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

September 26, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Sep-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 26 September 2002 Jeudi 26 septembre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FLAGS AT HALF-MAST ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES DRAPEAUX EN BERNE

FAMILY HEALTH BENEFITS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES PRESTATIONS FAMILIALES

DE MALADIE

FLAGS AT HALF-MAST ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES DRAPEAUX EN BERNE

FAMILY HEALTH BENEFITS ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES PRESTATIONS FAMILIALES

DE MALADIE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

SERBIAN PICNIC

EDUCATION FUNDING

DEAN CRANDON

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

RUN FOR THE CURE

ANNIVERSARY OF

MALTESE INDEPENDENCE

BIG BROTHERS AND SISTERS

OF CLARINGTON

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

BRUCE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

HYDRO RATES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SLOT MACHINES

VISITORS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION

SOCIAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HAZARDOUS WASTE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

HYDRO ONE

LONG-TERM CARE

HIGHWAY 69

LONG-TERM CARE

OPTOMETRISTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CHILD CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERJURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT

ORDERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES ORDONNANCES ALIMENTAIRES

D'EXÉCUTION RÉCIPROQUE

Thursday 26 September 2002 Jeudi 26 septembre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FLAGS AT HALF-MAST ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES DRAPEAUX EN BERNE

Mr Chudleigh moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act to require that flags be flown at half-mast at provincial government buildings to honour Ontario police officers, correctional services

officers, firefighters and ambulance workers who lose their lives in the line of duty / Projet de loi 172, Loi exigeant la mise en berne des drapeaux qu'arborent les édifices du gouvernement

provincial en l'honneur des agents de police, des agents de services correctionnels, des pompiers et des préposés aux services d'ambulance de l'Ontario qui perdent la vie dans l'exercice

de leurs fonctions.

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

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I rise today in the House to speak to my private member's bill, Bill 172, the Flags at Half-Mast Act, 2002.

Every day in this province, our communities are being protected by the men and women of law enforcement and emergency services. These men and women have chosen

to spend their lives protecting the safety and security many of us take for granted.

Our government feels, as I believe all people in Ontario feel, that Ontario should be a safe place to live, work and raise a family and these front-line staff

make that dream possible. They selflessly go off to work every day to do a variety of very challenging tasks.

There is the ambulance attendant or paramedic, who leaves every day not knowing what challenges may lie ahead. They may be faced with a small child who has taken

a tumble off a bicycle and requires some minor medical attention. They may be faced with a teenager or young adult who has mistakenly had too much to drink and, sadly, gotten behind the wheel of a

car and, unfortunately, paid the consequences with a horrific accident. These terrible accidents may require metal-cutting devices to get people out of the car, to extricate the bodies.

I know from personal experience that police officers and ambulance attendants can go through weeks and even months of nightmares after these terrible

crashes.

Ambulance drivers are often faced with the needs of a senior citizen who is experiencing the first signs of a heart attack. They're frightened and alone. These

men and women step up to the plate and perform a miracle by getting these people to our hospitals for treatment.

They are not the only ones to face this daunting task. There is the police officer who spends endless nights and days protecting our children and our families

from those people in our society who don't feel that the law necessarily applies to them. They're often called to defend those who can't defend themselves, not knowing exactly what awaits them in

the night.

I remember one evening. I was on my way back from a meeting in Niagara, a late-night meeting. It was about 2 o'clock in the morning and I got pulled over by a

police officer on the QEW. I'd been speeding. When he pulled me over and I was well off the road, I immediately opened my door so the car light came on. When the police officer came up to the car,

the first thing he asked me was why I did that, because it was unusual. Police officers will always be ready and prepared for the unusual. I told him I did it because if I were him, pulling someone

over at 2 o'clock in the morning on the QEW, I'd want to know what was inside the car at that particular time. So I opened the door so the lights could come on. We had a long conversation about his

duties, what he went through, the experiences he had, the pressures they put on his personal life, the kinds of things that he goes through on a day-to-day basis.

Yes, he did give me a ticket, even after our lovely conversation. I kind of thought I had him coming my way, but he did his duty, and well he should. I deserved

that. He was benevolent, however, as I recall. I think that's the last ticket I've had, too. However, it did give me pause to reflect on the way home about the commitment that these people make to

their jobs and to the personal safety that our communities have.

There's also the firefighter, who can spend a shift rescuing a young family after an unfortunate accident or providing some much-needed attention at the scene of

an automobile accident. Firefighters put on asbestos equipment and walk through a wall of fire in order to save us or our valuables or our loved ones at a time of a house fire. Who among us, when

we're lighting a gas barbecue, doesn't jump back when it ignites with a little fire, and yet these people walk through those walls of fire.

We must not forget about the often-unspoken frontline staff of Ontario's correctional facilities. They spend their days watching over criminals who you and I

might be appalled to share our company with. They are there every day as they undergo rehabilitation both inside and outside the walls of our jails and detention centres.

I think everyone in this House would agree that the contribution these individuals give to the safety and security of their communities was brought to the

forefront of our minds with the horrific attacks of September 11. It was during that tragic time in three American communities that we all realized what heroes these members of law enforcement and

emergency services truly are. When the rest of the world was struggling with shock and fear, they rose to the occasion and rescued and recovered those who were at risk and those who were already

lost. In so doing at the doomed World Trade Center, many of them lost their lives.

We have just experienced the first anniversary of that tragic day, and in Ontario and across the rest of the world we commemorated the occasion by remembering

not only the civilian victims but the victims from law enforcement and emergency services communities as well.

Sadly, as with any other day, these men and women left for work not knowing what could face them in that day's shift. They knew, as they know every day, that

they may never make it home. They knew, as they know every day, that when they say goodbye to their families and their loved ones it may be the last time they do so.

It is a tragedy when anyone passes on under any circumstances, but what is even more tragic is when an individual passes on from performing the most selfless

duty -- protecting the safety and security of a community.

Fortunately, these tragedies are few and far between. However, when they do occur they are forever etched in our memories. Just this past year, we have

experienced the death of four police officers and firefighters in Ontario.

Rick McDonald was one such police officer. He died in the line of duty in Sudbury in 1999. A public building in my riding of Halton didn't have their flag at

half-mast immediately after his death. I inquired why and I was told it happened a long way away up in Sudbury and they didn't feel the need, and it was a voluntary thing as to whether or not they

lowered their flag.

That is why I feel it is so imperative to properly recognize the passing of these individuals no matter where it happens in this great province of Ontario so

that all Ontarians can reflect on a hero just called and indeed all the heroes who are police officers, firefighters, paramedics, ambulance attendants and correctional officers who work and live in

our communities and across this province. That is why I am introducing Bill 172,

An Act to require that flags be flown at half-mast at provincial government buildings to honour Ontario police

officers, correctional services officers, firefighters and ambulance workers who lose their lives in the line of duty.

If passed, this bill will require all flags to be flown at half-mast in the event that one of these everyday heroes loses their life while trying to protect

ours. All flags at government buildings, schools, hospitals, police stations and correctional facilities will be required to be at half-mast for a specified period of the day the death is announced

and the next full day.

I understand it is a small token on our part to pass this bill, but I think it will show the men and women who selflessly sacrifice their lives for the

protection of others that their daily efforts do not go unnoticed. A flag at half-mast is something most people notice, and they ask why, and they find out what happened and then they have time to

reflect. It will show these heroic individuals that their lives are recognized and honoured on a day-to-day basis.

I would ask all members of this House to join me in support of Bill 172 for the families and loved ones of those whom this bill would honour.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Obviously, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals support this bill. We thank the member for bringing it

forward. It is a bill which seeks to, among other things, address the need for public, formalized rituals in our province to ensure that we celebrate those, that we mourn those, that we exalt those

who have played a

part in the tragic events of September 11, but also that we acknowledge those, exalt those and celebrate those who have all along been engaging in these heroic activities.

I think there's no doubt that the public impression of police officers, correctional services officers, firefighters and ambulance workers, who are really the

focus today in this bill, is that they have always been engaging in the same activities as they were before September 11. September 11 provided an opportunity for the world to refocus, if you like,

and to see on a scale unimaginable before the lengths to which these people would risk their lives for others, would engage in acts of rescue that the vast majority of us really could not

contemplate. Yet this is what they do for a living.

I should also say that I think it's important that we do this, and that in fact we legislate this for the reason that was just explained by the member sponsoring

this bill. It means that we are all engaging in this. It provides, I think, a legislative sanction to ensure that everybody in this province understands the importance of this, the importance of

the ritual of flying the flags at half-mast, and the meaning there too. And as we continue to hear in popular culture and in our legislative culture efforts to consecrate this important ritual, I

think this bill will be one fine step along the way.

I know a number of members in our caucus want to speak to this. I'm going to close with some words from the Boss -- not my boss, McGuinty, but Springsteen -- who

said, in honour of those who have fallen on 9/11,

May your strength give us strength,

May your hope give us hope,

May your faith give us faith,

May your love give us love.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate on second reading with respect to Bill 172, the Flags

at Half-Mast Act, 2002, brought forth by the member from Halton.

Certainly the intent of flying the flag at half-mast for a period of mourning to honour police officers and also firefighters really has been applicable in my

riding this past year, unfortunately. We had earlier this year a very valiant and brave firefighter by the name of Billy Wilkins who worked for the Barrie fire department, a very young man who was

tragically struck down trying to fight a fire in a private residence. The outpouring from all over the province, let alone from the community, in terms of not only the shock and the dismay but also

the respect being paid and put forth toward a firefighter of that young an age and that valiant an effort, touched the community very, very deeply.

Shortly thereafter -- too shortly thereafter, this past summer -- in a meaningless, tragic event, a South Simcoe police

officer by the name of Al Kuzmich was stuck down on the highway while in pursuit of a stolen motorcycle. He was struck down while performing his duties, a young man with a young family, two young

boys. The funeral service, which was held in Barrie at Collier Street United Church, once again showed the outpouring of support from all the police services across the province and from the

community -- shock, disbelief, and just a tragic, tragic event taking away the life of a young man who had so much to offer not only to the community but to his young family.

Certainly the flags being flown at half-mast was never an issue with respect to my particular riding, where we've seen two tragic events in the past year. But I

know that in terms of what the member from Halton is bringing forth here, it's not only for police officers; it's for correctional services officers, firefighters and ambulance workers who lose

their lives in the line of duty. Billy Wilkins and Al Kuzmich lost their lives in the line of duty, and it's something that should be respected throughout the province. That's what the member is

trying to accomplish here.

I think it's a matter of respect. That's what was put in the paper and that's what the member from Halton is saying: it's a matter of respect. But it's more than

that. It shows our appreciation for the work that police officers, firefighters, ambulance workers and correctional officers put in day in and day out. They are in risky professions. It's not so

much that they get ready every day and say, "I'm going to go in to work." They not only get ready to go in to work; they have to go in to work with a recognition that they have to be prepared to

deal with situations that may affect their life. For the vast majority of the population, it's something they take for granted, that they're going to go to work, they're going to come home after

work, and then they'll just get on with their life and do what they want to do. But for this type of individuals -- and it's a unique type of individual. Certainly I know correctional officers; one

individual who lives down the street from me, Bill Merrick, has been in that service for many years. You have to look at it from the point of view of what they're giving up to the community, what

they've chosen to sacrifice. What they've chosen to sacrifice to the community is their life. The saying, "Some gave all," is what we're looking at in terms of the two individuals who died in

Barrie and Innisfil this past year. They gave all. I can tell you that it's a very tragic circumstance.

But certainly I think the intentions of the member from Halton are to cover the entire province, and that's what we're looking to do. So I support this bill and

hope for its speedy passage.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join, along with my leader, in supporting the bill. It's a very good idea. It's a bit

of a blank in our procedures around here, and I very much support it, obviously for a couple of reasons.

One is that all of us appreciate the terrific role these people play in our lives, and it's a small but meaningful way that we recognize that.

The second reason is that each of us, as we drive by a flag at half-staff, if we're not familiar with why it's flying at half-staff, we ask the other person in

the car, "What is that for? Why is that?" It is a way that we across the province will remind ourselves and discuss the important role these people play. So I'm very much supportive of it.

I would also say to our police officers, firefighters and others how much the public appreciates the job they do. I talk to police officers frequently, and they

will often notice the criticism they get and I think seldom appreciate the terrific respect they have in the community. I know that from experience. The community I represent is just overwhelmingly

supportive of our police organization. They overwhelmingly appreciate and respect the job they do. I just want to say that, because if there's a piece of criticism in the media, I think it jumps

out at them, and they don't hear often enough how widely appreciated their role is.

Finally, in support of this, one of my very best friends was a police officer. He and I coached hockey together for 17 or 18 years. This police officer was

injured on the way home from work and became a quadriplegic. He went back to work on the police force as a quadriplegic. I take my hat off to Toronto Police Services, by the way. They brought him

back as a fully functioning constable. He was then promoted to detective sergeant, and again I take my hat off to the police services. Tragically, he passed away at the age of 42, partially, in my

opinion, because of complications from the accident.

In any event, the point I'm making is that he is indicative of our police services, an individual who served us well as a police officer but also as a tremendous

community participant. He coached hockey for 16 or 17 years, among other things. I regard this as another indication of the respect and honour we pay to those people who perform these duties for

us.

I appreciate the bill and I of course will be supporting the bill.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): It is important for us to throw our support behind this legislation, the Flags at Half-Mast Act,

that's been introduced by MPP Chudleigh.

As we know, the purpose of this bill is to require that flags at provincial government buildings are flown at half-mast for a period of mourning to honour police

officers, correctional officers, firefighters and ambulance workers who lose their lives in the line of duty.

I'd like to point out off the top that all of us here today bear a responsibility, not only as MPPs but as members of society, to ensure that the people in these

professions are recognized for their efforts to ensure our safety and our security and the safety and security of our society.

Frankly, I'm surprised and somewhat dismayed that this type of legislation isn't already in place. I would suggest that people in Ontario would be disappointed

as well to learn that members of our emergency services, our friends and neighbours who put on those uniforms, are not honoured in any comprehensive way with the lowering of a flag at Ontario

government buildings when one of their members makes that ultimate sacrifice.

Protocol is very important, and direction is often needed when local people try to make a decision whether or not they should lower that flag. In the wake of new

realities post-September 11, our emergency workers have had thrown on their already hefty assignments new responsibilities. In response to the superior job that police, firemen, ambulance and

correctional workers do day in and day out, we must take what I consider a relatively small step to honour fallen heroes.

Given the actions of September 11 -- this was mentioned earlier this morning -- I'm very proud of the government of Ontario and our emergency response workers

here in the province. As many will know, at 8:48 a plane entered the north tower and at 11:08 in the morning Ontario was on full alert through the emergency measures organization. Air ambulance,

police and firefighters were all at the ready.

I would like to echo the comments of the Minister of Public Safety and Security, Bob Runciman. He pointed out in this Legislature in June that the first

government in Canada to react was the government of the province of Ontario, led by then-Premier Mike Harris. I'm sure people throughout the world at that time questioned whether their governments

had the ability to deal with emergencies, as we saw in both Washington and New York.

When I was 17 I did a stint in the militia, and I'm saddened by the neglect of our Canadian forces since that time. However, our firefighters, police and

paramedics are well equipped, in contrast to the federal level, and can play a very strong role in dealing with terrorist acts, a role that of course needs to be further enhanced by provincial

dollars, municipal dollars and federal dollars.

It's important to reflect on today's challenge to our security. People do step forward and answer a call in our time of need: military personnel, of course,

emergency workers, police and firefighters. Because of these people, Ontario remains at the ready.

Since September 11 this government has moved swiftly to support emergency response teams, providing personnel with backup, providing personnel with the tools

they require to work on behalf of the province to provide safety and security. For example, a major training exercise in bioterrorism will be held next spring for police, fire, ambulance and

medical personnel.

The Office of the Fire Marshal is investing $2.5 million a year in generic and specialized training for first responders. One hundred thousand dollars is going

to each of Toronto, Windsor and Ottawa fire services to form specialized chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response teams. We are asking these people to take on a far-expanded role and

responsibility.

The Office of the Fire Marshal has also developed a pocket guide for first responders on biological and chemical terrorism, including anthrax, smallpox, cyanide

and nerve agents. This is very serious stuff and, again, reflects the confidence we have in people whom we, through this legislation, are recognizing.

Today, the member for Halton is asking us to take these measures of support one step further. It's a relatively small step, I submit, that should have been taken

a long time ago, a step that would honour these firefighters, police, correctional workers and ambulance attendants, heroes who bravely put their lives in the way of danger every day. It's a step

that would recognize these men and women with the lowering of the flag.

As I've alluded to a couple of times, our emergency response workers are heroes, and they should be treated with appropriate respect. Part of that respect means

that at the very least we must work with MPP Chudleigh to ensure that death in the line of duty is honoured.

The reverence should not be shown in the local community alone, but across the province. Make no mistake: the loss of an emergency worker in one part of Ontario

is a loss to us all, to every woman, man and child throughout the province, and therefore I see it as apt that our condolences should be felt across the province as well.

It is our responsibility, as elected members of this provincial Parliament and as members of society, to ensure that the dedicated efforts of these people do not

go unrecognized. It is our responsibility to ensure that their sacrifices are not forgotten.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand, like my colleagues before me in the Liberal caucus and our leader, Dalton McGuinty, in support of this

resolution.

It is interesting that the member would bring this resolution up today. We know, or we should know, that this Sunday in Ottawa the Canadian Police Association,

along with the federal government, will be sponsoring the Canadian police and peace officers' 25th annual memorial service. It is a very, very solemn time, a time when we reflect and we remember.

We reflect on the importance of those individuals who have lost their lives, and we reflect on the importance of these people who lay their lives on the line every single, solitary day of their

lives.

I'm glad the member included firefighters, ambulance workers and correctional services. Indeed, these people jeopardize their lives on an ongoing basis, as well

as our fine police officers across this great province of ours and this fine country of ours.

This Sunday in Ottawa is also a time for challenge. It's a time to challenge all levels of government to do what we must do in order to make the lives of police

officers, firefighters, correctional services and ambulance workers as safe as possible.

We focus on police officers this Sunday. We remember painfully the tragedies which occurred which caused the loss of life of these fine police officers. But

the challenge is there.

My fellow Liberal caucus member, Michael Bryant, quoted the Boss, Bruce Springsteen, in his speech. I would challenge this government and all governments to

listen to the words of a song written by a person in Barrie, Ontario, Karen Eaton, when she says, "Honour thy fallen." This is what we'll do by this bill. We will honour those who have fallen, who

have died, who have lost their lives protecting and serving the people of Ontario.

In the next six minutes I'd like to bring the House up to date on the activity of the JOEMAC committee. JOEMAC is an acronym for Justice Over Everything:

Making Appropriate Choices. It's a group of community people who have gotten together to try to effect systemic change in our federal justice system but also to ensure that there is justice for

those people who have lost loved ones.

I focus today, for the remainder of the time, on the life of Constable Joe MacDonald. Joe, in the early hours of a very damp October day, pulled over a vehicle

for a routine traffic stop; a brake light was out. He pulled the vehicle over and was met by two criminals who turned out to be executioners, as you will see. They jumped out of their vehicle and

started to beat on Joe. They pummelled his body. They broke his leg so severely that it was on backwards. With utter disdain, these executioners put three bullets in the back of his head. One of

the members of the JOEMAC committee is Ray Grenier, who cradled Joe in his arms as he died.

The JOEMAC committee, which was formed from members of Joe's family, the community, Joe's lifelong best friend, fellow police officers and a member of the

Office for Victims of Crime, Staff Sergeant John Muise, has come together because we want change.

This House, all three parties, unanimously supported the resolution that JOEMAC has now brought across Canada. It asked for three things. The first thing it

asked for was the return of Clinton Suzack and Peter Pennett who today, as we debate this bill, are enjoying soft time, one in Mission, BC, and one in eastern Ontario, in medium-secure facilities,

having been transferred very quickly out of maximum security. The JOEMAC committee and this House want them back in maximum security. Secondly, we want an external review of Correctional Services

Canada because we believe it is important that people are cascaded in our criminal justice system based on individual risk assessments and not on numerical quotas. Thirdly, we want the federal

Solicitor General to live up to the promise he made to the justice committee, that he would send a directive to the commissioner, deputy commissioners, warden and deputy wardens across this country

that cascading would not be based on numerical quotas.

It is interesting that when we met with the Solicitor General last February 18, he suggested he would keep the lines of communication open. On April 18, 2001,

he sent a letter suggesting he would send out the directive. Today I received a copy of this letter that the federal Solicitor General sent out to Ms McClung from Correctional Services Canada. It's

dated today, but at least it's dated and has gone out. We see that as a first positive sign.

We, as a committee, want this resolution passed by every province in the country. We have made strides. We presented this summer to the National Association of

Professional Police, who passed our resolution, and the Canadian Police Association, which passed our resolution. We have commitments from these services as well as from the Canadian police

services boards association that they will take the message of JOEMAC to their respective provinces, so that hopefully, before Christmas, we will have the rest of the provinces and territories on

side. We want to put the Solicitor General and every government on notice that the recommendations of the JOEMAC committee are not politics. It's all about public safety and a justice system that

protects everyone.

We look forward to the government members on the other side of the House supporting the JOEMAC endeavours as we move on to all the other provinces. It is

important for the people of Ontario to understand that when we stand up in this House and debate issues of public safety, these are not partisan political issues that any political party in this

House owns. If indeed we believe we want to ensure public safety, as I believe is the case, then it is the domain of every person in Canada and not any individual political party.

I support this bill, Dalton McGuinty supports this bill. This is a good bill. It provides us the opportunity to say thank you.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'll make it very clear: New Democrats will be voting for this legislation. There's no two ways about it.

New Democrats supported and continue to support and applaud the memorial across the road from this assembly that pays tribute to the police officers, the women and men on our police forces who have

lost their lives in the course of performing their duties.

A few months ago, New Democrats supported enthusiastically in this Legislature a private member's bill that would provide for the construction of a monument to

firefighters, the women and men in our firefighting services who have lost their lives in the course of the performance of their duties. If you recall, New Democrats made it very clear that that

monument, just as the monument to police officers, should be so significant, so majestic, so profound by its presence as to reflect the gravity of the loss of life by, in that instance, a

firefighter, be it big city, small town, be it full-time or volunteer, who loses their life in the course of the performance of their duties.

Let's take a look at the bill. It's a law because it's a bill. There's an obligation here, of course -- and again, no criticism. I understand -- I think I do

-- the author's intent. He brings it before this assembly for this discussion. But let's understand that this government could today issue a directive to all of those public sector places simply

requiring that they fly their flag at half-mast. We don't need the legislation, and that's not to criticize the legislation. Let me make that very clear. I understand that the legislation, by being

presented as a private member's bill, lets us speak to it.

I read the bill carefully. It's a very brief bill. We spend a lot of time in this assembly mourning the loss, mourning the deaths of firefighters and police

officers and proclaiming our commitment to others who perform that public safety role: correctional officers, front-line medical emergency response personnel. Please, can we spend as much time

talking about giving these people the tools to enable them to do the job that's expected of them and to do it as safely as possible so we can minimize the risk?

I recall being very blunt with you around the discussion we had with respect to the private member's bill proposing a monument to firefighters. It's so easy to

pay tribute after the fact. Let's start getting real about making the sort of investments, in collaboration with those workers in those sectors -- firefighters, police officers, front-line medical

emergency response personnel -- to give them the resources, the tools, the equipment, the training, the staffing that lets them do their job, and minimizes the risk that is inherent in those jobs.

Let's have debates about minimum staffing for firefighting services and about ensuring the resources are available to communities so they can employ sufficient firefighters to have minimum

staffing.

Let's talk about minimum staffing for police services. Let's talk about adequately funding police services so that policing communities like Niagara's don't

have to engage in fundraising activities like the notorious option 4, where Niagara regional police officers are required, in a very labour-intensive exercise, to set up speed traps for the purpose

of obtaining $50 donations -- I've talked to you about option 4 before -- not to a charity that the police are sponsoring, but to the operation of the police services. It's not just Niagara. Do you

understand what that means?

Speed traps, radar speed traps, in and of themselves, are fine. Police have always been patrolling the highways and setting up radar to catch speeders. But

they're labour-intensive. You need a significant number of personnel to detect and stop the speeder or to pursue the speeder if the speeder doesn't pull over. In Niagara region, option four is

utilizing these personnel, taking them away from other policing tasks for the sole purpose of fundraising, and not in Niagara only.

Firefighters across this province have, through the course of contract negotiations and grievance procedures, been attempting to develop a uniform standard for

minimum staffing. Municipalities would dearly love to accommodate them in their communities but are cash-strapped and simply can't afford to do it. It means there have to be sufficient funds coming

from this level of government to permit that minimum staffing. And that minimum staffing will mean the community is safer and the firefighters are safer. It has everything to do with adequate

response in an adequate time frame and performing the job as safely as possible.

Correctional officers -- my goodness, I can't anticipate the conversations I will be having with correctional officers after this bill inevitably passes

through second reading. They'll say, "Well, thank goodness, they're going to fly the flag at half-mast if one of our sisters or brothers dies in a correctional institution or while escorting a

prisoner," when over the course of seven years now, correctional officers have been the victims of derisive abuse by this government, the orgy of privatization of correctional facilities, the

constant attacks upon correctional officers by minister after minister after minister.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Tory ministers.

Mr Kormos: Yes, quite right. My colleague the former Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services detects a dramatic change in

attitude. That change hadn't occurred in 1995 with the election of the Conservatives here.

I was down to Mimico Correctional Facility at the beginning of the summer break, meeting with correctional officers and other staff in that institution who

were pleading for an opportunity to sit down with the minister to address the issue of the closure of that institution as part of the privatization agenda. I wrote a letter to the minister. I hope

the minister accommodated those people.

Ambulance workers -- I was here when one Minister of Labour and House leader from the Conservative government talked about the ambulance worker goons invading

Queen's Park. Do you remember that? He wanted me on the carpet, he wanted them banned, he wanted the leader of their trade union barred from Queen's Park. Ambulance workers were trying to get a

hearing with this government. Legislation had been introduced that directly attacked their capacity to perform their job and their right to collectively bargain.

So, while the bill speaks for itself, it also invites and provokes a whole lot of other observations, doesn't it?

It's a tragedy when any worker loses his or her life in the performance of their job. Policing is inherently dangerous. Firefighting is inherently dangerous.

Corrections is increasingly dangerous because of this government's de-staffing of correctional facilities, its underfunding of correctional facilities and its oh-so-enthusiastic pursuit of

privatization. But I tell you, a woman or a man descending the elevator in a mine shaft to go underground is in pursuit of incredible risk as well. The steelworker, the agricultural worker, the

young man or woman who, as a student, is working at a summer job with inadequate support and no familiarity with their right to refuse unsafe work, and their exposure to toxins and to dangerous

machinery that is not properly regulated or controlled, and the absence of inspectors in those workplaces: they too entertain and pursue great risk.

The facts are there. The numbers are evident. God, if the flag were to fly at half-mast in this province, as it should, to pay tribute to every worker who dies

in the performance of their work, be they firefighter, police officer, correctional worker, ambulance or first-line medical personnel worker, miner, mariner or seaman or sailor, farm worker,

steelworker or ironworker, or construction worker, we'd have no need to ever raise it.

I say that wouldn't be a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. I've had tragic and regrettable occasions, as have my colleagues, to participate in the display

of support and sympathy for families and colleagues of, yes, police officers who have been killed, firefighters who have been killed. I've also had the same tragic occasion, as have my colleagues,

of attending the funerals in an effort to provide some display of support and sympathy to the families of workers who have been killed and whose sacrifice surely can be considered no less

significant.

Robyn Lafleur down in Port Robinson -- we've talked about Robyn so many times, haven't we? Surely the flag should fly at half-mast for Robyn Lafleur,

slaughtered in her workplace, as it should for every police officer, every correctional officer, every firefighter, every emergency response medical person.

I encourage the author of this bill, once it receives passage, to send this bill to committee. I do that so we then can propose amendments which would give

effect to the New Democratic Party's interest in seeing this government provide adequate resources to the workers -- firefighters, ambulance teams, correctional officers -- contained in this bill

as well as to pay tribute to Robyn Lafleur and her sisters and brothers, almost 300 a year, almost 300 a year in Ontario alone; in 2001, 262 workplace deaths in Ontario. Since 1988, when this

Legislature passed the New Democratic Party resolution to officially observe a day of mourning -- 14 years -- there have been almost 4,000 workplace deaths in Ontario. Surely that deserves our

mourning as well.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to be able to rise in the House today to express my support and the appreciation of my constituents

to the member from Halton, MPP Chudleigh, for bringing this bill forward. I really believe this is overdue.

This is a bill that I believe will have a far-reaching effect on people throughout our communities. It's a powerful symbol when a flag is flying at half-mast.

I recall as a young person that the first time that a flag at half-mast came to my attention was when President Kennedy was shot. I remember looking out the window of the public school I was

attending at the time and what that meant to me. Now, every time I see a flag at half-mast, I know something significant has happened.

I believe this will be an opportunity for us to teach our young people, as they observe flags at half-mast, the importance of the work that's being done in our

communities throughout the days, weeks and years by these people who are serving us so selflessly.

I had the privilege of spending an opportunity on September 11 to observe a remembrance with the firefighters there. I watched as these men and women took

their places and remembered their colleagues. It was a reminder to me that there are jobs that are being done in our society every day that many of us could not do, do not want to do and do not

have the wherewithal to commit to doing them, but men and women throughout this province take up those tasks daily. We will rightfully respect the sacrifices they make through this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Halton has two minutes to respond.

Mr Chudleigh: I'd like to thank the members of the House who spoke about the bill, particularly the member for St Paul's, who mentioned that

shift work is a very big part of emergency workers' work shifts. Shift work brings a whole other system of pressures to bear on life. Anybody involved in shift work or has been in shift work will

understand what those pressures bring on family life, recreational life and life in a community.

But aside from all of that, these people, not only being shift workers, also find time to volunteer. They are huge volunteers in our community. I don't think

there's a ballpark, an ice rink or a community centre that doesn't have the men and women who man our ambulance services, who work in our correctional institutions, who work for firefighting

organizations or police organizations -- that doesn't see these people in those volunteer jobs. Hospital workers: again, I constantly see the men and women volunteering their time in hospitals

around my riding.

The last member to speak, from Oak Ridges, mentioned that it's a very small step, as I did in my opening comments. This a very small step for the men and women

who take such great strides to provide a safe and secure environment, to provide us with the help and assistance we need at our times of greatest tragedy. As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt

pointed out, it's a time to recognize those people for what they do. All too often I don't think they know how much we appreciate their efforts on our behalf.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debating this ballot item. I will place the questions to decide this item at 12

o'clock noon.

FAMILY HEALTH BENEFITS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES PRESTATIONS FAMILIALES

DE MALADIE

Mr Martiniuk moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 176,

An Act to provide for some continuation of benefit plans of employees after the end of their employment / Projet de loi 176, Loi

prévoyant une certaine continuation des régimes d'avantages sociaux des employés après la fin de leur emploi.

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

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm pleased to rise to present Bill 176, but if I may be candid with my colleagues in the House, this was not

the bill I had originally expected to deliver on this date.

A couple of years ago, a tragedy occurred in Cambridge in that a young boy and police officer lost their lives through an accident involving a low-head dam on

the Grand River. As a result of that, I have worked over the last couple of years with the MNR. They compiled a file and the coroner's report recommendations that hopefully would have formed the

foundation of a bill to try to prevent future incidents surrounding low-head dams around the province, of which there are a fair number.

I started to make final arrangements with the MNR in early July. Our contact with the new minister was unproductive. Phone calls produced references to other

persons. I got the runaround. Subsequent calls requesting a meeting were not returned at all. It was not until late August that I realized I was being stonewalled, and by that time it was too late

to work on my dam bill.

You might wonder why it took me a month to determine that I was being stonewalled. I've been an MPP for seven years and I cannot think of an instance where I

have not received full co-operation from any of my colleagues, whether they be in the cabinet or whether they be out of the cabinet. This stonewalling came as somewhat of a surprise. It is one

thing to treat me with disrespect; it is another to treat my 120,000 constituents with contempt. That story is not over with, I can assure you.

However, as a result, this bill really didn't start until August 15, although the concept was there. I would have had many more consultations because there are

a number of ramifications arising out of this bill. I would therefore request the indulgence of all the members in the House to provide some wise guidance on any pitfalls they see with my bill, if

it's referred to committee.

Due to a shortness of time, I'd like to particularly recognize the excellent work of legislative counsel and research staff. Research officers Elaine Campbell

and Avrum Fenson could not have been more helpful and expeditious. Michael Wood, the legislative counsel, worked very hard on my behalf to get this bill ready on time.

I stand in the House today to urge members to support my private member's bill, the Family Health Benefits Act, 2002. This legislation is an important part of

the overall health and labour reform in Ontario and a step forward for workers and their families across this province.

As proposed, it is a first for Canada. Most extended health, drug and dental plans end on the termination of employment. Even if a new job is found

immediately, there is usually at least a three-month waiting period before benefits can be applied for under the new extended benefit plan. This means families are left unprotected for months, and

this can lead to substantial hardship, especially with chronic illnesses requiring expensive drugs and/or non-OHIP medical procedures.

As members can see in the bill, the Family Health Benefits Act amends the Employment Standards Act, 2000, with

section 44.1 to extend the period of health

benefits coverage. This amendment permits workers who have been employed for at least 52 weeks with the same company the right to extend their benefit plan coverage for a period of up to six months

should they be permanently laid off. This important amendment covers the extension of all current benefit plans in Ontario. At present, no other province has a benefit buyback provision. Manitoba

is silent on the issue, British Columbia has allowances in collective agreements only, Saskatchewan only regulates part-time benefits, Alberta and Quebec are silent and the rest of Canada has not

yet moved on this innovative approach.

This proposed made-in-Ontario act raises the bar for health benefits coverage for workers and their families. We all know that the cost of many medical

treatments or therapies can be overwhelming. Many families rely greatly on their health benefit plans. Whether it is a scheduled trip to the orthodontist, the replacement of eyeglasses or contacts,

prescribed physiotherapy, an extended hospital stay or a life-saving prescription drug, they are very important health matters. Ontario families should not be without uninterrupted coverage for

these benefits. Many Ontario families face severe health challenges and rely on their benefit plans extensively.

When asked, the Toronto branch of the Canadian Diabetes Association says that a person with diabetes can pay anywhere from $2,500 to $5,000 a year to treat

this condition. Test strips alone cost $1 apiece and are required four to eight times a day.

Using the limited data available, the average Canadian family that loses health benefits will spend an average of $1,880 per year on dental care. They are also

being faced with approximately $1,220 on prescription medications and pharmaceutical products. They also face additional payments for required eye care and other health-related expenses. These are

amounts for a family that is without a high-need family member.

The costs that I have mentioned make us realize that giving a family the option to continue uninterrupted health coverage is the right thing to do. By passing

the Family Health Benefits Act, we, as legislators, can say to Ontario workers, "We value your work, we value your family and recognize the needs you may be facing."

As members can see, the act is designed to permit the employee to choose this benefit buyback as an option. It is not mandatory. We are in uncharted waters in

this act. It may only be used by those with high-need family members or others who believe they really need it, but I think that if even one child or one family is assisted, we have done our

jobs.

On the issue of cost, the act outlines that the employee, on choosing the option, will pay the full premium based upon the employer's group rate.

I would be interested in hearing from members as to the merits of this bill. I would encourage members to discuss the options. Questions that come to mind are:

should the interim and permanent disability portion of any policy be accepted; should there be an alteration of the employee's disbursements; do you have to be employed for one year before you

would have this option or is that too high or too low; is the six-month extension adequate?

If passed, I will be requesting that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government, where all facets and ramifications of the bill and

your worthwhile comments can be considered.

The bottom line is that the plan we envision offers maximum benefits to workers, while respecting the solid business and investment climate we have created in

Ontario.

The Family Health Benefits Act responds to a changing time, a time when being sick is expensive, a time when peace of mind is important and a time when workers

are placing a greater emphasis on family and security. It offers uninterrupted protection. I would like to emphasize that as leaders in this area, we are making Ontario an even better and more

attractive place for skilled workers to locate. We are offering a benefit that is innovative and valuable to families.

I am sure each member of this House has seen many people in his or her constituency office or in the community with ongoing medical needs. Whether it is an

adult with a chronic condition or people with children who are struggling with a severe illness, they are challenged each and every day. The last thing they need when losing a job is the added

emotional stress of losing their health benefits. This act will help these people in a very direct and practical way. I thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I am pleased to speak to this bill. I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the

Islands.

I applaud the member for Cambridge for this bill. This is a good bill that I believe has the potential to greatly ease the trauma of a job loss and the

problems associated with it. However, there is an inherent problem with it that I would urge the member, in fact the government side, to address. The problem with job loss is there is a loss of

income. We've got the income stream stopping and we are asking the family to assume the cost of the insurance itself. So at the time that they are most vulnerable, they are being asked to pay for

this private health insurance.

If you have monitored the cost of private health insurance at all over the last few years, you know that it has escalated rapidly. Insurance companies take

what they expend and they pass those costs, plus profit, on to their consumers. The problem they are facing with their health care costs is that this government has delisted significant numbers of

drugs, drugs that when prescribed for the children now have to be fully paid for by the family.

This government has delisted treatments that at one time were covered under OHIP, and I think specifically of physiotherapy. For individuals who are involved

in accidents, for individuals who have broken limbs, they are now, in many cases or most cases, being forced to assume the cost of it.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener Centre.

Mr Parsons: Thank you, Speaker. This is an important bill and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. Perhaps we can debate outside in

the hallways after.

For audiologists, families with young children in rural Ontario are facing the reality of having their children's hearing tested two ways. One is to go on

lengthy waiting lists -- in my community that means Toronto, by and large -- or they can pay for private services. The very hearing tests that these children require so that corrective action can

be taken have been delisted.

The insurance companies know that they are facing these extra costs, and someone has to pay. The someone who has to pay is going to be these families who have,

at that moment, lost their income stream.

Hospitals, with their budget crunches, are being forced to increase the cost for private care over the ward system. Again, that's passed on to insurance

companies and the insurance companies pass it on to families. So in theory this is a great bill, but the question that is going to be faced by the families is, can they in fact afford the

insurance?

I have had talks with individuals who have retired who say that when they retire and they wish to carry on their benefits --

whereas, we'll say, eight years

ago the cost was perhaps $200 a month for the premium, they are now finding the premium in the $400 to $500 range. They are not able to sustain it, even though they are receiving a pension. They've

got a pension and they can't afford it. Imagine a family that has lost their whole income stream; how can they afford it?

We need, at the same time as we are supporting this bill, to address the underfunding of health care and the inability to address the new technologies and new

services that are coming.

I have an example that I am only too aware of from constituents in my riding and other ridings. That's the issue of type 1 or juvenile-type diabetes. The

government, to its credit, will fund the needles for the treatment of diabetes for seniors, but it will not for children. So the child of a family that has a very limited income -- that family has

to find the resources to buy their child's needles. Yet there is a new product on the market called an insulin pump which automatically injects the insulin in controlled dosages that exactly

duplicates the natural action of the body. This government will not fund that, not even under the assistive devices program. So families, even if they are able to continue this, are faced with

these additional costs.

Now, the cost of an insulin pump is only about $5,700. "Only," I say; $5,700 is a lot of money. The craziness is that the family that spends the $5,700, and in

many cases borrows money or sacrifices within the family, has the potential to save the government significant numbers of dollars. Diabetes causes problems with the heart, causes problems with the

kidneys, causes a multitude of problems within the body that, if there is a hospitalization, easily runs to $100,000 for that one treatment for a heart problem -- $100,000 in one visit to the

hospital, in one stay over a heart treatment. A $5,700 expenditure for that pump prevents that.

There are insurance companies that are providing the funding for this because they know it is a good value for their dollar. It is a preventative device;

granted, it has the wonderful side effect of also increasing the quality of life for the individuals, whether they be children or adults. We call it juvenile-type diabetes, but there are adults who

have it. For them it's a significant improvement in their quality of life. It saves the provincial government huge dollars on health care. But we make the insurance companies pay for it or we make

families pay for it. If insurance companies pay for it, I can assure you that that goes on to the premiums.

To the member for Cambridge, I applaud you for the bill, but I urge you at the same time to lobby your colleagues, particularly the Minister of Health, to say,

"When we de-list these drugs, when we delist the services, it's not because they're no longer needed, it's not because they're not still life-saving. We're delisting them because what we're really

doing is putting in a user fee by transferring the cost for this procedure, or the cost for these drugs, to the individuals."

I would suggest for those individuals, whether they be families or individuals, that represents a tax increase to them. I know tax increases aren't allowed

because of the Taxpayer Protection Act -- no, just a minute. The Taxpayer Protection Act is gone; I'm sorry. These tax increases are allowed because the government violated that, so I guess it

gives a free hand to do everything.

Provide the services. It you look at the issues that we face in Ontario, if you ask the person on the street, "Which is your priority, money or health?" I know

what the survey will tell you. One hundred percent of the people will say, "I want quality health care." The money is absolutely useless. I've actually never seen a U-Haul behind a hearse. The

money is meaningless if the health is bad.

Pass this bill; I'm going to support it. But I also urge you to do more so that the insurance companies will be able to maintain their premiums for what were

meant to be extras. When we got private health care it was to deal with the extras, not to deal with the essentials. You put the essentials into the costs for insurance companies. Take them back,

do it fairly and allow the families then to be able to afford their necessary health insurance.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Let me say at the outset that, first of all, we

will be supporting the bill, and I applaud the member for the initiative.

I do want --

Applause.

Mr Christopherson: Wait, we'll see how you feel at the end.

I do want to raise again, though, the issue that the honourable member for Cambridge did at the beginning. He felt, if I understand his comments correctly,

colleagues in his own government -- I would think ministers -- treated his constituents with contempt. Also, he felt he was being stonewalled in trying to represent the best interests of his

constituents. I would just point out to the member that you can just imagine the frustration, first of all, that we have on this side of the House, not having the benefit of being in the government

caucus, and secondly, how frustrating and how appalling it is for the ordinary citizen who feels that they -- and rightly so -- don't have anywhere near the influence and closeness to the corridors

of power that you do. You feel stonewalled. Try to appreciate how a lot of people in this province feel, whether they're talking about health care, whether they're talking about, as my colleague

from Niagara Centre raised earlier, funding for emergency services, for our education system. We have the chair of the Hamilton school board in London practically on bended knee, asking, pleading

with the government to recognize the need for additional funding in our education system.

So I sympathize with the member and I appreciate his honesty and forthrightness, but I would point out that that's a fraction of what people in this province

feel as they come to grips with the reality of the policies of this government.

I started by saying that I want to compliment the member. I began that way and I intend to end that way. I believe that this is a sincere effort to try to

improve the lot of many working people and their families who find themselves with benefits cut off. I think it's the right thing to do and I'm glad that he's used this valuable time that he has to

put it before us for consideration. But I cannot let a debate about this go without putting it in context, and the context, I say through you, Speaker, to my friend across the way, is that this

government, a government that you're a member of, has an atrocious record when it comes to issues that affect working people and their families.

I mean, the Employment Standards Act -- for those people who don't have the benefit of a collective agreement, a union contract, the only thing they have is

the Employment Standards Act. That's it. When they're at work, all they have is the Employment Standards Act, and if they don't have rights in the Employment Standards Act, you don't have rights in

this province, period.

It was this government that first of all determined that it's OK for people who earn the minimum wage of $7.50 an hour to have had no increase for seven years.

I remember saying at the time, when the North American economy, led by the US economy, was booming in the late 1990s, "Here's the problem with this government saying they're not going to raise the

minimum wage now, when times are booming." And you remember why they wouldn't, Speaker. Just to refresh everyone's memory, when things were going well and the economy was booming along, what was

their reason and their justification for not raising the minimum wage? They said, "Well, we don't want to stomp on the good times. We don't want to slow down the economic boom that we've got. If we

raise the minimum wage, it'll have a dampening effect on the economy." I and my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus said, "The problem with that thinking is that if you don't raise the minimum

wage during good times, what's going to happen in the bad times is that we're going to hear an argument from the government, `Well, how could we possibly raise the minimum wage? Look at the

deplorable condition our economy is in right now. We can't afford to do that.'"

So where does that leave the very families that I believe the honourable member wants to help with this bill? Again, I can't say strongly enough that I don't

think it's for any other reason than that he wants to make an improvement. But it's those very same people. Whether you're making the minimum wage of $7.50 or your wage is relative to where that

is, because you might be making $8, $9, $10 an hour, believe me, you can't raise a family on that kind of income. They're the same people. It's the same families. And that's the inconsistency of

policy in this case, I say to the honourable member.

You made changes to the Employment Standards Act that had the effect of introducing into this province the 60-hour workweek. Now, I know we've thrashed this

around, and what does it mean and what does it not mean, but there's one thing that's irrefutable, and that is that if you don't have a union shop that clearly spells out what your hours of work

are and what your rights are, then as long as there's an opportunity under the Employment Standards Act to have an employee work 60 hours a week, there will be those employees who will work 60

hours a week, and not because they want to. Number one, they may have to do it because it's the only way they can possibly, at $7.50 an hour, earn enough money to put some food on the table and pay

for some kind of accommodation, and heaven help them if their rent doesn't include hydro. The same families; the same pain. I'm going to use the word "pain," because after seven years at $7.50 an

hour, I can't imagine that you don't go to sleep at night and wake up every morning with some essence of pain, pain at what you can't give your kids.

This is the same government that seven years ago cut the income of the poorest of the poor. I mean, you wonder why we've got an affordable housing crisis in

this province? Seven years ago you cut the income of families on social assistance by almost 22%, 21.6% to be exact, and it hasn't been increased by a penny. The moral crime in that is that over

half the people who are affected by that cut in income are kids. How is that consistent with saying we want to do things for working people and working families? How do you square that circle?

I mentioned hydro rates a little earlier. I'm going to say this about hydro, because it needs to be said now: there are a lot of people who have a belief that

the labour movement is somehow something that should be left in the history books and that has no relevancy today. I want to remind those people who are making $7.50, $8.50, $10, $11 an hour that

the only reason we don't have fully privatized hydro in this province is because two unions took this government to court and they won. The reason I raise that -- my segue, if you will -- is that

most union contracts provide for an extension of benefits upon a layoff, and yet this is a government that has passed law after law weakening unions, going after unions, doing everything they can

to make it more difficult to organize and easier to decertify, to get rid of, a union. Yet one of the key things unions do is protect their members, yes, when they are at work, but also when they

have been laid off, when they're out of work.

I would remind the member that the only reason there is an Employment Standards Act in this province -- which really doesn't affect union members or unions,

because those contracts almost always have benefits that are way above and beyond the Employment Standards Act -- is because those very unions considered it part of their responsibility to fight

for those who don't pay union dues as much as they do for those who do pay union dues. We can't afford to lose sight of that, just as in the fight for affordable housing in this province, if you

take a look at any protest, any campaign, meant to raise awareness or put pressure on this government for affordable housing, who's in the forefront of those fights, of those struggles? It's the

labour movement, 10 times out of 10. And do you know what? The vast majority of their members won't live in them because they've negotiated enough money and enough wages that they don't need

that.

So yes, this is good. I note that the member says in his letter of September 15, giving some rationale for this proposal, "The cost of prescriptions alone for

some existing conditions can be astronomical." Absolutely. Absolutely. But what about those people who are earning minimum wage? How many government members have stood up and made the case that

because of the cost of prescriptions for some existing conditions being astronomical, this government has a moral obligation to consider raising the minimum wage? How many times has that speech

been made from the government benches? To the best of my knowledge, nada, zip, none, zilch.

That's the one difficulty the member from Cambridge has this morning. It's not that he isn't doing the right thing, because he is. It's not that he doesn't

care, because I believe he does. The problem is, it's one little piece of light, if you will -- and boy, I'm sure not going anywhere near George the elder's thousand points of light, but this is

like one little bit of progressive light in a huge, cavernous darkness that is your government's record.

Maybe we're going to start a trend, elections being in the air. You can sort of sniff it; you can feel it: elections are coming soon. Maybe, if nothing else,

some of the government backbenchers are realizing, "Gee, I'd better at least touch on the other side of the equation." I hope so. After seven years of anti-worker, anti-union, anti-poor people,

anti-middle-class people and families, there is going to be a little bit of progressiveness. Goodness knows, we need it in this province. I would very much love to think that today was the day we

saw a new approach.

And you know what, Speaker? I'm so desperate for a benefit for my constituents that if it's for pure political reasons, go ahead. Every one of you, bring in

something like this. Pick an area where your government has done some damage and bring in a private member's bill that attempts to unravel some of that damage. Beautiful. At this point I'm not too

concerned about motives; it's results.

I have to believe, in the last moments I have, that the member from Cambridge is doing this because he thinks it is the right thing to do. I began there and

I'm going to end there, because I think the track record of the honourable member is one of speaking out for his constituents, and I give him full marks for acknowledging some of the difficulties

he had. I've been in a government caucus. I know how much trouble that speech alone, those couple of minutes, can cause him and the amount of grief it can cause him. But if that's a true reflection

of what is happening to him as a representative of his constituents in the riding of Cambridge, then I say kudos to the member for having the guts to stand up and speak out on behalf of his

constituents, and I applaud him for bringing in this bill. It's the right thing to do and I will proudly cast my vote in support of it at the appropriate time.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate with respect to Bill 176,

An Act to provide for

some continuation of benefit plans of employees after the end of their employment. This is looking for amendments to the Employment Standards Act brought forth by the member from Cambridge.

The intent of this legislation is to provide a framework of bridging, if you wish, with respect to dealing with individuals who are out of employment for

whatever reason and allowing them to be part of a group benefit plan to secure benefit coverage.

There are a number of conditions that are put in the piece of legislation we're dealing with here. A condition with respect to seniority of one year would be

required. It also does not apply to people who quit their employment, but it allows for the extension for a period of health benefit coverage, and that would encompass extended health, drugs,

dental. I also understand it would encompass short-term and long-term disability benefits.

I guess there is going to be an issue here with respect to continuation, because in plans provided by insurance companies -- short-term disability and

long-term disability -- there is a requirement to be employed. It would have to be a situation where perhaps the terms of those plans would have to be addressed. Obviously there is going to have to

be discussion with the insurance companies. Certainly arrangements could be made between the insurance company and the company with respect to permitting these employees to continue on those plans.

Speaking from a practical point of view, though, I find that highly unlikely to happen where individuals are no longer with the company and still being covered by short-term disability and

long-term disability. Probably the better approach, if this were to succeed, would be to deal with the continuation of dental, drugs, hospital care etc, because I think there are going to be issues

with respect to the insurance industry in terms of what coverage and what risk they're going to be prepared to deal with.

It's also going to be an issue for companies in terms of what their history is. Premiums are not just based on the number of people who want to be a part of

the plan; they're also based on what history that plan is having. The history leads to what the cost of the premiums could be. Obviously, dental plans are a very expensive benefit, a very

worthwhile benefit but very expensive. That's going to have to be dealt with from a cost point of view for the businesses that would be covered by this particular program, which in essence is a

bridging program.

As it says in the amendment, "If an employee's employment with an employer ends and the employment has lasted for a total period of at least 52 weeks

immediately before the end of the employment, the employee may" -- and this is a choice for the employee; they have the discretion to make that decision -- "within two weeks following the end of

the employment or whatever other time period is prescribed, file a notice with the employer." The notice would deal with a continuation, a request for a period of 26 weeks following the end of

employment or whatever shorter period the employer and employee agree to in terms of the benefit plans continuing. I think everybody knows, as a practical matter, that insurance premiums are much

cheaper if you're part of a group plan. The larger the plan, arguably, the cheaper the benefit premium coverage should be.

Now, as set out here by the member from Cambridge, the employee has a clear choice, but the employee is responsible for the full cost of all the benefit plans

that are continued under this arrangement. An employer who doesn't comply is liable to pay damages to the employee for whatever loss the employee incurs as a result of the employer's

non-compliance. Obviously the cost that could be incurred is going to be greater than the premium costs would be in terms of going to the dentist and getting whatever services they're looking to

have.

This is a situation to fill in the cracks of what happens to some employees. There are employers out there who allow for benefit continuation, be it for a

month or a two-month period, whatever the employer is, when a person is laid off. There's also benefit continuation for situations when an employee is off on workers' compensation, on short-term

disability, on long-term disability or on a personal leave of absence for a certain period of time. There are all kinds of different absences where an employer can provide, either through a

collective agreement or through their employment manual, for benefit continuation to occur. Employees who are employed with those types of employers are certainly in a much better situation than

individuals who are with employers who do not have the types of programs to allow for benefit continuation.

I think what the member from Cambridge is trying to address here is a very significant issue. There are significant issues with respect to what the insurance

industry -- and let's be blunt about it: very few employers have short-term disability plans that are not with an insurance company. Self-directed short-term disability plans are probably the

exception rather than the rule. So there are some issues with respect to how this would coexist with insurance plans, especially for short-term disability and long-term disability.

There are also some issues with respect to what employers' views are in terms of dealing with this type of legislation and also how they would coincide with

collective agreements out there. I would suspect most collective agreements would be far superior to what's being asked for under this employment standard because, as you know, the standards are a

minimum of what can be provided.

I think this is something that merits discussion. Individuals are given options when they're terminated, for example, to continue in a plan for a certain

period of time as long as they exercise that option within 30 days of the date of their severance from employment. So they have a renewal option to get in for life insurance, for example, as part

of that plan.

This is a much broader approach. I think it's an approach that allows for continuation, allows for the employee to be a part of that bigger plan, although

there are other issues that are going to have to be addressed in the employment community and with insurance companies.

I'm pleased to have spoken on this piece of legislation. I wish the member well. I know his intent is to allow individuals to have coverage for their families

and themselves, and to make sure they're not falling through the cracks with respect to benefit coverage.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I too will be supporting this plan. I think it's a great idea and the member for Cambridge ought

to be congratulated on it.

The problem, the way I see it, though --

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: Just a minute now. The problem, the way I see it, is that there is a whole group of other people who are similarly affected. The

bill only deals with a fairly small segment of the population. We can argue about the extent, but it's a fairly small sector of the population. It doesn't deal, for example, with those employers --

they're mainly small employers, corporate or otherwise -- that don't have any plans at all in existence. I know you could say, "If they don't have any plans in existence at all, how could benefits

possibly go to ex-employees?" I agree that may be somewhat unreasonable. On the other hand, those people, when they are laid off or whatever, have exactly the same problems and the same lack of

financial resources as the individuals who were fortunate enough to work for an employer that did have a plan. I think nothing says it better than the member's own letter to all of us asking our

support for the bill.

I'll read directly from his letter. He states, "This act is designed to assist and protect workers and their families. A child or spouse may have scheduled

prescriptions, therapy, dental care, suffer an unfortunate injury or face an extended hospital stay." I agree with all this. "In some unfortunate cases, families have a sick child or family member

who is currently in hospital or recently returned home from a challenging illness. The cost of prescriptions alone for some existing conditions can be astronomical."

That is the point. It can be astronomical for anyone who is involved in that situation, whether the employer had a plan or not.

What I'm suggesting to the member is that, yes, this will certainly help those people who were fortunate enough to be involved in a work environment that had a

plan. I say more power to us to extend those benefits, particularly when those people are in deep financial need because of the layoff that has occurred. But I would suggest that there is an even

greater need for those individuals who worked in an environment that didn't have a plan at all and that it is high time for the government -- it may be very difficult for an individual member to do

it in a private member's bill -- to provide coverage in that area or in those circumstances as well.

I think if there's one thing surely that --

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: The government may have to provide that in some way, yes, because I think if there's one thing we have definitely agreed on in

this country, it is the benefit of our national medicare program. It's such a firm aspect of our Canadian way of living and is probably the one area where we distinguish ourselves primarily from

our American neighbours: that all of us believe in a national health and welfare program that will cover all people in the event that they need health care, under whatever circumstances.

We can argue about the edges of it, as to whether or not it should cover particular situations or not, but I think there is still a general feeling about that.

Surely that's what Romanow is all about, and there may be some changes to the whole system, but we agree on that. What you're doing in this bill is only taking care of those individuals that have

lost their jobs and worked in situations where an employer did have a health plan in effect. I'm suggesting to you, sir, that particularly when it comes to smaller businesses and self-employed

individuals who for whatever reason may no longer be able to earn money because of health or sickness or because of a change in economy or whatever, we've got to at least start looking at that. I'm

not blaming you for that. I think that you have made an honest attempt to at least look after a certain segment of people, but a certain segment of people that were already privileged to a certain

extent to start off with because they were fortunate enough to be part of an employer that did have a plan in effect.

But what about all those other people who don't have any plan at all? When are we going to start looking at those people? I am one of those individuals that

firmly believes, if anything, that we should extend the health care benefits that we have in this country, and that we should seriously start looking at issues such as home care and start perhaps

making those mandatory services under the Canada Health Act. I know that can be a whole other debate, but we should be looking at that because as long as we can look after people in their own home

environments at a much lesser cost than by institutionalizing them or putting them into nursing homes, that should be the goal for all of us. To put these artificial limits into place where we say,

"If you need more than 14 hours of home care then for some reason we can no longer cover you" is to me completely ridiculous because what we're saying to those people that need more than 14 hours

of home care a week is that, "You should be institutionalized," at a much greater cost than we're currently spending.

I know I'm getting away from this bill. I applaud you for your effort in putting this forward, but let's not forget those people that don't have the benefit of

any insurance coverage at all. I will be supporting this bill but I also look forward to the member joining members from all sides of the House in putting greater pressure on his own government and

on the federal government to provide health care benefits for Canadians, for Ontarians, that are in conformity with the times that we live in. I look forward to having him join me and others in

that debate.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to rise this morning to make a few comments on Mr Martiniuk's bill, the Family Health

Benefits Act, 2002. I congratulate the member for Cambridge for his work on this particular piece of legislation.

The legislation is an innovative approach to the overall health and labour reforms taking place in our province. It is a step forward for workers and their

families across this province as well. The Family Health Benefits Act amends the Employments Standards Act, 2000, with

section 44.1 to extend the period of health care benefit coverage. Those who

have been employed for one year with the same company will now have the right to extend their benefit plan coverage for a period of up to six months, should they lose their jobs. This does not

include quitting a job, of course. This is a practical, innovative approach. Ontario would be the first province in Canada to pass such a law, and perhaps other provinces and the federal government

would be encouraged to see this type of legislation passed across our country as well.

Many Ontario families have severe health challenges and rely on their benefit plans extensively. A person with diabetes alone can pay anywhere from $2,500 to

$5,000 a year to treat that condition. The act is designed to permit the employee to choose the benefit buy-back as an option. It is not mandatory. The employee is responsible for the full cost of

this plan. The act offers employees a very clear choice. This act protects workers. Private plans must be researched and may have new provisions, new rates and new eligibilities. This is an

uninterrupted benefit plan option.

We are also making Ontario an even more attractive place for highly skilled workers to locate by passing this piece of legislation. Currently, most benefit

plans have a three-month waiting period for new employees, even if a job is secured immediately. Families are protected for at least three months under the current system. Over eight million

individuals or dependents in the province of Ontario are covered with extended health care coverage today. In Ontario there have been 955,400 new jobs created since 1995. Ontario is prosperous and

it continues to grow as well. We continue to put many millions and billions of dollars into the health care system. I think in the latest budget for 2002-03, Ontario health care spending is up to

$25.5 billion for this fiscal year. I believe that's an increase of $8 billion since 1995.

However, more must be done. We must continue to try to take advantage of, and make more innovative, anything we can do to make health care coverage, not only

in Ontario but in Canada, more beneficial to our citizens because it is something we are very proud of in this country, as the member from Kingston said a little bit earlier.

Unfortunately, even in this great economy, an employee who finds a job quickly must wait at least three months for benefits coverage. This bill Mr Martiniuk

has proposed is a very practical approach to a growing problem. The act will assist families and will offer protection when it is needed most. I believe it is a responsibility of our government and

a responsibility of governments in jurisdictions across this country to support legislation that people like Mr Martiniuk have come forward with. I'll be supporting this piece of legislation and I

encourage members of this House to support this legislation as well.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm pleased to share some of the time with my colleagues to speak on Bill 176, the Family Health Benefits Act,

2002. I think the real point in this whole bill that my good friend from the riding of Cambridge is pointing out here is that it's a buyback opportunity. It's of real benefit to an employee who has

been laid off and has been working at that particular place for at least a year's time, so there's some establishment. I think what's important in this particular bill is that it's no expense to

the employer; possibly a little paperwork would be the only expense. But it provides the opportunity for that employee to buy health benefits for the next six months. As you know, it's common, when

you're hired with an organization, that there's a three-month waiting period for those health benefits. Of course, if you're resigning because you have another job, it all ties together very

nicely. But when you're laid off for no cause of your own or your own wrongdoing, it is indeed unfortunate.

We know how important health is. Certainly in your party, if you've looked at the polls, it's always number one. Health concerns rise above all the others as

the number one concern, the number one issue that the public is concerned about. Whether it's federal, whether it's provincial, it certainly has risen in concern significantly.

I think it's interesting to see in the Fraser report that, of the OECD countries where there's universal health care, here in Canada, based on GDP and adjusted

for age, we have the highest support for universal health care here, and I don't think there's any question that Ontario leads as a province. This is about looking after people. As the member from

Cambridge has pointed out, here in Ontario with this bill we would be leading. I congratulate the member from Cambridge for bringing this particular bill forward.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cambridge has two minutes to respond.

Mr Martiniuk: I would merely like to thank everyone who gave wise counsel in regard to the bill: Ernie Parsons, the member for Prince

Edward-Hastings; David Christopherson, the member for Hamilton West; Joe Tascona, the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford; John Gerretsen, the member for Kingston and the Islands; Garfield Dunlop,

the member for Simcoe North; and, of course, the Honourable Doug Galt, the member for Northumberland. I thank them all for their comments.

The Acting Speaker: The time for debate on this ballot item has now expired.

FLAGS AT HALF-MAST ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES DRAPEAUX EN BERNE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I will now place the question with regard to ballot item number 55. Mr Chudleigh has moved second

reading of Bill 172. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I would like this bill to go to the standing committee on general government, please.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

FAMILY HEALTH BENEFITS ACT, 2000 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES PRESTATIONS FAMILIALES

DE MALADIE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ballot item number 56: Mr Martiniuk has moved second reading of Bill 176. Is it the pleasure of the

House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The bill is carried.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I would ask permission of the House to have this bill referred to the standing committee on general

government.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

All business relating to private members' public business now being completed, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1157 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): This summer I, like a lot of my colleagues, was inundated by thousands -- indeed, here they are -- of

responses to my campaign against the outrageous 15% increase in fees for our vulnerable seniors in care facilities. I can certainly go on at some length about my personal concerns, but I think it's

important for Premier Eves and the Conservative government to hear some of the comments that my constituents in Don Valley East made directly to him. I want to read some of the comments here on the

record.

Mrs Barbara Measor said, "Unconscionable! More than 50% of our monthly income will now go to my husband's nursing home fees. Most unfair."

Mrs Doreen Broadbridge said, "I object to increasing these charges. My great-aunt Rachel is 100 years old. With her extra money she buys stamps, letter paper,

stockings and wool for knitting afghans. As a taxpayer, I don't need to take that little" bit of "money away from her."

I definitely share the view of Bradley and Joyce Phillips when they say that this is a "shameful continuation of Mr Harris's policy of attacking the most

vulnerable, evidently intent on depriving them of the dignity, respect and comfort they deserve."

Continuing on, I have hundreds more that I could read. Ivy and Ronald Hatton, both 70 years of age: "There must be other ways to raise revenues."

Finally, who can't help but worry about Edith Luther, who says, "I am 79 in December and worried about my future."

Premier, Don Valley East residents know that you've not cancelled the 15% increase, that you're still planning to hike the fees over the next three years. Why

don't you have the courage to take the position that Dalton McGuinty and my caucus have taken? We're not prepared to put vulnerable seniors in our community in a more precarious position than they

already are. Liberals will roll back this shameful selective tax hike on seniors.

SERBIAN PICNIC

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Thousands of members of the Serbian community were once again in Niagara Falls on the weekend of June 30 to

celebrate their 57th annual picnic. The event is held every year on the grounds of St George Serbian Orthodox Church. An estimated 10,000 people of Serbian descent and friends attended the event,

with many travelling from US states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois. Some visitors were from as far away as Australia.

The Serbian Orthodox Church, along with the Serbian National Shield Society, organized a magnificent weekend, with traditional Serbian food, dance and

music.

I especially look forward to this weekend every year, as it is a wonderful opportunity to spend time with my many friends in the local Serbian community, a

community which has contributed greatly to Niagara Falls, especially since the 1950s; friends like Alek Pantelic, chairman of the organizing committee, who should be applauded, along with other

members of the committee for putting together such a successful event.

I encourage my colleagues in the House today to inform any Serbian constituents in their ridings to look into attending next year's picnic. Our local Serbian

community and I look forward to seeing new faces and having old friends return next year.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'd like to draw the Legislature's attention to today's London Free Press. It reads, "Faced with a

flood of complaints that Ontario schools are crumbling, colleges and universities minister Dianne Cunningham conceded yesterday more money must be pumped into the system." The Minister says, "In my

view, the amount of funding is an issue." Lo and behold, the former chair of the London school board and cabinet minister for the past seven years has finally seen the light.

Minister, what was your first clue that you, Mike Harris and Ernie Eves have broken our education system? Was it the overcrowded classrooms? Was it parents of

special-needs children begging for the supports they desperately need? Has it been the constant battles and the chaos that caught your attention? Or was it the classrooms with no textbooks in

them?

Minister, where have you been for the past seven years? Why haven't you been standing up and demanding at the cabinet table that something be done?

Since I was first elected in June 1999, the Thames Valley District School Board has had regular meetings with all the area MPPs: Wood, Cunningham, Mazzilli,

Johnson, Hardeman and Beaubien. As I have been all of these meetings, being the lone Liberal in a sea of blue, I can't help but think, were you listening, Minister? Were you listening, London and

area members? No, you weren't.

The board has been begging for solutions for years, but Minister Cunningham's comments beg the question, why now? We've known all along. Her comments prove

that cabinet has known all along. We don't need a stall-tactic smokescreen process to delay fixing the problem. My guess is it's a case of pre-election jitters for the honourable minister. Perhaps

we should have an election every year, because that seems to be the only way anything gets done by you and this government.

DEAN CRANDON

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Dean Crandon of Keswick. Mr Crandon is a 35-year-old

bodybuilder who won the heavyweight division and is the overall winner in the Canadian Musclemania championship that was held in Toronto in August. This all-natural event included 102 of the top

bodybuilders in the country.

Winning this championship was a dream come true for Mr Crandon. He started competing 15 years ago, but hasn't in the past eight years. With the encouragement

of his family and friends, he trained for several hours daily. It included 24 weeks of intensive training leading up to the Canadian competition.

Mr Crandon is currently training for the world Musclemania. In addition to weights, he does his cardiovascular training on the stationary bike and follows a

very strict diet to maintain as much muscle mass as possible while keeping his weight in line. He is trained by Laura Bineti and sponsored by the Fitness Force in Keswick which, by the way, also

made sure that the Terry Fox Run in our community was an outstanding success.

Congratulations to Dean Crandon and good luck in the world championships.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): A disturbing study released yesterday revealed a shocking increase in the murders of women.

Sadly, most of the women slain were killed in Ontario. The first increase of spousal homicides in six years must be cause for us to review the course the Eves government has taken in addressing

violence against women.

The Association of Interval and Transition Houses and the members on this side have repeatedly told the government that very little was being done to protect

threatened women in Ontario despite two major inquests into murder-suicides in recent years. The Provincial Auditor's report revealed that overcrowded shelters are being forced to turn away

desperate women and children. One thousand women were turned away from one Toronto shelter alone.

Four years after the May inquest and two years since the murder of Gillian Hadley, the women of this province are still waiting for the implementation of

recommendations that would toughen bail laws and increase funding for second-stage housing for women fleeing abusive relationships.

Women on the front line have been telling us the government's approach is too narrow: 75% of women suffering abuse do not bring their case before the courts.

Women fleeing domestic violence need affordable housing, affordable daycare and employment assistance. While this government may believe they have been acting sufficiently, the facts prove

otherwise. The richest province in Canada should be the safest.

I implore the government to move swiftly in implementing the outstanding Hadley recommendations. At the very least, act now on the jury's first recommendation,

to create a community-based implementation committee.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): More women are being murdered by spouses or ex-spouses while the Conservative government drags its feet

on protecting them.

The biggest security threat in Ontario today is the killing of women by their partners or ex-partners. The Conservatives are guilty of gross negligence for

failing to act despite warnings from the auditor and two inquests. Statistics Canada reported this week that 69 women were killed in 2001, compared to 52 the previous year. Virtually all of the

increase was in Ontario.

Over a year ago, the auditor warned that overcrowded women's shelters were turning away desperate women and children in eight out of nine regions. That forced

them to return to abusive spouses. Two inquests also made a string of recommendations that the government has ignored.

I'm calling once again on the government to reinstate funding to second-stage housing so women and children have a transition home as they seek permanent

housing; provide stable, multi-year funding for women's shelters; work with government and community representatives to carry out the recommendations of the Gillian Hadley inquest; work with the

cross-sectoral strategy group to implement emergency measures they called for two years ago; and create new affordable housing so women fleeing abusive situations don't end up on a waiting

list.

How many more women have to needlessly die in this province before this government takes action?

RUN FOR THE CURE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I was very pleased to attend the launch of the Canadian breast cancer CIBC Run for the Cure

annual fundraising event at Barrie Ford on September 19. This run will take place on October 6 at 34 sites across Canada. The CIBC Run for the Cure raises funds and awareness supporting the

advancement of breast cancer research, education, diagnosis and treatment.

The run raised more than $11.2 million last year at 32 sites across Canada. In this 11th year, the goal is to raise $12 million.

I would like to take a moment to commend Deb Howe and Linda Loyst, the volunteer run directors for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, for their hard work

and dedication in organizing the CIBC Run for the Cure in Barrie.

Finding a cure for breast cancer is a team effort. I urge all of you to register for the run or sponsor someone who will be participating in the run on October

ANNIVERSARY OF

MALTESE INDEPENDENCE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Today we're celebrating a very special event in the history of mankind. The occasion is the 38th anniversary of

Maltese independence. With us today to help us celebrate this very significant historic event are the Consul General of Malta, Mr Milo Vassallo, and his wife, Rita; Father Borg, pastor of St Paul

the Apostle parish; Mr George Scherri, president of the Maltese Federation; Mr Henry Formosa, representing the Maltese-Canadian veterans; Mr Michael Donello, governor of the Central Bank of Malta;

and Mrs Josette Dalli, representing her husband, the Minister of Finance.

Because of Malta's strategic position, it has been occupied by many races. They all left their mark, including the Knights of Malta, who reigned for 260

years.

As we celebrate their heroic struggle for independence and freedom, we're also mindful of what they've done for Canada, and especially for Ontario. We know,

for instance, that in 1940 the first immigrants from Malta arrived near the Welland Canal, promptly helped us dig the Welland Canal and established a number of shipyards along the canal.

While we are mindful of this great heroic struggle in their own lands, we are more proud of them because in Canada they have passed on the torch of freedom

from their generation to the next Canadians and Maltese. That's why we say to them in Maltese today: [Remarks in Maltese.]

I want to say that as you continue to contribute to Canada we're with you, we celebrate with you, and may the spirit of freedom, which is indomitable, continue

in this land and in Malta.

BIG BROTHERS AND SISTERS

OF CLARINGTON

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the 25th anniversary of Big Brothers and Sisters of Clarington.

This organization serves over 300 young boys and girls, aged six to 14.

One-to-one matches between a child and an adult continue to be the foundation of the program. However, Big Brothers and Sisters of Clarington have also

introduced new projects such as school mentoring and the Big Bunch program for group activities.

This summer, the very popular Kids `N' Kops day program was held in Bowmanville. Camp director David Dobson and his staff introduced close to 200 children to

our police and helped them gain a better understanding of community issues while having fun.

On September 21, I was fortunate to join executive director Lisa McNee-Baker, president Harold Yellowlees, Regional Councillor Jim Schell as well as staff and

the four prior executive directors, support staff and friends, for an open house in Bowmanville. We also celebrated the completion of renovations, thanks to a Trillium grant. Basement space at Big

Brothers headquarters was made into functioning working and training areas for volunteers, and a computer lab.

I'd like to pay tribute to the hundreds of volunteers and dedicated staff who have made the past 25 years such a success. I can say with complete confidence

that they have made a real difference in the lives of our young people.

Two of these would certainly include founding board members Lionel Parker and Jack Munday. I'd also like to congratulate the staff and current board members:

Don Samis, past president; Ryan Cresanto, vice-president; John Buddo, treasurer; Masood Vatandoust; Dr William Ammons; Kathleen Whatley; and Paul Wylie.

I'm confident Big Brothers will continue to contribute outstanding service in their community while helping young people and enriching their lives.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 97(d), a minister shall answer written questions

within 24 sitting days. Question number 12 was submitted on Wednesday, May 22. I'll abbreviate it, but let me say that the question was thus: "Would the Minister of Environment and Energy please

provide all financial and legal opinions, correspondence, briefing notes, memoranda, e-mails, directives and bulletins that deal with any matters ... in issue before Mr Justice Arthur Gans..." --

of course, there has been a Court of Appeal decision since then -- "prepared both at the time that the provisions in the Electricity Act, 1998 were being contemplated ... and at the time of the

initial public offering."

I have not received an answer to this question.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I look to the Minister of the Environment, who may have clarification.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): It's a voluminous package that the member has asked for. We are

currently working on gathering all that information. We will provide it to you as soon as possible. There is no delay. It is extremely large, the amount of information you have asked for.

The Speaker: I thank the minister. The member will know that the standing orders say 24 sitting days. I believe it's now 25, so we're right

around the deadline. I appreciate the minister's intervention.

Mr Bryant: On another point of order, Mr Speaker, and, I'm sorry to say, another question unanswered, this time by a different ministry and a

different question, fortunately for me: "Would the Attorney General please provide all financial and legal opinions, correspondence, briefing notes," etc, "that deal with any matters that were in

issue before Justice Gans" and before the Court of Appeal, both at the time of the Electricity Act provisions' drafting and during the IPO.

Again, this one has also not been answered within the 24 sitting days, pursuant to the standing orders.

The Speaker: I thank the member again. The House leader on this issue.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Again, is this the same date?

The Speaker: Yes.

Mr Bryant: Different ministry.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I understand that. I think we're very close. It's one day, and I know we are working feverishly to try to get you the

information.

The Speaker: I appreciate that.

VISITORS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a much more friendly point of order, Mr Speaker: We all have little miracles in our lives -- loved ones,

friends, nieces, nephews, grandparents, grandchildren, sons and daughters. Well, I have two such miracles in the House today: my daughter, Sadie Violet Bryant, a Bryant that would make Mike Harris

mush, a Bryant that would make Chris Stockwell silent. I'm very proud to introduce, in the members' gallery, my incredible wife, Susan Abramovitch, and Sadie Violet Bryant.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that in the report of the Environmental

Commissioner released today, recommendation number 2 is basically the recommendation that is contained in my Bill 127,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act, I therefore move that it

receive second and third reading at this time.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member is asking for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the 2001-02 annual report of the Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on public accounts and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 53,

An Act requiring the disclosure of payments to former public sector employees arising from the termination of their employment / Projet de loi 53, Loi

exigeant la divulgation des versements effectués aux anciens employés du secteur public par suite de la cessation de leur emploi, the title of which is amended to read, "An Act requiring

the disclosure of payments arising from the termination of public sector employment / Loi exigeant la divulgation des versements effectués par suite de la cessation d'emploi dans le secteur

public."

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for a third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

Mr Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 180,

An Act to enact, amend or revise various Acts related to consumer protection / Projet de loi 180, Loi édictant, modifiant ou révisant

diverses lois portant sur la protection du consommateur.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I'll defer to minister statements.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move the following amendments be made to the membership of

certain committees.

Mr Klees replace Mr McDonald on the standing committee on general government; and

Mr Arnott replace Mr Galt on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs; and

Mr Gilchrist replace Mr Maves, Mr Gill replace Ms Munro, Mr McDonald replace Mr Stewart on the standing committee on public accounts; and

Mr Maves replace Mr Arnott on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I have tremendous pleasure today in introducing the proposed Consumer Protection

Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, for first reading in this House.

I would like to first of all thank the many consumers, businesses and organizations, including consumer advocate groups and business associations.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have not been provided with a copy of the minister's statement. We

have been provided with a compendium. We have been provided with the bill itself. We did hear parts of it on the radio as early as 8 o'clock this morning and read about it in the Toronto Star.

It seems to me, given the minister is on his feet, we should have copies of that statement.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister may have some clarification. Minister?

Hon Mr Hudak: We'll certainly get the statements to the members immediately. I believe they'll be coming across right now to help the pages.

My apologies.

The Speaker: Why don't we take a minute to wait while they are delivered. We can start all over.

And the minister may continue.

Hon Mr Hudak: I'd like to thank the many consumers, businesses and organizations, including consumer advocate groups and business associations

whose interest and input have helped develop this proposed legislation I am very proud to introduce today.

In fact, joining us in the gallery are Carl Compton from the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council and Jim Flood from the Ontario Real Estate Association. I'd

like to thank them and their colleagues very much for their hard work.

I'd especially like to recognize the hard work of my predecessors, Minister Tsubouchi, Minister Runciman and especially Minister Norm Sterling for their hard

work in developing this matter and helping to get it to this point.

And as well, I want to thank MPPs and their constituents for their suggestions in helping us draft a bill that is truly reflective of the needs of both

consumers and businesses. I think all of us as MPPs have encountered in our ridings a senior who gave money to a phony charity or a student who paid hefty fees for a modelling contract that never

materialized. All of us want to help protect Ontario citizens against these kinds of scam artists.

Interjection: That happened to Jim Bradley.

Hon Mr Hudak: It must have been a really good scam artist.

This summer, as part of my ministry's consumer protection campaign, I was out talking about the top five scams in Ontario and offering tips on how consumers

can help to protect themselves. Let me say, Mr Speaker, that I believe the vast majority of businesses are honest and legitimate. There are a few bad operators who hurt consumer confidence and hurt

the reputation of honest businesses in a particular sector, thus harming job creation and harming the economy.

This proposed legislation would strengthen protections for the consumer, in turn helping Ontario businesses, because consumers feel more comfortable spending

their hard-earned money in a marketplace they know is safe and secure. It would also give businesses clear rules and a level playing field by combining six overlapping consumer protection statutes

into one modern legislative framework.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): That's a good idea.

Hon Mr Hudak: In fact, as the member from Stoney Creek knows, most of Ontario's existing consumer protection legislation was passed in the

1960s and into the 1970s. At that time, most transactions were done the old-fashioned way, with a face-to-face encounter in the local shop, an exchange of cash, a written contract or a handshake.

Those were the days when colour televisions were luxury items, push-button phones were a luxury, and computers were the size of trucks and only available to NASA scientists. The Internet was simply

the stuff of science fiction writers. Our existing legislation is based on the realities of the old economy.

Today we live in a world where cellphones, fax machines, voice mail, teleconferences and, most significantly, e-mail and the Internet are everyday tools of

business and, for a growing number of individuals, of personal contact as well. In short, times have changed, and here in Ontario we want to keep up with them.

This proposed legislation would provide a similar level of protection for consumers who shop for goods and services on the Internet to those going to their

local corner store. The Internet has brought new speed and convenience: you can buy your grandmother's favourite tea from that little shop in England, or you can view that hotel room in Niagara

before you reserve it. But many consumers are still not confident in the safety and security of on-line shopping, creating a barrier to the growth of e-commerce.

The proposed legislation would require a contract for Internet sales, which could be paper or e-mail, that could be retained by the consumer. It would also

provide regulation-making power concerning disclosure to help ensure that consumers are confident they have clear and complete information to help make an informed choice.

But the Internet is only one aspect of the dramatic change in our marketplace over the past 30 years. We have also witnessed a rapid growth of the service

economy, to the point where over half our transactions involve services, and a rise in consumer leasing. This proposed legislation would extend protections to services, whether it's cable,

Internet, or lawn care. It would also cover leases, which is good news for those who lease their cars or their computers.

Many consumers for years have complained about the practice of negative-option billing. This occurs when a business bills for goods or services without the

consent of the consumer. Under this proposed legislation, consumers would not be liable for goods or services that they did not request and did not agree to pay for. If the consumer has

accidentally paid for an unsolicited good or service, for example, through automatic debiting of a bank account, he or she would be entitled to a full refund.

Consumers would also have greater protections in certain sectors where high-pressure sales tactics occur. This bill proposes that the 10-day cooling-off period

that currently exists for door-to-door sales be extended to timeshares, fitness clubs and talent agencies.

A proposed 30-day delivery rule would mean that if a good is not delivered or a service is not begun within 30 days of the date of the contract, the consumer

is entitled to cancel the agreement.

A proposed 10% estimate rule would mean the consumer should not be charged more than 10% above the amount estimated in the consumer agreement. This would

protect against the practice of "low-balling" quotes, which hurts both consumers and legitimate businesses trying to compete on price.

The proposed legislation would also modernize rules about the most significant purchases many consumers ever make: homes, vehicles and travel.

Changes to three sector-specific laws -- the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act and the Travel Industry Act -- would

strengthen the regulation of those who practise in these big-ticket sectors. There would be regulation-making authority to establish formal codes of ethics for the professions and develop

discipline committees to deal with breaches of these ethical codes.

Of course, all the requirements I've talked about require teeth to make them effective. That is why under this proposed legislation we're also strengthening

our enforcement powers and making them consistent across the board. Maximum fines for contravening consumer law will be doubled to $50,000 for individuals and more than doubled to $250,000 for

businesses. Maximum sentencing for individuals, which now varies, would be two years less a day. Similarly, the ministry would have the power to freeze assets and order businesses to stop using

false or misleading advertising.

A common challenge for ministry investigators is that scam artists always try to stay one step ahead of the law by morphing their scam into another, slightly

different scheme, moving to a new medium such as from telemarketing to the Internet or by targeting consumers in a new jurisdiction. Under the proposed legislation, we will be able to keep up with

unscrupulous operators as they move into new media because the rules would be consistently applied.

The proposed act would also give us the tools to address scams in our borderless society by allowing the minister to enter into formal agreements with

enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions. Our work with partners has been very successful in the past. Our strategic partnership against cross-border scams and fraud, for example, has shut down

more than 40 telemarketing boiler room operations since it was initiated three years ago.

We are truly bringing consumer protection in Ontario into the 21st century. This proposed bill would deliver stronger tools to shut down those unscrupulous

operators lying in wait for that unsuspecting senior or that naive student away from home for the first time. It would target scam artists wherever they may be lurking, on the Internet, on the

phone, through the mail or at the doorstep. It would strengthen disclosure rules so that consumers have clear and complete information to make informed decisions, and by improving consumer

confidence in our marketplace, it would also encourage businesses to develop and invest in Ontario and create jobs well into this centur