four years ago, when my daughter first went off to college.

As most parents, we ended up with the cat when she came back for the summer. The daughter went back to college, but unfortunately the cat stayed at home.

The funny

part is that this cat, Simba the cat, thinks she's a dog. She spends her day terrorizing my dog. She literally will stand behind corners and wait for the dog to come by. When she figures the dog is not paying any attention, she pounces out and gives that poor old dog a heart attack. Member, we need some legislation to deal with this.

My poor dog is being traumatized by my cat. I've tried reasoning with the cat and the dog, both of whom don't understand what the heck I'm talking about. They just look back at me and say: "What is it that you want? I'm a cat. I'm doing cat things." My dog says, "I'm a dog, and I'm doing dog things." I've quit reasoning. So, I'm wondering if there's some way we can incorporate into your bill, once we bring it to committee, how we can stop the terrorizing of dogs on the part of cats in homes such as mine, because my poor old dog is just having a heck of a time with this.

She's not as swift, as fast as she used to be, she doesn't see as well, she doesn't hear as well, so she doesn't know that Simba is hiding out to get her. I tell you, we've got to deal with that issue because, like my good friend Al Leach, who was a member in the previous Parliament, we love our dog deeply and we love our cat deeply, they're part of our family, but we need to find a way to get these dogs and cats to get along. If you can put that into your legislation, I think you might have something there.

That was just a lighter moment. I've had an opportunity to speak about my daughters, my wife, my parents, but I've never had a chance to talk about my dog or cat. You gave me the opportunity, and for that, I look forward to it. I'll be clipping this Hansard out and giving it both to Casey and Simba and making sure they know that if Simba doesn't straighten out, I'm going to come back with some legislation to make it illegal for her to scare that poor old dog Casey, who doesn't have a lot of years left.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? If not, the member for Northumberland in response.

Mr Galt: Thanks to all of the speakers here this morning supporting this particular resolution. I'm certainly very grateful to each and every one of you.

In the member's gallery is Dr Isabel Hetram, who sat on the animal welfare committee of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and also represents the College of Veterinarians of Ontario. Thank you very much for being with us this morning.

We also have representatives from the Northumberland Humane Society: Joan Curry, the manager; and also a member of the board of directors, Ms Lori Beatty. Unfortunately, I don't see them here at this point, but I appreciate the fact that they intended to be present.

I was interested in the comments of the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, and I empathize with both of the points he was making. Unfortunately, and maybe as a new member, some of these private members' bills, it's a real tough time getting them through. It did get to hearings, it did not get back to the House and it sort of died on the order paper. That's one of the reasons I used a resolution rather than a bill. Also your comment about the Solicitor General, I'm holding his feet to the fire as well, not just the justice minister, Anne McLellan. You're right on. I've certainly had many chats with him, and he's empathetic to the cause, no question there.

The member for Niagara Centre was linking the abuse of animals-and wondering if it really was documented-to spousal abuse, child abuse and so on, and there's no question the member for North York underlined that and did confirm it.

In winding up, I hope this resolution will do one of two things-will do both of them, actually; one is to encourage the federal government to get on with these new penalties, and second, bring more awareness to the public that cruelty to animals is not acceptable in our society.

POLICE RECORDS CHECKS BY NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS DES DOSSIERS DE POLICE PAR LES AGENCES SANS BUT LUCRATIF

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Kormos has moved second reading of Bill 9,

An Act respecting the cost of checking the police records of individuals who may work for certain non-profit service agencies. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice.

The Acting Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice? Agreed.

ANIMAL PROTECTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Galt has moved private member's resolution number 1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Yesterday in this House, government members rose one by one to assure the people of Ontario that there wasn't a housing crisis in our province. I'd like to take this opportunity to draw to the attention of this House the results of two significant studies released this week.

Just today, a former mayor, a former provincial housing minister and a former federal housing minister came to this place to present further evidence which clearly shows there is a real housing crisis in Ontario. Where's Home,

Part II, had some startling revelations.

Government members need to know that over 25% of Ontario's tenants are paying half of their income on rent, putting people at serious risk of becoming homeless; many municipalities have serious rental housing shortages, with declining vacancy rates; rents are increasing faster than the rate of inflation; and in 1997 and 1998, only 2% of all housing starts in Ontario were for rental housing. So much for the supposed rental housing boom forecast by former minister Al Leach.

On Tuesday, a study of the eviction prevention program was released. It showed that tenants were not aware when they were being evicted, and that the process was confusing and clearly geared to favour landlords.

The results of these reports are clear: The gutting of real rent controls and the total absence of affordable housing starts has led to unacceptable conditions for tenants in Ontario. The hearing process has failed tenants and diminished in real terms their access to fundamental justice. This week's reports are a wake-up call for action from the Harris government.

DIWALI

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): November 7 marks the beginning of Diwali for the members of the East Indian community, both in my riding as well as across Ontario. In preparation for Diwali, prayers are offered to Lakshmi, the Goddess of Wealth, and to the Lord Ganesh. Sweets are prepared and shared among family and friends. Diwali, or the festival of lights as it is popularly known, is symbolized by the lighting of innumerable lamps or deeyas in and around every home. Diwali also commemorates the end of the harvest season and the beginning of the Hindu New Year.

For East Indians of every origin, Diwali holds special meaning and symbolism. For Hindus, Diwali is a time to celebrate the victory of good over evil, as embodied in the return of Lord Rama to his kingdom of Ayodhya after 14 years in exile. Among Sikhs, Diwali signifies the return Guru Hargobind Ji to the city of Amritsar after his release from captivity by the Mughal emperor, Jahangir. At the time of his release and in the true spirit of brotherhood, Hargobind Ji played a key role in the release of 52 Hindu kings from captivity.

Diwali is a major festival in many nations around the world such as Guyana, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and Malaysia.

On this most auspicious day, to all members of the South Asian community across Ontario and especially in my own riding, I wish and pray that we all are blessed with harmony, love and positive thoughts.

Happy Diwali to all.

Namaste and Sat Sri Akal.

YOUNG ONTARIANS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I rise today to express my disappointment in this government at the cavalier way they regard the youth of today. I have met with young people in my community and across the province who are facing the burdens of affordable housing, high tuition fees and welfare cutbacks.

The youth of today are not the societal problem that this Conservative government paints them all to be. Instead, I find young people who are prepared to study and work hard to build a future for themselves. Yet many find this government unresponsive. The tax cuts for the wealthiest have not trickled down to them. Many face bankruptcy or severe debt at the conclusion of their studies. They are worried that there will be no space for them when they are about to enter university, or will there be jobs when all this policy they have implemented takes effect? That's what grade 8s and grade 9s told me in school.

As well, this government has cut programs for youth. This government has ignored community and non-profit organizations. It is often remarked by Conservative members that their work is important in building a good community and is a task that can only be undertaken by these organizations. In contrast, this Conservative government has denied these organizations the resources required for them to operate and to help youth.

Instead of sending these kids off to boot camp, as they would like to, this government should be assisting our youth and their parents with policies that do not work contrary to the interests of the family and young people.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is my great privilege and honour to rise today in recognition of the numbers of people, Canadian men and women, who have given their lives over the years in many of the wars that were fought in the name of freedom, those who have stood up before us and were counted so that we might enjoy some of the opportunities that today we so often take for granted.

Next week, on November 11, we will all participate as much as we can in more formal celebrations and presentations in community centres and arenas across the province, and I certainly will be there to participate in that. However, the fear is being raised by the Royal Canadian Legion, who also need to be recognized, that with the dwindling numbers of veterans in our communities these days, perhaps this need to remember may be forgotten. They have asked that all of us participate in the way we can in our workplaces, in our schools, in our communities, wherever we find ourselves on November 11 at 11 o'clock in the morning, in a two-minute wave of silence.

I don't think it's too much to ask that all of us talk with our families, our co-workers and with people we might be in company with on that day, and remind them at 11 o'clock that across this country, from to sea to sea to sea, people will be stopping to give recognition to those who have given of their lives in these wars in this way.

ORANGEVILLE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I rise today to congratulate the Orangeville and District Chamber of Commerce on the celebration of its 90th anniversary. Formed in 1909, it was originally known as the Orangeville Board of Trade. This organization continues to be a valuable asset to our community.

On October 26, 1964, the Orangeville Board of Trade became officially incorporated as the Orangeville and District Chamber of Commerce. Ten years later, in 1974, it held its first trade show, known today as Expo Orangeville. I have had the opportunity to attend Expo Orangeville for many of these years, and I am always impressed by the calibre of businesses our area has to offer.

Orangeville and the surrounding area has always been recognized as having a strong agricultural community and, in honour of this, the chamber of commerce created the Farmer of the Year award in 1980. They also started the farmers' market in downtown Orangeville, which is still active today.

In honour of local business men and women, the chamber created a Business of the Year award to honour businesses in the area that have enriched our community.

This organization continues to grow rapidly each year. As younger families move into the area to start up businesses, the chamber of commerce provides valuable contacts and tourism information to these new business owners.

Although the Orangeville and District Chamber of Commerce began 90 years ago, the members still have the same shared vision, which is to improve all aspects of life in the community and to make the town of Orangeville a prosperous place for businesses and for all its citizens.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My statement is addressed to the Minister of Labour. Last night Ontario construction workers were celebrating, but today I told them to put their champagne away.

Minister, I have told you before: Make sure you have everything in writing from Quebec before you make a statement.

I have here a copy of an

article from Le Droit, as well as a press release from the Quebec labour minister, stating that your press release of yesterday is just a bunch of lies and that the Quebec minister must tell the real truth.

The Quebec minister also says that nothing has happened in the last few days and that their position has not changed. They will only open up the Hull casino if a global agreement is reached on labour mobility, and under no condition is Quebec ready to open their sites to Ontario contractors at this time.

They seem very surprised by your statement, which states that Quebec agrees to Ontario's demands. Maybe, Minister, you should take me along to these meetings just to translate for you.

We are clearly getting two messages here. Which message should we believe? Which Minister of Labour should I believe? Stop getting the hopes of the workers up with your big statements. Give them the truth: Do you have an agreement in place?

OPP AUXILIARY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): As mentioned earlier this week, this is Crime Prevention Week.

On Friday, October 29, I attend the graduation ceremony of 52 new recruits joining the Ontario Provincial Police auxiliary. These officers are men and women from all walks of life who live in our province. I witnessed the swearing in of people from the business world, educators, nurses, spouses of police officers, and citizens who work for our civil service. Even newlyweds from the previous weekend were able to attend the auxiliary training.

These new recruits bring to a total of approximately 900 the men and women who are now members of the OPP auxiliary. These men and women are volunteers who are committed to their communities, communities where they expect to raise their families in a safe environment. They work with regular officers on a day-to-day basis, often putting themselves in life-threatening situations. In 1999, these men and women contributed over 174,000 hours of volunteer time to the OPP, representing the equivalent of approximately 120 people.

The OPP auxiliary is the largest auxiliary force in Canada, and the success of the auxiliary is a result of an excellent relationship with the Ontario Provincial Police Association and the office of the Solicitor General.

As we enter a new millennium, it is encouraging to see the level of volunteerism and community spirit that is alive in our police services. The year 2000 represents the 40th anniversary of the OPP auxiliary. I would ask the members of this assembly to acknowledge the dedication of this remarkable group of individuals for their contributions to their communities and to the province of Ontario.

GALLAHER THOROLD PAPER MILL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Employees of Gallaher Paper in Thorold are now in the third week of their occupation of the plant in an effort to persuade the receiver that a buyer who wishes to continue to operate the mill should be found.

These are not radical, irresponsible individuals seeking excitement and fame. They are, rather, people whose very livelihood is threatened by the closure of a mill which has provided good jobs for thousands of workers over the years and for hundreds who today hope and pray that a new operator can be found to keep those jobs alive.

They were encouraged by the intervention of the Premier, who contacted the receiver and the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the primary creditor, to express the hope that a way could be found to keep the mill in operation.

The jobs in that plant are of great importance to the employees themselves and their families. They are also important to the entire Niagara region, which benefits immensely from the economic spinoffs of the plant, with workers spending their paycheques in the community, and the mill purchasing goods and services in our part of the province.

I urge the government to work with financial institutions, employees, union representatives and a potential management team to resume operations at the Gallaher Thorold paper mill and save the jobs so precious to those many who have toiled for so many years.

DIWALI

Mr Bob Wood (London West): As members know, 800 million Hindus across Ontario and the world will be celebrating the festival of Diwali on November 7 this year. The public celebration in London will be held on November 13.

Diwali, or Deepawali, the most pan-Indian of all Hindu festivals, is a festival of lights symbolizing the victory of righteousness and the lifting of spiritual darkness. It commemorates Lord Rama's return to his kingdom, Ayodhya, after completing his 14-year exile. Twinkling oil lamps, or deeyas, light up every Hindu home in India, and fireworks displays take place across the country. The goddess Lakshmi, symbol of wealth and prosperity, is also worshipped on this occasion.

The festival marks the start of the Hindu new year. At this time, most Hindu homes worship Lord Ganesha, the symbol of auspiciousness and wisdom. Spring cleaning and decorative designs for homes are the order of the day. Family members come together to offer prayers, distribute sweets and light up their homes.

I know that all members of this House will join with me in wishing Hindus across Ontario and the world a happy new year and a warm "Namaste."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Pursuant to standing order 60(a), I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates, on the estimates selected and not selected by the standing committee for consideration.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Curling from the standing committee on estimates presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 59, your committee has selected the estimates 1999-2000 of the following ministries and offices for consideration: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 5 hours; Ministry of Education and Training, 10 hours-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Dispense? Agreed.

Pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

See Votes and Proceedings.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act to reduce red tape, to promote good government through better management of Ministries and agencies and to improve customer service by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting four new Acts / Projet de loi 11, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives, à promouvoir un bon gouvernement par une meilleure gestion des ministères et organismes et à améliorer le service à la clientèle en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant quatre nouvelles lois.

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

The minister for a short explanation.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I'll be making a minister's statement.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PRÉSERVATION DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 12,

An Act to protect and preserve the Oak Ridges Moraine for future generations by creating the Oak Ridges Moraine Commission / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à protéger et à préserver la moraine d'Oak Ridges pour les générations à venir en constituant la Commission de la moraine d'Oak Ridges.

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

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): The bill requires the minister to establish an area of land as the Oak Ridges moraine planning area. The bill creates the Oak Ridges Moraine Commission, which must prepare the Oak Ridges moraine plan after a specified consultation.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent of the Legislature to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 4 and 5.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RED TAPE REDUCTION

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The Mike Harris government was elected and re-elected with a mandate to cut red tape, and we've done just that. We've listened to in dustry's concerns and we've responded with the passage of two red tape bills, cutting more than 1,300 regulations.

Earlier I tabled the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1999, our government's third consolidated red tape bill. This bill continues the government's fight against unnecessary rules and regulations that put a burden on business and get in the way of providing better service to the public. As members will recall, the recent speech from the throne reminded us that while much has been accomplished in removing job-killing red tape, much work remains to be done.

This bill represents the latest proposals to cut red tape in more than a dozen ministries and at Management Board Secretariat. If passed, it would make more than 200 changes to more than 90 acts. This bill includes changes designed to improve customer service and streamline government operations for greater efficiency.

The goal of red tape reduction bills is: to streamline administration so business can spend less time jumping through administrative hoops and can instead concentrate on what they do best, fuelling the economy and creating jobs; to smooth the way for business to get started, create jobs and carry on business in Ontario; to make it easier, faster and less expensive for both business and the public when dealing with government; to encourage investment in Ontario by breaking down barriers to conducting and managing business; to simplify processes to reduce overlap with other legislation and improve overall efficiency and customer service; and, finally, to harmonize and modernize legislation among ministries.

This is a very important bill. I urge all members to give it their support.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Every time one of these so-called red tape reduction bills comes up, we always get a huge pile of blue books. If you're cutting regulation, how come it has to be accompanied by these mountains and mountains of blue books? This happened the last time too. I really think that in many cases, as they say they're cutting tape, they're creating all kinds of new, complex regulations.

I warn the public out there to try and follow what these changes are because some of them are quite subtle and may affect the way they do business or the way they conduct their lives as Ontario citizens. It's very difficult for an ordinary citizen to have time to find out what's in this mess of books. I wonder how the minister is going to communicate what's in this mess of books to ordinary Ontarians. They never did the last time. They do it with special interest groups, but that's not enough. You have to do it with ordinary Ontarians and let them know how their lives are going to change.

I surely hope that while they're cutting red tape they might take a look at how the ordinary citizen gets in touch with their government. Every time you phone up a ministry, you're lost in voice mail hell. You can't get a real person any more. You go around pushing buttons and you're just shunted around from pillar to post and you lose a half-hour. Seniors especially complain about the inabil