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

September 18, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L232 - Thu 18 Sep 1997 / Jeu 18 Sep 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (SUSPENSIONS DE PERMIS)

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SEMAINE DE COMMÉMORATION DES VICTIMES DE CRIMES DE VIOLENCE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1997

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TVONTARIO

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

MEDIA REPORTING

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

FIRE IN HAMILTON

SPECIAL EDUCATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

VOLUNTEERS

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

CHARITABLE GAMING

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

FISH HABITAT

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

TVONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

COURT DECISION

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE SUDBURY

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP / COMPOSITION DES COMITÉS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (SUSPENSIONS DE PERMIS)

Mr Grimmett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 154

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences / Projet de loi 154., Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les suspensions de permis de conduire.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It's a pleasure for me to open debate on Bill 154 , my private member's bill. The bill has been fairly heavily circulated and most of the members will know this, but I don't think it's a problem for me to repeat what the bill tries to do.

Currently, if people are convicted of impaired boating they lose their privilege to operate a boat for a period of time, but there is no sanction against their driver's licence. This act would, upon conviction either of impaired boating or blowing over 80 on a breathalyser or refusing to blow, remove the privileges of the convicted person to drive their automobile for a minimum one-year period.

Before I embark on an argument to persuade all the members to support the bill, I'd like to give some thanks to people who have helped me in my preparation and research, including Susan Swift of the legislative research service, who provided me with a great deal of background information on this issue, and from the Attorney General's ministry, Caroline Pinto, Michael Wood and Sheilagh Stewart, who helped with the drafting of the bill. Also, officials with the Ministry of Transportation and the Solicitor General and the Ontario Provincial Police have been very helpful in helping me put this bill together.

I thought I would speak for a moment about my own experience as a boater. I've been quite surprised at the bad boating habits of people in the vicinity of my riding in Muskoka-Georgian Bay. As a person who occasionally boats with my family, I find it quite alarming that when the Canadian Coast Guard did a survey of boaters across Canada recently they found that 37% of those people who boat indicated they drink alcoholic beverages every time they go boating, and about 66% of people who boat in Canada occasionally or regularly drink alcoholic beverages while they are boating.

I think this is an indication of lack of sensitivity by boaters to the issue of alcohol and boating and how they don't mix well. I also feel that there is in my riding a strong sense of dissatisfaction with the judicial system and the way it deals with impaired boaters, particularly with some of the high-profile accidents that have occurred on the water in recent years in Muskoka-Georgian Bay, where unfortunately the boat operators who were in the wrong received little or no sanction after the act, although there were some very serious victims in many of these incidents.

I don't know whether I can say that the number of bad accidents on the water in Ontario is increasing, but they seem to happen with regularity. I think it's time that we sent out a message to all people who boat in Ontario that there will be a very significant penalty if they choose to mix alcohol with their boating.

The statistics kept by the Ontario Provincial Police indicate that about 40% of all fatal boating accidents are alcohol-related, and that's a similar ratio to what occurs in automobile accidents. Currently we focus a good deal of attention on impaired motorists and I think it's time we levelled the playing field so that people who choose to drink alcohol and put others at risk while they're operating a boat be given similar attention. I think it's noteworthy that in Ontario currently if you're convicted of being impaired while operating a snowmobile, you lose your driver's licence.

I know from talking to the police that on most occasions when they find the operator of a boat has been drinking excessively and they indicate they will be charging them with impaired operation, the first question that's asked is, "I'm not going to lose my driver's licence, am I?" It is a tool the police want to have. They feel it's a tool that will help to discourage people from engaging in this kind of activity.

The other thing the bill would do is give police officers the ability to suspend for a 12-hour period the driver's licence of anyone involved in this kind of offence, even if they blow only a warning on the roadside breathalyser test. I think this is something the public would support strongly because it would take away the possibility of the person in the boat driving a car for a 12-hour period. I think in many cases the police would find it to be an adequate remedy, rather than going through the lengthy and sometimes frustrating process of an impaired charge.

The bill I am presenting today has provisions in it that have already been enacted in three other provinces. Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have been suspending the driver's licence of persons convicted of impaired operation of a vessel for some time, and several states have enacted this kind of legislation.

At present, an individual convicted of operating a vessel while impaired is prohibited from operating a vessel for a minimum of three months for the first offence, six months for the second and one year for the third offence. The maximum prohibition from operating a vessel under the Criminal Code is three years. Under the current system, if you're convicted of impaired operation of a water vessel you can leave the courthouse, jump in your car and drive away.

I think the tougher sentences that have been imposed on impaired operators of motor vehicles have had some effect. I know that in the 24 years I've had a driver's licence in Ontario, I have noted among my friends and in the communities in which I've lived an increased awareness of the perils of drinking and driving. You will know, from talking to people who operate restaurants and bars, that people who are driving have a tendency either to have a designated driver or they don't consume as much alcohol. This is the kind of the thing that we have to impress upon the boating community and I think this bill would do that.

The effects of alcohol on operating a vessel are worthy of note, and this has been studied by the Canadian Coast Guard and many experts in the field. If a person has been consuming alcohol when they're going boating, they're going to have to deal with the problems that alcohol creates in their body. One is that it affects the balance. When you're in a boat your balance is already going to be more unstable than it is in a car, and if you've been drinking, your balance is not going to be as good.

It affects your judgement. It reduces your inhibitions and it can cause normally cautious people to take more risks. Given that 37% of boaters have admitted that they drink and operate boats, it's a scary thought to think, when you're out in a boat with your family, that the judgement of a third of the boaters out there is affected by alcohol.

Studies have also indicated that when you're drinking alcohol, your vision is impaired. It has an effect not only on your peripheral vision but also on your ability to see certain colours. Two of the colours that have been identified are red and green, and of course, as people who boat will know, those are used as running lights on boats and they're also the colour of navigation markers out there. So it is quite a matter of concern that boaters would have their vision affected by their drinking.

Another effect is the reaction time. You will not have the ability to react quickly if you need to, as you often do in a boat.

I've been quite encouraged by the support I've received on this bill. The Ontario Provincial Police has been in touch with me on a constant basis. I've also had a voice mail message from the father of a victim of a boating accident all the way from Massachusetts, and today in the members' gallery we have with us many members of the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, including Mr John Bates, who himself was a victim of a boating accident involving alcohol. Also in the gallery is Mr David Stewart, the president of the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, who is supporting the bill, and his executive assistant, Ann Leonard.

I've also heard supporting encouragement from the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons, the Georgian Bay community policing group and many individuals, both in my riding and in other parts of the province.

Personally, I feel this is a tool that the police have long asked for. They expect that this will have an impact on the attitudes people have when they are embarking on a boating voyage. I was myself out in a boat doing a cable TV show with our local MP and the police in Gravenhurst Bay in the spring of this year. It was a lovely day. The police pulled three boats over, and the third boat was full of beer and the people had been drinking at 11 o'clock in the morning. So it's a very common practice and it's something we need to do something about. Send a message to those people out there that they cannot drink and operate a boat.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'm pleased to speak in favour of this private member's legislation which would considerably tighten the rules for those who recklessly abuse their boating privilege -- and it is a privilege we're talking about. When one abuses their privilege by consuming alcohol, there ought to be penalties that follow because we must never forget that this is not a right but a privilege.

It's important to remember that while police enforcement is less stringent on water, boaters still have a responsibility for their own safety and recreation must be combined with responsibility.

Bill 154 represents an effort by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to respond to the concerns of his constituents. He points out, quite wisely, that there is a linkage between the irresponsible use of a boat and of a motor vehicle. Those who consume alcohol on a boat may well have consumed alcohol in advance of being on the vessel and therefore that is something that needs to be considered.

The proposed legislation addresses the problem in two ways. There's a short-term and a long-term issue. In the first instance, if a person's breathalyser reaches a warning or a charge were to be laid, enforcement officers would have the ability to suspend a boater's driver's licence for a 12-hour period. It would also suspend a person's driver's licence if convicted under the Criminal Code for impaired boating.

The major purpose of Bill 154, of course, is to act as a deterrent. The member has pointed out that there are three other provinces and six states that have enacted legislation similar to this. It's not clear, though, whether there has been any assessment of whether it has proven to be a deterrent, but one can imagine that it might have. I think it would useful at some other time to see what the impact of that legislation has been in those states.

I commend the member as well for being very thorough in providing excellent statistics that he has culled from marine statistics. It's obvious that there is a need to do something in this area which has been left unattended for a very long time. There are about 150 people a year charged with the impaired operation of vessels as it is. I'd say this seems a rather low number.

In looking at the figures I have, page 2 of the member's question-and-answer handout which he was very kind to give to us, he mentions statistics from the Canadian Coast Guard which found that 37% of Canadian boaters report that they consume alcohol always before boating and that 66% consume alcohol always or sometimes. This is before boating. Those are pretty shocking statistics and so it strikes me as odd that only 150 people would be charged, given the statistics which have been presented from the Canadian Coast Guard.

The figure may well be low because there was a difficulty with enforcement of provisions that currently exist, and this is really the heart of the matter. I'm very much in favour of this legislation because these cause such tremendous damage: 40% of those who were killed in boating accidents are found to have had a great deal of alcohol in their bloodstream. There is clearly a relationship between accidents and alcohol, so I'm surprised that only 150 people would be charged in any one year. The answer of course is that we do not have the enforcement mechanisms in this province, and that has only been made worse in the last couple of years.

The Ontario Provincial Police have been diminished so that you do not have the kind of enforcement you would like. You might say, "Maybe you could expand the enforcement activities to allow employees with the Ministry of Natural Resources who have charge of parks and provincial lakes and campgrounds" -- and there too we find that there have been tremendous cuts in staffing. There is no capacity to enforce legislation which currently exists. That's the problem.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay has an excellent piece of legislation, but if it remains just a piece of paper, it will look wonderful on the member's résumé, it will look wonderful in the annals of this Legislature, but it will do nothing to change the statistics we have; it will do absolutely nothing to change the deaths that are occurring with great alarm. That's really the issue.

I say to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, I'm prepared to support your legislation, but I would like to see a commitment from this government to enforcement of the legislation. I'd like to make sure that we have fewer accidents and that we have fewer deaths as a result of your well-meaning piece of legislation. It has to have some teeth, and the teeth come from enforcement.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm going to speak to this, obviously in support of it and with the intention of voting for it.

Of course, the sponsor of the bill made reference to the Criminal Code and the fact that prohibitions can be imposed by a sentencing judge. Interestingly, though, the Criminal Code only permits a prohibition of operating a vessel upon a conviction for operating a vessel. It doesn't permit the cross-prohibitions.

The Criminal Code prohibitions carry with them far more significant sanctions than the province, I suspect, is entitled to impose by virtue of its limited jurisdiction. I would invite the member to encourage federal counterparts to consider an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit the cross-prohibitions. I have no doubt there are going to be lawyers who argue the appropriateness of the Highway Traffic Act imposing a suspension of a driver's licence when the offence was one that wasn't related to highway traffic. God bless, they'll argue that and they'll litigate it and the judges will decide.

The rationale is that if somebody cannot exercise sufficient good judgement to not operate a motorized vehicle, be it a water vehicle, a vessel, an airplane, a skidoo, a snowmobile or a motor vehicle, in one context, can they be trusted to exercise better judgement in another context? If they have poor judgement on the waterways, can they be expected to exercise good judgement on the roadways? That's the obvious rationale and perhaps one of the arguments that would be offered in the case of any challenge to the legality of this particular amendment.

I also have, though, concerns about not the enforceability but the capacity to enforce. We've witnessed increasing penalties for drunk drivers, yet we witness annually numbers of apprehensions. One has to shake one's head because you wonder, how much stricter does the penalty have to get before people, or at least certain people or a certain segment of our community, get the message? I suspect that you reach a point of marginal return where you can no longer address the matter of penalty but you've got to start thinking about the fact that the likelihood of detection becomes the major deterrent.

The fact is that every drunk driver who does get caught didn't expect to run into an ALERT machine or a roadside breath-testing operation. The fact is that most drunks operating motor boats or Sea-Doos, those types of things, don't expect -- quite frankly, most of them know there's little likelihood of detection, because if they're familiar with certain areas of their cottage country or recreational country, they know whether or not the police are out there patrolling.

I have some concerns -- and I invite the member to speak to this -- because I know down in Niagara region where Niagara Regional Police have to police two lakes and share the policing of one waterway, the Niagara River, they've expressed to me great concern about their capacity to do effective policing on those waterways -- on Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the Niagara River.

There's clearly got to be a need to enhance the enforcement, to increase the likelihood of detection. At some point that's where more attention has to be diverted because you've maximized or at least optimized the penalties and the deterrent impact the penalties alone could have.

We've still got to address attitudes and public education. Clearly this is a bill that isn't solely related to cottage country but has significant impact on cottage country. Let's understand that, at the same time as we're standing here condemning drunk driving on waterways, drunk operation of motor boats and speedboats and Sea-Doos, we're struggling with incredibly powerful and effective advertising and mindset campaigns, in no small part by the beer industry itself, campaigns that in my view and in the view of a whole lot of other people are directed primarily at young, and younger, people.

Watch your television, the nature of summertime beer ads and the length that these operators, Molson, Labatt, the whole gang of them, want to make between cottage life and drinking beer. Of course, they're very careful. They've become oh so cautious about making sure they don't show somebody sitting on a speedboat -- I guess your steering wheel's on the right-hand side -- holding a beer in their left hand, but the case or keg of beer is sitting there on the dock. You can't escape the inference that they want people to draw, and that is that a cold beer is part and parcel of enjoying your weekend at the cottage.

Let's go one further. Molson, Labatt, the whole gang of them will argue, very much as cigarette manufacturers argue, "We don't force people to overconsume." You've heard the defences in some of the litigation that's arisen in the States: "We don't tell people because if you only smoke five cigarettes a day" -- and I suppose the statistics demonstrate this -- "your likelihood of getting lung cancer or other diseases is far less than the two- and three-pack-a-day smoker."

Let's be honest. The beer industry doesn't make money off people who drink two or three beers a week, any more than the tobacco industry makes money off people who only smoke two, three, four or five cigarettes a day. It's absolute hogwash. The industry would be devastated if all Ontarians were but even one-case-a-month beer drinkers. The industry would be finished. It couldn't maintain the economies it has to maintain to carry on its business.

The industry is selling an addictive substance and it's selling and marketing it in such a way that notwithstanding their hogwash about drinking responsibly -- and I've seen the blood ads that they've engaged in where they've tried to placate the criticism of that industry.

The fact is, that industry very much wants to expand its already large market. It looks to young people as a means of doing that. I mentioned the cottage ads, the lifestyle ads. Witness again the attempt to lure young people into the perception that drinking, and I suppose what young people might call party drinking, you know, the two-fisted kind of drinking -- witness the rock-and-roll-themed ads that are associated very much with the beer industry, very sophisticated, very slick, very expensive ads, and I have no doubt all with actors, persons playing roles in these ads who are of age.

You take a look and you can't help but think that some of them were actually selected to appear perhaps even younger than their actual age. They're appealing very much to a very vulnerable market and one which continues to succumb.

We have to look at the whole issue of drinking and driving, in the sense that I don't care whether it's a motor boat, a car, a motorcycle, a Sea-Doo or an airplane, what have you. Obviously one of the problems that a whole lot of people have is trying to calculate the numbers: "Let's see. I've had two beers in the course of two hours. Am I over 80 or under 80?" You've encountered that, I'm sure, that argument and that effort to try analyse exactly where you stand, to try to slide in under the wire.

Quite frankly, I think John Bates and MADD and his colleagues have had a whole lot to do with changing perception. You, Mr Grimmett, made reference to an earlier time when the phenomenon of drunk driving was regarded as often as not the next day with a chuckle and an elbow in the ribs about how you managed to make it home, albeit one-eyed and albeit on the wrong side of the road. I think those attitudes have changed a great deal, in that it's no longer a subject of mirth or joviality.

Not that it doesn't happen, but it's not something people are inclined to brag about to their colleagues or co-workers or friends the next morning or the next evening. That was the result of some significant education going on in the public and a change of attitudes, but I don't think that same level of education and change in attitude has taken place with respect to boating and the boating community. They're somehow regarded as distinct.

I refer to lakes more than rivers because of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario down where I live. Lakes are huge, massive places and it seems as if you could weave and curve and sway all you wanted without hitting any victims. The fact is that drinking while operating a vessel is a highly dangerous activity, dangerous of course to the persons in the boat itself and dangerous to other persons who have every right to use those waterways.

It's important that the alcohol industry -- the beer industry in particular, because the spirits industry has been far less successful at making its product attractive to new, ingenue drinkers, to the tyros, the neophytes of the drinking community -- take some real heat. They've got to be required to accept some real responsibility and to acknowledge that whatever percentage of their revenues they invest in anti-drunk-driving campaigns doesn't begin to arrest the impact of very powerful advertising campaigns which are undeniably focused on a very vulnerable group; to wit, young people.

If we're going to have laws like this, and if they are laws that are going to be held in some regard by the public -- I go back to the issue of enforcement -- we've got to give cops in our communities the tools to enforce this. Police forces across this province find themselves increasingly stressed in terms of person-power and the capacity to put people out there on the street, and also stressed in the capacity to acquire the types of equipment, in this case motorboats, that you need to be out there on the lakes and rivers and so on policing the activities of boaters.

You can pass all the laws you want, but if the law is understood -- and the public is increasingly conscious of the absence of police officers out there. If the bad guys only knew how few cops there are out on the road in any given numbers of communities at any given point in time, the consequences would be scary. I mentioned that to police officers and they assured me that the bad guys indeed do know and are incredibly sophisticated at avoiding detection because they're well aware of police forces increasingly underresourced here in Ontario.

Quite frankly, it's not a matter of doing more with less. Policing is a labour-intensive activity. Police officers deserve to be paid decent wages in view of the types of work and the tasks that they undertake, the risks that they undertake on a daily basis and the high level of professionalism that exists among policing here in Ontario.

We can reduce policing costs even more by simply reducing the number of police officers that are out there. We've already witnessed incredible and tragic increases in response time by police forces, through no fault of their own, across the province. I'm most familiar of course with the consequences of the destaffing, the defunding, in Niagara region. I speak with police officers there on a regular basis and I hear the stories as frequently.

If people want, and I think Ontarians do, to be protected from that outlaw element of our community -- and yes, I put drunk drivers in the same boat, if you will. If people want to be protected from those, and I believe they do, people have got to be prepared to invest in the resources that are going to enable them to be protected. That means this government has got to be prepared to invest in policing. This government talks a big game about law and order, but it fails to deliver in terms of getting right down to the real issues.

We support the bill. I applaud it. But I ask you please to consider the issues we've raised in relationship to it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Today I have the honour of standing in support of Bill Grimmett's -- the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's -- amendment to the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences of individuals convicted under the Criminal Code of impaired operation of a vessel. Anything to do with boater safety, I can tell you, I support.

We don't have to be told that drinking and then driving a car is a deadly combination. Statistics show us grim numbers every year and we see the devastating results on the 6 o'clock news.

Ministry of Transportation statistics show that, on average, 60 people die every year in boating accidents in this province. That is not acceptable to me, it's not acceptable to the people of Ontario, and I'm sure it's not acceptable to any member in this Legislature.

Our Minister of Transportation has made it clear he expects firm action when a driver is found to be over the legal limit. If a driver of an automobile or a motorized snowmobile is found guilty and penalized with a licence suspension, the person's right to operate a water vehicle should also be denied.

Drinking and driving don't mix; drinking and boating don't mix. Alcohol and the operation of any motorized vehicle are a deadly combination. The penalty for breaking this law should be the same: vehicle licence suspension.

Currently, when someone is found guilty of operating a water vessel while impaired, they pay a fine, leave the courtroom and drive their car home. By the same token, a person found guilty of impaired operation of an automobile will have their licence suspended, will leave the courtroom, take a bus home, and will still be able to drive their boat on Ontario's lakes and waters. This is an irresponsible motor vehicle and water vessel operator. They should not be allowed to operate any type of motorized vehicle until their penalty has been served and they have proven themselves a responsible operator.

Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, as well as several American states, have enacted legislation suspending a person's driver's licence on conviction of the impaired operation of a vessel. This bill is supported by the OPP, who feel there will be no additional workload on front-line policing, since they already have the equipment and training needed to deal with impaired boaters. It was just two years ago that I was stopped by the OPP on the water. Just this past summer I was stopped by the Ministry of Natural Resources people on the water. So they are out there and I appreciated their visit.

I've worked for most of my term as an MPP to have all water craft operators take a vehicle safety course before venturing out on to Ontario's lakes and rivers. However, all the safety courses in existence cannot create a safe boater out of an impaired boater. Tragedies and fatalities on the waterways are no more acceptable than tragedies and fatalities on our highways. We must act, and act now, to educate boaters and enact tough penalties for impaired operators. I agree with the quote from the marine operator in a Peterborough newspaper when she said, "We've got idiots behind the wheels of cars and we've got idiots driving boats."

The marine industry promotes boater safety; distillers promote boater safety; the municipalities, law enforcement, public health and safety groups also promote boater safety. As an example, this summer, Labatt's, in partnership with the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons, launched a WaterWise Boat Pro education campaign in Ontario. They worked together to heighten awareness of boating safety and responsible alcohol use. In July, Labatt's was joined by the OPP and the Ontario Marina Operators Association to remind boaters never to operate a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, along with promoting many other boating rules of the waterway.

We have regulations. We need to add education and tough penalties, like the suspension of drivers' licences, for persons convicted of dangerous operation of motorboats, including personal watercraft, while under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

For some time, some nine years now, I've been promoting boater safety and education. Two weeks ago I had a resolution hoping that we could get the amendment to the small vessels regulations to have certificates issued to boaters. It was raised in the House with regard to who's going to issue the certificates and how it is going to operate. It's a federal law, but I would be happy if the province took the responsibility to issue the certificates to make sure that people operating a water vessel have had a test.

Really, what I'm looking at is the same as individuals who would get a driver's licence: They go and write an exam. That's what I would like to see, that boaters who are operating on our waterways today have that certificate. I would certainly be happy to grandfather that for three years, which my resolution spoke on, to allow those boat operators to have three years to get their certificate.

We need overall boating safety in this province. We have manuals, we have the boating manual, the pro boat manual, we have a booklet on boating essentials which is taught in Georgian College in Orillia, we have the tools, we have the power squadrons. We need to educate the voters in this province. I commend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for bringing Bill 154 forward so that the police will have more authority on our waterways.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me first of all say that I concur with the last speaker when he said we certainly need to do a lot more by way of education. I think it's a lot like the impaired driving situation or the drinking and driving situation. I can recall 30 or 40 years ago it was certainly much more acceptable for a person to drink and then to get behind the wheel of a car. I'm not saying they were necessarily all impaired, but it was an acceptable way for society to deal with those situations.

Now it's no longer acceptable. It's no longer acceptable to drink and drive. I think, particularly with young people, it has become quite acceptable to have a designated driver so that when they go out partying that individual doesn't drink at all. I would commend the young people on that. I think this is as a result of an education process that has taken many years to develop, but it has become part of the social conscience of a lot of the young people in our society.

We need to do the same sort of thing with boating safety, because it is just as unacceptable to get in the boat and start driving it -- you don't drive a boat, but start riding it or whatever -- as it is to do so behind the wheel of a car.

The statistic the member for Muskoka has brought forward that almost 37% of the people who get behind the wheel of a boat always drink before doing so is surely totally unacceptable. I think a lot of the advertising, as the member for Welland talked about, is almost predicated on the fact that it's an acceptable thing. You get behind the wheel of a boat, you start drinking and everybody's having a grand old time. I'm sure that is simply not the right way to go about it.

We have to spend a lot more time on education, on making sure that it becomes just as unacceptable, particularly for young people but also for older people, to get behind the wheel of a boat as it is to get behind the wheel of a car when you've been drinking.

I would like to turn to one other issue, though, which I think is very closely related to this. We can pass all the laws we want in this chamber and if we don't enforce them properly or correctly, then really we may have done something from a symbolic viewpoint that, yes, we are against drinking and driving whether it's in a boat or whether it's behind the wheel of a car, but if the government of the day doesn't set aside the proper resources to actually make it happen, then all the good intentions of the laws that are passed simply are totally wasted.

I would urge the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to start taking a look at the OPP budget. When you see that budget has actually been cut over the number of years, specifically when it comes to the aspect of enforcement, then I would ask him to talk to the Solicitor General and say that once this bill is passed, if we want to give it some meaningful enforcement mechanism, let's make sure that the officers are out there on the water doing that sort of thing.

I think it's a lot tougher to catch an impaired driver in a boat than it is in a car. It's much tougher to have RIDE programs and things along those lines to have spot checks. It just doesn't work that way. It doesn't totally surprise me that most of the people who are charged have alcohol in their system, because they're normally charged only after something happens. That happens much more frequently with respect to a boat than it does with a car because you don't have the kind of RIDE programs that you do in driving situations.

I commend the member for bringing this bill forward. I think it makes eminent good sense. An impaired driver behind the wheel of a car or behind the wheel of a boat is just as dangerous to the general public. They have, in effect, a powerful tool in their hands with which they can maim and kill, and I think the same sanctions should apply. But I would urge the member to talk to the Solicitor General to make sure that sufficient resources are available so that the laws we pass in this chamber can be effectively enforced.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very proud this morning to stand and speak in support of Bill 154. This member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, in my opinion, is one of our new bright lights in our government and this bill manifests his superb intellect and ability. It also demonstrates his compassion not only for the people who die as a result of alcohol-related boating accidents but also for those whose lives are changed forever as a result of permanent injury.

Sixty people died on average in each of the past five years in alcohol-related boating accidents. It is also significant that three other Canadian provinces and several states in the United States have already passed this progressive and very necessary legislation.

Times have changed. As a recreational boater myself for the past 40 years, I've changed my own boating habits. I don't go out any more after dark on the lakes. I'm very nervous about coming on a boat without lights. You can say it's floating -- it's not parked but it's not running -- it's drifting in the dark, because of course they're sitting in the boat in the dark, with their lights off, drinking. I just don't go out any more after dark because of that.

The other aspect of boating is, for the most

part it is recreational; it's not usually for transportation, except to and from island locations. When you're dealing with recreational boating it usually means it's in combination with visiting and entertaining friends. Quite frankly, alcohol makes a refreshing drink and is far more likely to be served than milk, because obviously the refrigeration requirement isn't the same and it's very easy to keep beer cold on a boat. It's also very easy to have in that kind of environment a lot to drink before people go out boating.

Obviously the penalty for drunk boating is not a deterrent. In fact if you look at the penalty, it's absolutely absurd. The first offence for drunk boating is three months, the second is six months and the third is a year. Isn't that just great. It means that they probably would miss one boating season, so obviously the deterrent is not there at the moment. This private member's bill is a realistic penalty.

Isn't it ironic. I was listening to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay on the radio this morning, on Metro Morning, and he gave the example of the irony that you can drive a snowmobile on a frozen lake and be charged for impaired driving and lose your driver's licence, yet a few months later when that lake is unfrozen and you're on the same body of water with an individual watercraft or an ordinary boat, you cannot receive the same penalty for drunk driving.

The other point I want to make is that there isn't a question about whether it really makes sense to suspend an individual's motor licence for violations unrelated to the operation of an automobile. The answer to that is very clear in law, and that is that a precedent has already been established in this area in that a motor vehicle licence can be suspended under the Highway Traffic Act for impaired operation of a motorized snow vehicle, although it is not considered a motor vehicle by provincial law. So the precedent is there.

I believe we've made huge progress in this House in the last 12 months in passing legislation to fight drunk driving. Naturally, I had a personal interest in the government legislation because it addressed the concerns that I had brought to this House in my two private member's bills about drunk driving. This morning, the passage of this bill will work as an addition to combat drunk driving on the water as well as on our roads. I sincerely congratulate Bill Grimmett, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Of course I will be, as everybody would be, supporting these bills this morning. I can't think of anybody who is going to oppose them. They are both laudable in terms of the goals they set.

I simply want to set out one of the problems that I see with all this legislation that sounds good, looks good on paper, gets a good headline, and that is that we have to have the resources to carry it out. It is one thing to have a bill on the books. It is another to have the necessary resources to enforce the law.

I'm sure that the member who has brought this forward, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, will be working hard on his cabinet colleagues to ensure that there is adequate provision made in terms of the resources available to enforce it and, if there are more convictions, that the courts will have the resources to proceed with these cases so that those who are in violation are punished in the appropriate fashion.

Right now we've had three Supreme Court justices in Ontario say that the court system is "woefully inadequate" in terms of the financial resources it has to carry out its responsibilities. We are supposed to have, with the addition of some crowns on contract, some 535 crown attorneys to deal with 250,000 charges in the province. I suspect what's going to happen is that we're going to see more plea bargaining taking place and therefore a reduction in the kind of penalties that the member would like to see and I would like to see for violations of the law.

Clearly, there is a problem on the water, as there is a problem on highways or across land with snowmobiles, and that problem has to be addressed.

It's the same thing with the victims' rights bill which will be dealt with later. Everybody is on the side of the victims, I'm sure. I have seen personally in my riding some very high-profile cases where victims and their families have been very saddened by what has happened and annoyed with the justice system. I welcomed the initiative by the member for Downsview, Annamarie Castrilli of the Liberal Party, bringing in her bill for victims' rights and then the government essentially adopting that bill and implementing it. What's happened, however, is the resources haven't been there to carry out the provisions of that bill.

While we applaud in this House, while there is a good headline, while there is some nice coverage and some newsletters, what happens down the line is that we start to find out from the victims themselves that it isn't all it's cracked up to be, that the resources aren't there, that the supports aren't there, that the participation they were looking for will not take place. That's what's important. That's what I urge members of the House to be working on: providing those resources.

It's very difficult to give an income tax cut which will cost the treasury $5 billion in lost revenue and most benefit the wealthiest people in our society, to make severe cuts in other areas and still be able to carry out the provisions of this legislation. I'm sure there will be unanimous support for both bills today. I simply urge the members to try hard to get the resources to carry out the bills.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's really a tremendous delight to join in this morning's debate in private members' hour, particularly to focus this Legislature's attention on Bill 154, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's bill dealing with drunk driving on our waterways.

At the outset I want to say that both the Ministry of Transportation and I personally would like to congratulate the member for bringing this important bill to our attention and commend him for the hard work he has put in on this issue. His riding has the essential recreational water routes to the north and to the south, and I know from speaking with him that he has seen many of these accidents and fatalities impact on his own constituents. I think to a great extent that is what impels him in bringing this bill forward, and for that he needs to be commended.

When I first examined this particular issue, I was absolutely shocked by the statistics of deaths and injuries due to drunk boating on our waterways. As of July this year we've had nearly 44 alcohol-related charges made against boaters. In the same period, seven people unfortunately lost their lives needlessly because of not taking the proper precautions and having this dangerous mix of boating, speeding and drinking. It's an extremely lethal combination. The OPP has estimated that there have been approximately 150 people charged this year with drinking and boating.

Unfortunately, many Canadians associate alcohol and boating as a pleasurable exercise and forget about the statistics. Even the Canadian Coast Guard has noted that an alarming 66% of Canadian boaters report always or nearly always consuming alcohol when boating. Clearly the need to reduce the amount of drinking and boating on Ontario's waterways is an important issue and priority to this government and to the Ministry of Transportation.

As the member for Mississauga South has noted, the effective deterrents aren't there. I think this particular bill is going to pave a very influential way in moving this government towards making a public policy decision on drinking and driving, as we have in the comprehensive road safety bill. Over time we are going to see the inevitability of this kind of bill becoming law in Ontario dealing with drunk driving and boating. The member's efforts in this area are going to prove to be a bold step along that public policy process, in making this particular bill eventually a fruition.

I'd finally like to comment that this government has already dealt with drunk driving on our road system. We have brought in the toughest legislation, under Bill 138, the comprehensive road safety bill, passed in June by this Legislature. The provisions, the philosophy and intent set out in that new bill address when a vehicle driver decides that he or she is going to combine alcohol and driving on our roadways. We're going to have a similar intent follow on the roadways our water system. I'd like to congratulate the member again for bringing forth this bill at this time.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, you have two minutes.

Mr Grimmett: I'll be brief. I would like to thank the members for Downsview, Welland-Thorold, Simcoe East, Mississauga South, Kingston and The Islands, St Catharines and Etobicoke-Rexdale for their supportive comments. I'm encouraged by the fact that they share my concern for safety on the water, which this bill is trying to address. I'd say to those people who raised issues about enforcement that it would be interesting to them to review the statistics available from the Ontario Provincial Police about enforcement on the waterways in recent years.

If they look at them closely they'll see that there's been a dramatic increase in the number of charges laid on waterways in Ontario in the seasons of 1996 and 1997 respectively.

Part of this has arisen I think from the passage at the federal level of the Contraventions Act, which was a matter the police had asked for to make it simpler for them to lay minor charges against boating offenders without having to deal through federal legislation.

The police have been asking for the kinds of penalties that are in this bill. They asked for the changes that are in the Contraventions Act, and now that they have got the changes in the Contraventions Act, they have acted on that and there has been a dramatic increase in the number of charges laid. I'm confident that if this bill is able to pass through the Legislature, it will provide the police with the tool they need, and they will be able to carry out the enforcement that's required.

I certainly encourage all members to help ensure that we have safe waterways in Ontario. I think it's essential for our tourism industry that we are able to say to people our waterways are safe, and I think this bill will be one step closer to making sure that we can say to everybody, "Ontario's waterways are safe, and we're doing what we can to prevent bad boating habits."

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SEMAINE DE COMMÉMORATION DES VICTIMES DE CRIMES DE VIOLENCE

Mr Baird moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 155,

An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week / Projet de loi 155, Loi proclamant la Semaine de commémoration des victimes de crimes de violence.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): The people of Ontario desire to live, work and raise their families in communities free from violent crime. Until that vision becomes a reality, violence against any one member of a society diminishes us all. All victims of violent crime, whether surviving or deceased, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The people of Ontario should always remember the lives of those taken by violent crime. We should always reflect on the suffering and hardship that the survivors of violent crime and their families and friends of all victims of violent crime, whether or not the victim survived, endure with such courage.

Twenty years ago, there wasn't a place in our justice system for victims. Some even openly advocated the position that there shouldn't be a place for them. But over the last 20 years we have seen a good number of Canadians stand up and demand to be heard and demand a place in our justice system. Many sought to directly influence the outcome of a case in which they had a personal interest. These actions led this Legislature to pass the Victims' Bill of Rights. It was an important step in our efforts to acknowledge and respond to the needs of victims of crime.

The Victims' Bill of Rights legislated a set of principles to support victims of crime with timely, respectful and courteous treatment throughout the criminal justice system. It also simplified the process for victims to sue their assailants in civil actions for damages and provided better support for children who must testify in court. We are all committed to creating a justice system that does not allow victims of crime to suffer twice, first at the hand of the criminal and, second under a justice system that does not respond and does not respect their needs.

A good number of victims have gone far beyond dealing with their own cases. A large number of them got involved in collective action to work to change our laws and the whole criminal justice system. I'd like to relate a very personal story of how I became involved with some of these remarkable people. More than 18 months ago, a drunk driver took the lives of two constituents of mine in Nepean, Linda LeBreton Holmes and her young son Brian. I was able to see at first hand how important the role of their family was in the justice system in this case.

While they made a tremendous contribution to their own case, ensuring that the perpetrator of that crime received one of the longest sentences imposed in the country, they also did something else. They got involved with others, particularly with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, with people like Colleen MacKenzie and Susan McNabb, and worked to change our laws. Their efforts paid off and played a tremendously important role in lobbying this government and this Legislature to eventually pass what is the toughest drunk driving law in North America.

Simply put, decision-makers on all sides of the House could not look them in the eye and explain why we couldn't or why we shouldn't, and the remarkable thing was that this law was supported by members on all sides of the House.

I had a large town hall meeting on that issue in support of a private member's bill put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga South. At that meeting I asked everyone in attendance, if they weren't from my riding, to call their member of provincial Parliament and indicate their support for tougher drunk driving laws and Mrs Marland's bill.

A few days later the member for Ottawa South, now the Leader of the Opposition, approached me and said he got a call from an Evalyn Collins, an Ottawa South resident who was at my town hall meeting, and she had asked him to support those efforts. That morning the member for Ottawa South told me, "John, I told your grandmother that I would support it." So these efforts don't have to be political and they can cross party lines.

A Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week would also serve to commemorate the contribution and the lost potential of those lives that were taken by violent crime. It would foster awareness of the suffering and hardship endured by the survivors of violent crime and their families and friends, an awareness of the courage with which they endure the suffering and hardship.

Most important though, it would encourage reflection on the treatment of victims in our justice system. It would make clear to governments, elected officials and police authorities the need for constant vigilance to ensure that victims of violent crime are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

It would invite accountability to the government of the day, regardless of its political stripe, to reflect on its own performance with respect to victims' issues and broader justice issues, and it would provide a forum for victims' groups and the general public to hold their government accountable for its own performance. Once a year it would provide the many diverse victims advocacy groups an opportunity to focus their energies on government and to come together to share their concerns and resources and to focus public attention on the importance of dealing with violence in our society.

A number of representatives from these groups are here today with us in the gallery: Sharon Rosenfeldt, one of the founders of Victims of Violence, and Debbie Mahaffy, director of Action for Victims, have made a remarkable contribution to our province and our country, not just for their advocacy of victims' rights but for their work in pushing for important changes in our justice system.

I'm also pleased that Steve Sullivan, the executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Violence, John Bates and a contingent from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Paul Walters, the president of the Metro Toronto Police Association, could be with us today, because they have made a remarkable contribution to victims' issues throughout their organizations' long careers. Some of them have pushed for a special week of commemoration for quite some time.

Bill 155 proposes to designate the third week of April as Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week. This would coincide with the same practice in the United States, which has taken place for many years south of the border. It is hoped that Ontario could provide the national leadership to see such a week recognized across the country in provinces from British Columbia to Newfoundland and by the federal government and serve as an important symbolic move to push the federal government to bring in a national victims' bill of rights.

It is our hope that the Attorney General could take that message to the federal-provincial justice conference taking place later this year. In fact, the federal government celebrates a week for prisoners, Restorative Justice Week. This event professes to include victims on one day of the week, but regrettably, few victims feel a part of it.

The third week of April is also a date with some meaning for two constituents of mine in Nepean. Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt's son Daryn went missing during the third week of April 1991. Since that tragedy, Sharon and Gary have made a remarkable contribution to working with other victims and have been a strong and effective voice for reforming our justice system. Our country, our province and my community of Nepean in recent years are so much richer for that contribution. Gary Rosenfeldt now serves as the executive director of Victims of Violence and the Canadian Centre for Missing Children. In a letter to MPPs, he writes:

"In 1983 a federal-provincial task force on justice for victims of crime concluded that victims of crime had been `forgotten' in the justice system. Since then, some major improvements have been made, allowing crime victims more active participation in the system. As an organization dedicated to the improvement of the situation of crime victims, we are constantly faced with the difficult task of bringing attention to the needs of victims. A week once a year dedicated to victims would serve as a focal point for our efforts to educate the community, governments and the justice system on these needs.

An increased awareness of victim needs will inevitably result in better services for crime victims in the province of Ontario."

As I said at the outset of my remarks, all of us deserve to live, work and raise our families in communities free from violence, but until that goal becomes a reality, I believe collectively we all have a responsibility, because

an act of violence against one member of our society indeed diminishes the safety and security of us all. This bill would not only commemorate the victims of violent crime; it would also serve as a vehicle to hold the government of the day accountable for how it deals with victims -- that is an accountability which I believe the government would welcome -- and cause the government to reflect on its performance in the area of criminal justice. I believe there's is a tremendously important symbolic message in the bill that I'm presenting this morning, and I respectfully ask for the support of my colleagues on all sides of the House. Thank you.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): We will of course all be supporting this bill and respect its intent, but I do want to say in the very few moments that each of us will have to speak to this bill that I for one will be very concerned if all we do is, and I quote the bill, reflect "on treatment of victims in our judicial system." I'll be very concerned if our reflection does not lead to action.

I'll be further concerned if we continue to be more concerned with simply commemorating victims, as important as that is, and less concerned with doing everything we possibly can to ensure that there are fewer victims. In this regard, I believe there is much more that we have to do.

I refer back to a study that was released in the spring of this year, and I want, because we have such a few minutes, to address my comments specifically to my concern about the continued victimization of women in their homes. The study that was released last spring deals specifically with women who continue to be murdered by their partners. The study indicates that greater awareness of violence against women and harsher penalties from the justice system have not reduced the risk of death at the hands of husbands and boyfriends for Ontario women.

At least 159 women were shot, stabbed, bludgeoned or choked to death by current or former partners in the four years from 1991 to 1994; an average of 40 a year, compared with 32 a year from 1974 to 1990.

It was just this week that I had a phone call from a women who lives in southern Ontario whose husband is currently in jail for having abused her in very violent ways. He was in jail because he was not able to make his initial bail payments but he is now coming up for bail review and the information this woman has is that he has the resources now to be able to meet the bail. She is obviously fearful that when he is released from jail on bail, her life is going to be at risk.

She has made contact with every available resource in her community. She has been told basically that her only option is to keep a suitcase packed for herself and for her children so that when her husband is released she can flee. I don't know what to tell this woman, other than to say that this Legislature must be absolutely committed to doing more to ensure that women and children can be safe in their homes.

When this report was released last spring detailing how many women continue to be killed by intimate partners, the fact that 70% of all female homicide victims are killed by intimate partners, they said that the 1992 recommendations of a previous report on how to prevent such killings had not yet been acted on. They said we need to give police more tools to prevent men from harassing their partners immediately after separation; we need to keep better records on men with a history of violence against women. I believe we must have much stronger bail provisions for any who have broken peace bonds or restraining orders.

I believe too that we have to take steps beyond that to make sure women have the ability to leave abusive situations and to find a safe and supportive haven and, to go beyond that, to have an opportunity to establish independent, secure lives for themselves and their children.

It is important that we commemorate victims. It is important, as the member for Nepean has said, that we ensure that our justice system provides every possible support for victims and for their families. I believe some steps have been taken in that regard with the establishment of the domestic violence courts, but I believe we must take further steps to prevent victimization and to stop the violence.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just want to say at the outset that of course I'll be supporting this bill. It almost goes without saying. If one just has a look at the

preamble for the bill, it says, "The people of Ontario desire to live, work and raise their families in communities free from violent crime." It would be hard for me to imagine anyone in Ontario who wouldn't agree and support a statement like that.

It goes on to say as well that "all victims of violent crime...deserve to be treated with dignity and respect." Once again, that's something that's very difficult for any of us to disagree with. It also goes on to say that it would make clear to governments and elected officials the need for "constant vigilance to ensure that victims of violent crime are treated with dignity and respect." I'm wondering whether the member for Nepean is suggesting that we need a week to commemorate the victims of violent crime so that his own government will pay attention to their plight and take action for them.

This bill, I'm concerned, is really almost trivializing the pain that's suffered by victims of violent crime by dedicating only one week to their suffering. This is something that needs to be paid attention to 52 weeks of the year. Anyone who has come in contact with victims of violent crime -- and I can tell you that I have on numerous occasions, as a former assistant crown attorney, dealt with victims of crime, in my private practice as a lawyer and working in the criminal courts as well -- knows the suffering they go through. Anyone who has had a family member who is a victim of violent crime knows the suffering they have to endure.

Victims of violent crime don't need just a week to commemorate the suffering they are experiencing as a result of criminal activity. What victims need are things like psychological counselling, and we've seen cuts in health care and in psychological counselling availability since this government was elected in 1995. We need increases in those types of services.

We know that victims of violent crime are very often spouses, oftentimes women, oftentimes children, who find that trying to obtain residential treatment after they become victims of violent crime is becoming increasingly difficult. We've seen diminished resources for residential programs as well for women who are victims of violent crime. In my own community we have a very well-respected residential home for women. It's called Hiatus House. That was an institution that had been established by volunteers several years ago and has been finding that it has become increasingly more reliant on volunteer and fund-raising activities as the support from the government is decreasing.

We also need to see simpler ways to ensure that victims of violent crime are able to obtain restitution. The member for Nepean mentioned some of the steps that have been taken with respect to legislation to ensure that easier civil actions are able to be brought to try and recover restitution for victims of crime. However, we know that oftentimes people who are involved in criminal activity don't have the resources to make restitution or satisfy civil judgements, and that's something we really need to address our minds to as well.

Of course, we need further resources. That was a similar suggestion that was made with respect to the previous bill about penalties for persons who are in involved in impaired boating. We need to take steps to try and prevent violent crime and not have to deal so often with victims of violent crime, but try to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place. Police are under continuous pressure to try to do more with fewer resources. If police were receiving further support or more resources to try to prevent the incidence of violent crime, that would go a long way to prevention.

Crown attorneys are under increasing pressure as well to try to deal expeditiously with full dockets of criminal cases in our criminal courts and are under pressure to try to resolve cases by plea bargaining. Oftentimes it's difficult to try to obtain remedies or penalties that are in the best interests of victims of violent crime as a result of trying to plea-bargain because the court space just isn't available to prosecute as many cases as the police are laying charges. So further resources for crown attorneys are needed as well.

Of course, if there's an increase in the number of investigations and charges that are laid by the police, further courtroom space is required as well. In Windsor, we've been working on a court building replacement in our city. That's a project that's been going on for a number of years. I would urge this government -- I see the Attorney General here -- to take steps to try and expedite the construction of that new court building as quickly as possible so that cases are heard on a speedier basis and the victims of crime don't go through the suffering that comes from the fact that cases take so long to get through the court system. I would ask him to try and speed up that project.

To summarize, I just want to reiterate that I will be supporting this bill. I would hope that all of us consider the interests of the victims of crime not just one week per year, but every week per year.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today on behalf of the government to speak in support of the member for Nepean's private member's bill, Bill 155, the Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week Act.

Bill 155, which was authored by my colleague John Baird, proposes making the third week of April an annual week of commemoration for victims of violent crime. This annual commemoration will foster awareness among all people in Ontario of the suffering, hardship and, above all, the great courage exhibited by victims of violent crime, their families and their friends. Just as importantly, this week will also highlight the great potential that is forfeited every time a life is lost to the actions of a violent criminal.

Mr Baird tells me that should Bill 155, and similar bills which may be introduced in the legislatures of other provinces and territories, be passed, this would provide most of North America with a concurrent week of commemoration for the victims of violent crime. I support such an initiative. Our government is wholeheartedly committed to correcting a grievous imbalance that has developed in our justice system where the rights of the accused take centre stage and the needs of victims are pushed off to the wings.

We refuse to tolerate a system that allows victims of crime to be victimized twice: first at the hands of the criminal and then again at the hands of a legal system that does not respect, understand or respond to the needs of victims.

In our government's first year, we took immediate steps to introduce a Victim's Bill of Rights, which was proclaimed into law on June 11 one year ago. This legislation, among the most comprehensive in Canada, brings about long-overdue changes to the way victims of crime are treated by the justice system.

I listened a moment ago with interest to the comments by the NDP member for Windsor-Riverside about restitution being appropriate in the matter of victims' rights. I invite the member to read the Victim's Bill of Rights that became law a year ago in Ontario, which sets out not only restitution rights but a simplified method of accomplishing restitution for victims of crime in the province.

With respect to the courthouse in Windsor, I might also add that our government is providing five more courtrooms in that courthouse than the original plans even called for and that the building is being built as quickly as it can be built. The city of Windsor is well advantaged in that regard, since there are many areas in the province that are looking for new courthouses and don't have a courthouse under construction. The city of Windsor does, as a result of the efforts of our government and our Attorney General.

Among its various provisions, the bill of rights enshrines the victim's justice fund to ensure that money collected from fines imposed on offenders will be used strictly for services to victims. During the first two years of its term, our government allocated more than $10.2 million from the fund to improve and expand services to victims across Ontario. We will continue to invest additional funds for victims' services in the future. We have dedicated funds to double the number of victim/witness assistance programs available to assist victims of crime as their cases proceed through the courts and to enhance the services provided in existing sites.

Victims in 26 communities will soon have the support of their own local program. These programs help people through the court process so they won't be traumatized again. In 1996-97, approximately 20,000 victims of crime were served by this program. These programs focus on the most vulnerable. More than 80% of the people receiving this support are victims of spousal assault, sexual assault or child abuse, while families of homicide victims and families of people killed by impaired drivers make up the remainder of those who are helped by this program.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services will also be expanding its programs which provide immediate, onsite services to victims of crime. We will be adding eight new victim crisis assistance and referral service centres across Ontario, bringing the total number of sites to 20. This includes the addition of eight new sites across Ontario. This further guarantees that services will be available when needed to victims in their local communities.

Our government established domestic violence court projects at Toronto's old city hall and in North York. Launched in cooperation with judges, police, crown attorneys and the victim/witness assistance program, these new court projects are designed to do a better job of both supporting victims and holding abusers accountable for their crimes.

We are looking for solutions to the problem of domestic violence by trying different approaches. In North York, the focus is on breaking the cycle of violence. In assault cases that do not involve serious injury or use of a weapon, first-time offenders undergo intensive batterer's counselling. The downtown Toronto court at old city hall focuses on prosecution, employing improved investigation techniques such as the use of 911 tapes to obtain better evidence and improve the chances of obtaining a conviction.

Both projects are supported by increased victims' services and are gaining recognition as creative responses to the crime of domestic assault. In July, the government announced that these innovative projects were being expanded to six new locations across Ontario. Victims of domestic abuse in Ottawa, London, Hamilton, North York, the regional municipality of Durham at Oshawa, and Brampton will soon have access to these creative new approaches to dealing with the difficult and long-standing problem of domestic violence.

I would be remiss at this point not to acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, the member for London North and the minister responsible for women's issues, who this summer announced the spending of an additional $27 million to deal specifically with violence prevention issues. She has shown incredible leadership in coordinating nine ministries in their plans to reduce violence against women in Ontario.

This government will not stop here. We will continue to expand victims' services, to seek policy solutions and to make the real changes necessary to ensure the rights of victims are protected in Ontario's justice system. An annual week of commemoration for victims of violent crime represents another step on the journey towards an Ontario in which the needs of all crime victims are considered. I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting Bill 155 and reaffirming the commitment of this government to rebalancing the scales of justice by offering victims of crime the respect they so richly deserve.

Our government has done more to assist victims of crime than any other government. For those who may not agree, including perhaps some members opposite, I invite them to speak to those present in the galleries today who have experienced loss as victims of crime.

May I commend the member for Nepean for bringing forward this important piece of legislation to be debated in this House. I urge all members to support it.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I rise to speak on Bill 155, the Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Act, which, as members have said, is

an act which seeks to designate the third week in April as Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week.

In reading the documentation provided by the honourable member opposite who's sponsoring the bill, I note that the purpose of the bill -- he says in the backgrounder, "Victims of violence are represented by a wide range of diverse advocacy groups." I want to spend just a little moment acknowledging the hard work of those groups. In my own experience as a civil servant back at the Department of National Health and Welfare, I've seen the efforts of these groups and I want to commend them for their efforts and their successes to date.

To quote again from the backgrounder: "A commemorative week would provide an opportunity for these individuals to focus their attention and resources in an effort to educate the public, elected officials and police on the issues facing victims and their treatment within our justice system. During the commemorative week, the government of the day will be forced to assess its performance with respect to the needs and rights of victims. In addition, the week provides a forum within which the public can hold its government accountable on its treatment and response to victims."

This is further accentuated by some of the letters we have received from some of the groups. Victims of Violence has written to speak about the need for a Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week, not only to recognize the pain and anguish suffered by those who have fallen victim to senseless acts of violence, but also to educate the public and government officials about the physical, emotional and financial hardships many victims are forced to endure as a result of crimes committed against them.

In another letter of endorsement from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: "It not only provides us with an opportunity to remember victims of crime and hardships they endure, but it will also be an opportunity to educate the public about what the impact of crime can be on people and what they face in the criminal justice system."

While we debate this bill, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to review what the government has done to help victims of violent crime, particularly steps to ensure that there are no victims of violent crime, because surely that is our ultimate goal. As the honourable member opposite said so well, we all ought to have the right to live, work and raise our families in communities free from violent crime.

We then turn to the government's performance here. I of course have to turn to the document that became famous two years ago, the Common Sense Revolution. In this document we find the wording under "Law Enforcement": "The people of Ontario are rightly concerned about community safety in our province, particularly the increasing incidence of violent crime. That is why funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed."

Unfortunately, the rhetoric in the Common Sense Revolution falls a bit short of reality. In my own community of Ottawa-Carleton, we are faced with cuts in the government's grants to support policing in our community. With a budget of some $99 million in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, when the provincial grant falls from $7.8 million in 1995 to zero in 1998 -- we find the community struggling to deal with the incidence of violent crime, and losing resources in our effort to deal with this important social problem does not help. It certainly doesn't help the victims of violent crime.

It does not help the honourable member's laudable goal of ensuring that we can live, work and raise our families in communities free from violent crime.

Yesterday a colleague of mine raised in the House the cuts the government has made to community policing and prevention, some $3 million. Again, the intent falls far short of reality within our own communities here in Ontario.

We also have to look towards what the government has done to support communities in their effort to reduce crime, setting aside issues of law enforcement. I can only draw on my own experience with the children's aid society in Ottawa-Carleton, which found itself losing government funding at the very time when stress was being placed on families -- domestic violence being an important contributor to violent crime -- to the point where the children's aid society had to bring in Harris days. They literally closed down the operation of the children's aid society, except for emergency intake, to respond to the government cuts.

What does this mean? This means that families who require counselling, who need help to go over some of the crises they are facing, particularly the 21.6% cut in welfare rates, were without that 12 times within the year. They were called "Harris days," unfortunately.

All I can say is that it is important that we have an evenhanded approach. While it is important to support this bill -- and no one can deny the symbolic importance -- it is also necessary to ensure that there is sufficient concrete action to reduce the incidence of violent crime. That ultimately is our goal, to reduce the incidence of violent crime. It is the government's responsibility to ensure there are sufficient resources to do that. I call upon the government to follow through on the intent of this bill by ensuring that there are sufficient resources.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I suppose -- no, I'm simply not going to. There are going to be plenty of opportunities for me to criticize this or any other government for what it has or hasn't done. I find some of the comments, particularly those of the member for Durham Centre, regrettable in that they were part of a discussion and debate around this particular bill, which I indicate, as has my colleague from Windsor-Riverside, complete support for.

I come from a part of the province which understands all too painfully that victims of violent crime are victims, and yes, the families, the survivors, but communities also are scarred and mutilated as a result of the wanton violence, the simply unspeakable violence that has been imposed and that we run the risk of having imposed in our communities or upon any of us at any time.

I want to speak very specifically about violence and how we have to develop a zero tolerance. We know all too well that far too many victims of violence are children; they're our nieces and nephews or our neighbours' kids. We know the tragedy of a parent burying a child, the abnormality of it. It's simply not natural, and it's surely not the way God designed the human order that parents should have to bury children. We also know that violence against children begets violence against children, as we begin to understand how that nurtures among those victims a propensity to be violent in their own right as adults towards their own children or perhaps towards the children of others.

I'm confident the bill is going to pass. One of the ways by which we have to give effect to the bill is to enunciate very clearly zero tolerance towards violence. We have to express a repugnance for violence towards others. We've gone through a process over the last generation or two where there's been increased intolerance towards violence that in the course of even some our lifetimes was disregarded or turned away from.

We have to express as a provincial community, as families within our cities and regions, this total repugnance for acts of violence. We've got to talk about guarding ourselves and our children from it, but also guarding those whose lives are so beleaguered, so distorted, so maligned, hoping that we can detect as youngsters those people who otherwise would become the perpetrators of violence, detect them and prevent yet more of the crimes we've been witnesses to and all of us victims of, it seems far too often during the course of our lifetime.

I support the bill. I applaud the comments of the member for Windsor-Riverside. I don't think anybody has any dispute about the fact, although one can select a particular time frame in which our minds address the issue of violent crime, that it's something we should be conscious of and concerned about on a daily basis.

I do want to recognize that one of our institutional safeguards is the police in our communities. I suppose anybody who's pulled over for a speeding ticket or a seatbelt ticket finds themselves hard done by by the cop who did it, singled out unfairly.

Yet at those points in our lives when we become victims or when our neighbours become victims or our family become victims, we want the biggest, toughest cops in the world to arrive as promptly as possible on the scene -- we do -- and as many as possible, and we want them to do everything that the law would enable them to do to either interrupt the attack or catch the perpetrators and make sure that perpetrators are dealt with in our courts and that the community is protected.

Once again, we support it. Once again, with no great pride -- I don't take any pride in coming from a part of the country, a part of the province, that has collectively suffered, as have other regions -- we're not unique -- but the impact of incredible, inhuman and unspeakable violence against members of our own community.

I say that this impacts and, as I've indicated before, leaves an indelible mark on that community, one that I'm not sure can be erased or relieved promptly. Quite frankly, in the Niagara region it is going to be a considerable period of time, perhaps generations, before the impact of violence in our community and the memory of it and the effect of it has been appropriately erased.

I hope that during weeks of commemoration there's also reflection on the need to act in very practical and meaningful ways, a need to ensure that victims of crime and their families and the survivors of victims of crime have access to growing resources, have access to compensation, as has been said. I understand that with the civil procedures that were simplified in the Victims' Bill of Rights, the sad reality is most criminals can't be called upon to compensate their victims. That means that we, collectively, as a community have to be prepared to compensate victims, monetarily and in every other possible way.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'm pleased to be able to rise today and express my views in support of Bill 155 and in support of the member for Nepean, who is another very bright light in our government.

In most crimes there is at least one victim. In most crimes the entire family is affected, and the family victims are too often the ones who are left drowning in the wake of the rush that we as a society have created in trying to provide assistance to the criminals or to guarantee rights to the criminals, criminals whose crimes have often destroyed the lives of the victims and their families.

Our courts often hear sob story after sob story, rationalization after rationalization, about how violent criminals are not responsible for their actions. It's always somebody else. Somebody else is to blame, whether it's their parents or their teachers or their doctors or their chiropractors or their psychiatrists or the devil, and the bleeding hearts in our society buy this nonsense.

In their desperate rush to defend their criminal defendants, defence lawyers often attempt to convince us that the violent criminal isn't really a violent criminal; they're misunderstood victims. How often do we read in the media of an event, and of course we can quickly forget that event. The media, in their attempt to increase sales or to increase hype, whatever, highlight every minuscule detail of a crime. Again, the families have to go through this over and over again.

I say this because a number of years ago a friend of mine committed suicide. I tortured myself for about two or three years after that, thinking, "What could I have done to prevent that suicide?" I was one of the last people to whom he talked. I realized after a number of years that I couldn't have done anything. These families also go through that. They say, "What could we have done?" and of course they are tortured day after day through the media.

We can't do anything about the media, but we can heighten public awareness. We do have the ability to heighten public awareness, and Bill 155 is a step in that direction. Establishing a week of recognition would be perhaps one of a series of initiatives that we could enact which would heighten public awareness.

One of the things I would like to see is a school curriculum to target some of the root causes of crime, to help young people understand that committing a crime against someone else also scars them, because it reflects on who they are and who they will become as a member of society. We could establish a specific goal in our educational system to help youth understand themselves, understand the type of person they want to become. An important component in that strategy would be to help youth establish for themselves the type of person they do not want to become.

In the primary grades, we could give consideration to children learning about themselves in relation to violence, ie: "What is a good person? What type of a person do I want to become? What are the important similarities between people, what are the important differences between people, and how do our differences benefit each one of us? Why is a violent person violent?" What image do we want to implant in the minds of our youth about violent people? This is all part and parcel of having a week to commemorate the families and the victims of violent crime. It's an educational process.

At the secondary school level we could reinforce what they have learned at the primary school level. "What should I do when I become angry?" That is something we could have at both the primary school and the secondary school levels. "Is there a way that a violent person can be taught to overcome being violent? Why are people violent towards others?" Let's do some analysis on this in the school system part of this week. "What do I think about being violent? How do people overcome being violent?" Students could do essays on this, five- or 10-page essays, in high school. Of course, they can always be taught how to think about how they want other people to treat them.

I want to thank my colleague Mr Baird, the member for Nepean, for his efforts in bringing forth this bill. I believe it's a very positive initiative and I will support it.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm proud and happy to be able to rise and speak to the bill presented by the member for Nepean. Let me say from the very outset that I will certainly be endorsing and supporting this bill because I think it fills the purposes for which it was introduced, and I think they're important purposes.

Let me, though, just outline a little more what I believe a bill such as this should also incorporate. There should be a celebration within the bill, a celebration of the lives of the people who have been taken away from us. Let me relate the Sudbury experience to the members in the House and to the families who are in the gallery today.

In October 1993, a very, very good police officer by the name of Constable Joe MacDonald was gunned down tragically by two hooligans. Joe devoted his life to youth in the Sudbury area. He was a coach at Lasalle and later of the New Sudbury Wildcats. He loved football and he loved children.

Sudbury wanted to know what it could do to celebrate Joe, to remember Joe but to celebrate Joe. Sid Forrester, the long-time coach of the Sudbury Spartans, thought we should start a football league called the Joe MacDonald Youth Football League.

A group of football enthusiasts and coaches -- Frank Pagnucco, Mike Staffen, Al Lekun, Mike Fabilli, Marty Rupnick, John Larsen and my brother, Chris Bartolucci -- came together and worked very closely with the then deputy chief of the regional municipality of Sudbury police force, Dennis O'Neil, worked well with city council, and we ended up with this wonderful league that now has two divisions, for children aged 10 to 15. Every Labour Day we kick off the Joe MacDonald Youth Football League.

We celebrate Joe MacDonald, his life and his contribution from Labour Day until the first week in November when we hold the championship game.

Part of the coaching is to remind the kids who are playing football what Joe MacDonald was all about and why this youth football league was created. Indeed, we don't only commemorate but we celebrate his life. I would suggest to you that 145 kids remembering why they're playing football every Saturday and Sunday, remembering why their parents come out with them, remembering why the camaraderie is found at Lily Creek in the football games is education in itself to remember that the families of victims of violence deserve some form of recognition.

I commemorate with the MacDonald family, with Nancy MacDonald. I remember being a former police commissioner and hiring these young, wonderful people to enforce the law. It is important that this bill passes. It is important that we remember that these victims of violence possess the opportunities for profound, positive influences on the people they impacted upon.

Indeed it's important that we remember the families. It's important that we remember the Rosenfelds, the Mahaffys, all the family members in the gallery today and all those family members who are victims of violence. If that happens, then some day as we continue to strive for what we believe to be a better society, that will come about.

This type of bill is not paying lip-service to it. The member for Nepean and I don't always agree, but on this one we agree. If this week has even a fraction of the impact that the Joe MacDonald Youth Football League has on the community of Sudbury, this bill is very worthwhile, this bill is very necessary and in fact this bill will help in the healing or grieving the families go through. The grieving doesn't stop a week, a year or two years after the violent crime. The grieving continues.

As long as these family members realize that we remember with them and we celebrate the lives that were taken from us, then, ladies and gentlemen who are gathered here this morning, this bill will accomplish the goals that the member for Nepean has set out in presenting Bill 155.

The Acting Speaker: The government has but nine seconds left, so I'm assuming we'll move to the member for Nepean and his reply.

Mr Baird: I want to thank the other members of the House who took the opportunity to speak today and particularly thank for their thoughtful remarks the member for Fort William, who mentioned the importance of anti-violence measures with respect to domestic violence; the member for Durham Centre, who spoke on the bill; the member for Welland-Thorold, who spoke about a zero tolerance for violence, and I certainly share his views in that regard; and particularly the member for Sudbury.

I can think of few tragedies which match the tragedy of a community losing a police officer, someone there to protect the community. We all owe a special debt of gratitude to those victims of violence who serve in the community to protect us all.

I have a quote from a prepared text, some remarks from Debbie Mahaffy this morning which I might add to the record: "A week designated Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week will create an opportunity for specific sharing of information and techniques in assisting victims of crime. There is no one better qualified to teach professionals, citizens of the community than victims themselves.

Elevating the status of victims in the community, in the media and the justice system to a level of equal importance to that of the offender would guarantee that the system itself would be held more accountable to those most affected by crime." That accountability is one that is welcomed by this government.

One of the members opposite mentioned that perhaps a week was insufficient and that we need a week to get the attention of the government. I would simply indicate that we've been privileged to have with us this morning -- normally the cabinet don't show up for private members' hour as a symbol that this is a genuine private members' hour -- the Attorney General, who has been here for the complete hour. I do note and appreciate his attendance this morning. It is our hope that this will be the beginning of a campaign to launch a national victims' bill of rights, a national week of commemoration. I'm pleased that the Attorney General will take that message.

We can go back and forth and talk about what we're doing, but the reality is, we can all do more.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1997

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): I want to thank the members for their cooperation in consideration of having a neophyte in the chair this morning.

Mr Grimmett moved second reading of Bill 154,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences.

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All opposed, say "nay."

I declare the motion carried.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'd ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Baird moved second reading of Bill 155,

An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week.

All those in favour, say "aye."

Opposed?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour? It shall be done.

It being near 12 of the clock and private members' business being finished, this House is adjourned until 1:30.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to use this opportunity to invite all members of the Legislature to TVOntario's sixth annual open house this Saturday, September 20, an event that will allow them to understand just how important TVO is to the people of Ontario.

This is truly a fun event, but it must be said that this year's open house is also being held under a bit of a shadow, the shadow being the government's decision to put TVO under review by the Office of Privatization.

We acknowledge that the government, with its majority, can force this review process to take place. The Ontario Liberal caucus, though, believes that review is wrong and that TVO should remain publicly owned and operated.

But what bothers us, what truly concerns us now, is that Privatization Minister Sampson and Culture Minister Mushinski promised full public consultation before any decision would be made. Yet here we are three months into the process, there has been no consultation done, and as far as we can tell, no consultation is planned.

TVOntario belongs to the people of Ontario and they have a right to a say in its future. The people won't be shut out of the process. A massive petition campaign is now under way, and last week the Wawatay radio network, which uses TVO's signal to provide native-language radio service across northern Ontario, went silent for two days in a moving display of support to draw attention to the concerns about possible privatization.

Minister, the public must have a say. Let the people of Sioux Lookout, Kenora, Fort Frances, Thunder Bay, Geraldton, Sudbury, Schreiber, Terrace Bay, London, Ottawa, Windsor and Toronto tell the people how they feel.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaker, you're going to be as pleased as I am to learn that Welland city council has passed a resolution opposing this government's Bill 136. Welland city council understands that Bill l36 is a direct attack on collective bargaining and the rights of workers across this province, including workers in the community of Welland and across regional Niagara.

Public sector workers and their friends in the private sector understand full well that this government's real agenda is to attack collective bargaining, in fact to destroy collective bargaining here in the province of Ontario, to set workers back 40 and 50 years, to lower wages, and in the course of all that to create yet more unemployment while picking the pockets of the sick, the elderly, youth, students, low-income workers and workers across the board, paying for a phoney tax break, two thirds of which is going to the top 10% of income earners.

As I join CUPE members this evening in previously unheard-of numbers, we'll discover how angry and how resolved these workers are to resist this government, to oppose this government and to send this government into the exile it deserves. People across Niagara, across this province, are not going to tolerate the viciousness of this government's attacks on working people.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I am proud to be able to rise to salute the hundreds of veterans in my community as they join in marking Legion Week next week, September 21 to 27.

The Royal Canadian Legion holds a prominent and special place in the hearts of Canadians, particularly for those whose families have been called on to make personal sacrifices for our country and for our freedom. Yet the work of the members of local Legions has gone far beyond the defence of our country in times of conflict. Over its 72-year history, the Legion has served hundreds of thousands of Canadians through its veterans' and community services. Its ongoing efforts in educating young people about the history of the Legion and its contribution to making Canada what it is today make all of us proud and help in a most meaningful way to pave the road for the Legion's future service.

Throughout its history the Legion has had to cope with changes in its membership, as well as in society at large. The Legion has been breaking new ground in its membership among the children and grandchildren of Canadian veterans.

The record of the Royal Canadian Legion speaks for itself. I know all members of this House join me in wishing all members of the Legion the very best as they mark this Legion Week and set their course of service for the future. They have earned our respect and our sincere thanks.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Grave concerns are being raised in Ottawa-Carleton concerning the ability of the government to honour its commitment that community health services are in place prior to hospital closures. The hospital restructuring commission, in issuing its August 13 report on hospital closures for Ottawa-Carleton, stated explicitly, "Reinvestment in alternative community-based services such as home care and long-term care is essential before hospital restructuring can occur."

It is apparent that the restructuring commission can close hospitals. It is up to the government to make the necessary reinvestments. To date, not all of the $100 million in savings from closing the Grace, Riverside and Elisabeth Bruyère Health Centre have been reinvested in health care in Ottawa-Carleton. Now the Ottawa-Carleton district health council is fearful that what is being reinvested will be too little and too late. For example, the Grace hospital is to stop admitting patients on May 15, 1998, Riverside on May 31, 1998, and the Montfort emergency is to close by March 1998.

The concern expressed by the Ottawa-Carleton district health council, which I share, is that the closure of these services and others will be implemented before the necessary renovations at the General and Queensway-Carleton hospitals are completed, renovations necessary to offset the impact of the planned closures. Further, the reinvestment the government is proposing to make, according to the Ottawa-Carleton district health council, falls far short of providing what the current hospital system now provides.

I would therefore urge the government to rethink its unrealistic time lines and inadequate investment in order to ensure that people's health in Ottawa-Carleton is not endangered during this difficult time of transition.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We're at a very grave moment in the history of Ontario. We have seen for the first time a government that is prepared to provoke public sector workers to the brink of illegal strikes, chaos in our province, services that people won't be able to access, and a government that made a commitment to this Legislature, to the people of the province, to those public sector workers that they would have democratic input into this legislation that will affect their very lives.

In fact, the minister stood in this House and said, "We will have public hearings and we will travel this province." As you know, the minister has completely gone back on her word, the word she provided to this House.

I can't tell you how saddened and angered I am to see a government that would force people to the brink of such precipitous action, people who just want to do their job, provide for their families, who want to provide services. It's a very grave day and it's hard to find anything of humour, but there are some resourceful people out there who can bring humour even to these very difficult situations.

As you know, on September 26 and 27 in North Bay the Days of Action will be taking place, in the Premier's home riding. I want you to know that there's an entrepreneur, a deli up there, Today's Lunch Co of Phil White, who's got a new addition to the menu. It is the Sink Harris Sub. We'll all be there to eat it in North Bay.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise to address the House today regarding Durham region's fifth annual Take Back the Night walk. Take Back the Night was initiated in 1978 in San Francisco when some 5,000 participants from across the United States marched in San Francisco's pornography district. Since then, Take Back the Night has grown into an annual event in many communities across Ontario and North America.

Take Back the Night is an opportunity to educate people and to raise awareness of the issues around violence in our communities. Tonight the Durham region's Take Back the Night walk, organized by the Oshawa-Durham Rape Crisis Centre, will take place in Oshawa beginning at 5:30 at Oshawa city hall and the walk starting at 7 pm. Following the walk, guest speakers, one a young girl, will speak on the impact of violence in their lives.

Take Back the Night is a statement of the commitment towards ending violence against women and children. The recent announcements of a domestic violence court and a victims' crisis assistance referral service being located in Oshawa and other locations in Ontario should assist in the challenge towards ending these crimes, along with my colleague Mr Baird's Bill 155, passing second reading today, the Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week Act.

But we must do more. We must all seek new ways to end violent crime and to support those who have been victimized by crime. I urge all Ontarians to hear the message against violence that Take Back the Night sends out and to apply that message not to just one night but to every night.

MEDIA REPORTING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Not satisfied with the reduction by the media giants in the number of reporters and columnists covering events and issues at Queen's Park and the results of millions of dollars of self-serving, blatantly partisan advertising by the Conservative government, paid for by the taxpayers of this province, the Mike Harris government has reached for a weapon in its arsenal that it has employed with some success in other situations and with other people and organizations -- the act of intimidation.

Members of the news media who dare to present an issue in anything other than glowing terms for the Harris crowd are chastised, criticized or called to account by the taxpayer-paid flacks for the ministers in the right-wing regime of Mike of North Bay.

Such bullying intimidation tactics may work with some health councils, hospitals, boards of education, municipalities or other agencies that rely upon the Mike Harris government for funding and favours, but flacks be warned: It's unlikely to work on the Queen's Park press gallery, who pride themselves on their independence, their objectivity, their persistence and their sense of fair play.

Control of the media and the message may be the goal of the backroom boys in the Harris regime, but no matter how big the bat they wield, they are likely to strike out. You see, you simply cannot intimidate the news media at the Ontario Legislature with whining or whimpering. As the old saying goes in the hallowed halls of the main Legislative Building, "Don't poke the badger."

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On August 16, 1996, a cataclysmic event occurred in the province. It was an event that some people did not hear about, that some people were excited about, that some people were angry about and, unbelievable as it may seem, that some people ignored.

It is not often that we can be precise about what constitutes a defining moment in the history of a province, but I believe that August 16, 1996, was such a moment. Bay Street was ecstatic, Main Street was apprehensive and Wall Street was orgasmic. Finally the Ontario Tories were going to deliver to their friends exactly what their friends wanted.

That defining moment, as I say, was August 16, 1996. But wait a minute. That was over a year ago. How is it that a defining moment that occurred so long ago is still not appreciated by all those Tory supporters out there? Believe me, those sycophants are getting restless. "Where's the meat?" they're asking. If the big event occurred on August 16, 1996, how is it that nothing tangible has resulted from that cataclysmic event? Am I wrong? Was August 16, 1996, not a defining moment in Ontario?

Well, it is time to end the suspense. It's time to remind all the Tory members exactly what happened on that magic day. That was the day Rob Sampson, MPP for Mississauga West, was appointed by Premier Harris as the minister responsible for privatization. While I don't support privatization, I do have to ask you, what does Mr Sampson do for his extravagant salary?

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): York County Hospital joins an impressive list of hospitals in Ontario that now offer magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, services.

MRI is a non-invasive diagnostic technology that provides cross-sectional or three-dimensional images of structures and organs within the body. It provides scans of the head, central nervous system and spine, as well as detailed images of the heart, major blood vessels, blood flow, joints and soft tissues. MRIs can detect brain and spinal diseases, several forms of cancer, musculoskeletal disorders and several cardiovascular conditions.

Canada's first three MRI machines were installed in late 1982 and 1983 at St Joseph's Health Centre in London, University of British Columbia Hospital and Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. In the past, only teaching hospitals could operate MRIs, but several years ago the Ministry of Health changed its policy to allow hospitals to apply for the MRI diagnostic service.

The best way to keep Ontarians healthy is to detect signs of illness early, to act quickly and to prevent problems before they arise. Expansion of MRI services by Ontario's Ministry of Health will ensure residents will not have to endure a long wait to receive vital diagnostic services.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that yesterday the Clerk received the 44th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its adoption.

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

Bill 150,

An Act proclaiming United Empire Loyalists' Day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise today to respond to some of the rhetoric I've heard in the past 24 hours from the union bosses.

In this morning's paper Gord Wilson, the president of the OFL, is quoted as saying, "We consider it a war room exercise." Earl Manners, the head of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation said, "There is a mood in the room that extraordinary actions are going to become necessary." Sid Ryan said, "We have moved people to a war footing and issued a red alert."

This is very strong rhetoric and not, in my opinion, constructive or productive. While I do not agree with these tactics, I understand that Mr Manners and Mr Ryan must get elected and that they believe they must engage in this type of rhetoric to appeal to their constituency. But I'd like to remind this House, and through this House, the taxpayers of this province of some facts. After 10 years of high-taxing and big-spending governments, Ontarians called for change: lower taxes, less government, quality services. They called for change because high taxes, big deficits and big government were not giving them quality services.

To achieve these goals, our government and the broader public sector must engage in new thinking and new approaches to quality service delivery. In the spring of this year, prior to the introduction of Bill 136, we heard from the union movement that they would strongly oppose any legislation that removed successor rights or overrode freely bargained contracting-out restrictions. Despite the specific request for these provisions from the municipal and hospital employer groups, we listened to the workers and agreed to the union request.

After the introduction of the bill by the Minister of Labour, the union bosses insisted on a meeting with the government to discuss further changes beyond the concessions we already gave on successor rights in particular. Minister Witmer offered repeatedly to meet with Gord Wilson, but he refused. In a meeting between Minister Witmer and myself and several union leaders on September 2, we undertook to engage in serious discussions about further amendments to our labour proposal.

On the education front, prior to the introduction of legislation, the Minister of Education's staff engaged in extensive, around-the-clock discussions. Officials in my office also indicated a willingness to talk with representatives from various teachers' federations. The Ontario Teachers' Federation walked away from the table at 9:30 pm, Tuesday, September 9, after three days of around-the-clock discussions with the government.

We have indicated a willingness to continue to talk to both the OFL with respect to Bill 136 and the Ontario Teachers' Federation with respect to the education reform legislation. For political reasons, the union leadership has decided to walk away from these discussions and engage in a war of rhetoric. This is an old-style tactic. They engage in fearmongering and hyperbole to whip up their membership. I think we have demonstrated in the past that that approach with this government is unproductive.

We are engaged in a difficult agenda of change. We are managing this period of change for the long-term benefit of all Ontarians, including those workers and their families in the public sector unions. I do not need to remind this House that it is our commitment to eliminate the job-killing deficit we inherited. We are determined not to leave our children with a crippling debt.

We are determined to deliver quality education for our children. We are introducing province-wide tests, standard report cards, and increasing emphasis on the basics. We will limit class sizes and implement a comprehensive plan to ensure our children can compete with anybody in the world. Next week, the Minister of Education will be introducing a bill to implement the necessary changes to ensure our tax money is spent in the classroom, where it is needed.

By managing this difficult period of change, our goal is to maintain the services taxpayers expect and to enhance the overall quality of life in our health care system, in our education system and in every municipality of this great province. As we have repeatedly indicated, and here I'm quoting from page 20 of the Common Sense Revolution, "We are unconditionally committed to reaching our goals, but we are very open to discussing how we get there."

We were willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the teachers' federations and with the OFL. In fact, that's what we were engaged in, and we are prepared today to continue. However, the union bosses have chosen to leave the negotiating tables and engage in a war of rhetoric. We will not engage in this old-style exercise.

We as a government would have preferred to work with the union leadership to develop alternative approaches to achieving our goals. They have chosen to take another course. That does not change the fact that we have some difficult challenges before us. We want to continue to work with them and with all workers to ensure that all Ontarians continue to receive the quality service they deserve.

The changes that we were prepared to deliver at the negotiating table should not be jeopardized as a result of this most recent flight of rhetoric. Therefore, today the Minister of Labour will announce to the House the changes we were prepared to make at the table. We will remain committed to working with all public service providers in the interest of providing quality service at a reasonable price.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): In the months since the introduction of Bill 136, we have continued to meet with labour unions, municipalities, hospitals and other employers and employees to discuss the best way of ensuring smooth, stable and fair public sector restructuring. Our objectives are simple but firm: providing the necessary tools for restructuring, ensuring a smooth transition, and to be able to deal fairly with employees, both union and non-union, while providing better quality services at less cost to taxpayers.

However, as we said on page 20 of the Common Sense Revolution, "We are unconditionally committed to reaching our goals, but we are very open to discussion as to how we get there."

In the case of Bill 136, public sector employers have shared this government's flexible approach to meeting these objections. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has indicated that it is critical that the two levels of government continually dialogue with each other on where we agree and where further work needs to be done. We are doing this.

Last week, the Ontario Hospital Association wrote saying it would support changes to Bill 136 that respond to union concerns, provided those changes "do not dilute the intent of the bill."

Individual unions as well as the Ontario Federation of Labour have suggested alternative ways of meeting our goals. Mindful that public sector employers have encouraged us to be open to change that addresses union concerns without compromising our objectives, the government intends to introduce a series of amendments to Bill 136. These amendments are the product of our dialogue with the trade union movement. The dialogue has been frank yet fruitful. It has produced a series of amendments that, if adopted by the House, would respond completely to concerns raised by the trade union movement about the contents of Bill 136.

The OFL has told us, "The right to strike is essential to free collective bargaining," and they have assured us that the retention of the right to strike would not jeopardize public service or create instability. Based on our discussion with the union movement, our amendments to Bill 136 would remove proposed restrictions on the right to strike.

Trade unions said that, upon restructuring, they want free collective bargaining for a first collective agreement. Our amendments would provide for this. The first-contract provisions of the Labour