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

December 6, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Dec-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 6 December 2001 Jeudi 6 décembre 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CARLEIGH AND EMILY'S LAW

(EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT -

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE), 2001 /

LOI CARLEIGH ET EMILY DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(CONSEILLER À L'ENFANCE

EN DIFFICULTÉ)

PUPPY MILL BAN AND ANIMAL

CRUELTY PREVENTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES USINES À CHIOTS

ET LA PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

CARLEIGH AND EMILY'S LAW

(EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT -

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE), 2001 /

LOI CARLEIGH ET EMILY DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(CONSEILLER À L'ENFANCE

EN DIFFICULTÉ)

PUPPY MILL BAN AND ANIMAL

CRUELTY PREVENTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES USINES À CHIOTS

ET LA PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

CARLEIGH AND EMILY'S LAW

(EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT -

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE), 2001 /

LOI CARLEIGH ET EMILY DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(CONSEILLER À L'ENFANCE

EN DIFFICULTÉ)

PUPPY MILL BAN AND ANIMAL

CRUELTY PREVENTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES USINES À CHIOTS

ET LA PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ANIMAL CRUELTY

SCHOOL POOLS

CHRISTKINDL MARKET

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 128

HOMELESSNESS

CONSTITUENCY STAFF

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

DON DUSENBURY

SPEAKER'S RULING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMERGENCY READINESS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'ÉTAT DE PRÉPARATION

AUX SITUATIONS D'URGENCE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

PRESS GALLERY CHARITY AUCTION

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ACADEMIC TESTING

INTEGRATED JUSTICE PROJECT

FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA

SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HIGHWAY 407

HAZARDOUS WASTE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

PETITIONS

NURSES

TRANSIT SERVICES

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

CHILD CARE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CHILD CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD CARE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS

D'ACCÈS AUX SOINS COMMUNAUTAIRES

Thursday 6 December 2001 Jeudi 6 décembre 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CARLEIGH AND EMILY'S LAW

(EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT -

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE), 2001 /

LOI CARLEIGH ET EMILY DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(CONSEILLER À L'ENFANCE

EN DIFFICULTÉ)

Mr McMeekin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide for a Special Education Advocate / Projet de loi 114, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en vue de

prévoir un conseiller à l'enfance en difficulté.

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

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Each of us who is privileged with the opportunity to serve the people of Ontario in

this wonderful place gets to see and experience many things. Some of those things touch us deeply. It may be a volunteer doing incredible work to build stronger, healthier communities, like that

young youth champion we were introduced to the other day. I think you know the person I'm speaking about. The young 16-year-old lady who was here had just received the Order of Ontario, had won

several medals at her special games, and had raised, I think, something like a million dollars for the MS Society through her fundraising efforts. Special people. At other times it's a situation

that simply breaks your heart.

Today I rise in the Legislature to speak on Bill 114, subtitled Carleigh and Emily's Law. Let me get something out of the way right up front. Those who know me

best know I'm no saint. From time to time I've been as guilty as anyone of falling into the trap of being a knee-jerk political partisan. I've learned to cope with this place and even enjoy the cut

and thrust of debate that so often characterizes our life and time together. But I've got a confession to make. On most days I would prefer it if we could find ways through select committees and

other vehicles to work together in a bipartisan or tripartisan way to grab hold of the good ideas that all members of this House have from time to time, and use them in the name of the common

good.

It is said that for everything there is a season. I want to suggest this morning that perhaps today is one of those seasons when we should hear and respond to

the challenge to rise above whatever other things may be driving us this morning, and simply look at this bill on its merits.

Bill 114 is a very simple bill. It represents an honest effort on my part to try to point direction rather than fingers, to rise above, if you like, the

sometimes partisan nature of this place in order to do something right and useful.

This bill, if passed, would establish a new position of special education advocate in Ontario. If passed, this advocate would be charged with the responsibility

of investigating and reporting to the Minister of Education on special education matters, including a review of best practices, something the auditor pointed out in his report, and yes, special

education funding, and with the duty of making recommendations to the minister on these important matters. Bill 114 is part of a comprehensive plan, a toolbox if you like, that we can use to ensure

that special-needs students are receiving the supports and services they require. Like baptism, it's a beginning and not an end.

From talking to individual members from all three political persuasions in this House, I know that each and every one of us in the communities we represent

across Ontario sees special-needs students every single day, students who for one reason or another unfortunately seem to be falling through the cracks.

I want to stress that I don't think there's any deliberate effort out there to hurt anybody. It's not like somebody's going out and saying, "How do we make it

tough for kids who have special needs?" That's not happening. It's just that many of these children, through circumstances beyond their control, become the innocent victims of our Ontario education

system, a system that from time to time seems unable to respond to and cope with the demands for specialized services that they place on the system. It's tragic to see and hear the very real

stories of these families struggling as that son or daughter goes without the support and services they need to survive, thrive and learn in our system.

Every member of this House knows very well of the special-needs parents calling their office because their son's or daughter's education supports have been

reduced or, in some cases, eliminated altogether. These are real families with young children who are asking, "Why are my child's needs not being addressed by the Ontario education system?" I think

it's a fair question and, frankly, one that this government and previous governments have had a great deal of difficulty answering.

In my local riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board has many special-needs students who are no longer

receiving the level of support services required to assist them in obtaining a quality education, one that will equip them with the knowledge, skills and tools they will need for later success in

life. These are often students who must cope with the challenges of a developmental disability: Down's syndrome, autism, severe behavioural problems, medical vulnerability, deafness or blindness.

They are very vulnerable students in need of special assistance and program supports to cope while trying to fit into his or her learning environment.

One area of great concern at the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board is what appears to be a lack of funding for special-education students who require

help. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board's professional staff, just for the record, has spent over 5,500 hours meeting with families and other professionals, assessing and completing

mandatory ministry forms. This has cost local taxpayers thousands of dollars.

After all is said and done, unfortunately, like so many other things in life, there's more said than there is done. They identified over 1,000 young people in

need of an education assistant, but only had enough funds to front 431 of these assistants to help with students in need. That means many of the students have had their time and the time of their

education assistants cut, even though their circumstances haven't changed. I want to stress this fact to all members at this point, because it is the exact reason why a special-education advocate

is so drastically needed. We have special-education students whose needs have not changed, but we have a system that just seems incapable of responding to those needs.

Like other boards in Ontario, the Hamilton board has seen the number of students who require this assistance go up every single year. In fact, we're graduating

fewer students with special needs than we are receiving students with special needs each year. The lack of education assistant support has left principals and teachers scrambling to make do with an

ever decreasing amount of support that they're able to provide in their schools. Principals are now stuck and have to try to figure out how best to ration support. So often they're left asking the

question, "How much further can we dilute the soup before it's no longer nutritious?"

The problem goes deeper than just education assistants. The Hamilton board has had to close 20 special-education classes, some of which involved speech and

language pathologists. There are very long waiting lists for many of these programs. I want to suggest this isn't a unique situation only to Hamilton. We've heard comments from Ottawa, Toronto and

other places as well.

Mr Speaker, perhaps you're aware that Bill 114 is named after two young girls in Waterdown, Carleigh Dunbar and Emily Carey, who with their mothers have fought a

very courageous fight to advance special-education issues in the Hamilton area. Fortunately, together with some members opposite, we were able to advocate for Carleigh and Emily. But there's

something that haunts me to this very day. It's the realization that, in all likelihood, being able to get the assistance for Carleigh and Emily was received at the expense of somebody else not

getting the help they needed. That's not right. Your special-education needs ought not to be contingent on whether you've got an MPP to go to bat for you, somebody who can pull political strings.

It ought to be more than that.

I'm a big believer in case-to-cause advocacy. I'd like to see the benefits of something accrue to all children and people in this province. I'd like to see

somebody review best practices, take an independent overview, someone who can point direction rather than fingers. To be perfectly blunt, I think we need some help, and we need it soon, to get our

system shortfalls identified and responded to. We need to make sure there are no more Carleighs and Emilys, who through no fault of their own fall between the cracks. We certainly can't go wrong

with taking a step that can only pay great social and personal dividends down the way.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): We will be supporting this. We feel this is a very important bill for many children and many families who,

through no fault of their own, of course, through accident of birth, through accidents, through any of life's travails, find themselves with children, with young adults, who need special education,

who are special-needs people and who are people whom society should be doing everything possible to help.

Parents always want the best for their children. I don't believe I've ever met a parent who does not want the best for their children. Every parent wants

something more for their own children than they had themselves. They want a better education, they want a better opportunity in life, they want better housing -- they want everything for their

children that they'd either had themselves or that they wish they'd had. Oftentimes those same parents do not have the knowledge or the wherewithal to provided it, and oftentimes they do not have

the money, but the need still remains. People come from all over the world to Canada because it's a land of opportunity. They come from all over the world, not always for what will be the best for

themselves, but almost exclusively for the dream of what will be the best for their children.

Those children often are the ones who are the true beneficiaries of Canadian citizenship, the true beneficiaries of their parents' insight. What is needed, both

for new immigrants and for those who are born here, is for a government to be compassionate, it's for an education system to work. What is needed is a champion for those who are unable to look

at this time always to act in the best interests of their children. They want the best. The best may be there and it may be available, but they don't know how to access it.

In the last few weeks in Beaches-East York there has been much debate, not particularly about this bill but about potential school closings. The parents are

often --

Interjection.

Mr Prue: These are the Catholic school closings this time; the public school's already gone through its own trauma. There's a whole debate going

on there about how the parents can best save the schools, how the parents can best try to help their children so they don't have to get on buses every day, how the parents can best do 100 things to

try to give the opportunity for their children to have the kind of education they had or in fact the kind they wanted. Tonight, of course, the Catholic school board of Toronto will be meeting to

decide the fate of many of those schools.

The parents have called my office, have called the office of the school trustees, have called many things, because they do not understand how the bureaucracy of

the system works. These are parents with children, some of whom have special needs but most of them who do not, parents who still want the very best for their children. They want to be able to

understand what is happening, they want to be able to influence what is happening, they want to change decisions that they think in the long term will be harmful for their children, be that busing,

be that special education. They need an advocate who understands and can work through a bureaucratic system, which to many people is amazingly difficult.

Having been a former bureaucrat myself for some 20 years with the immigration department, and having been a politician for the last 13-plus years, both in a

municipal government and now more recently here at the province, I will tell that you one of the most difficult jobs any person, any citizen, can possibly have is trying to wind his or her way

through the maze of bureaucracy that exists at all levels of government. The maze of bureaucracy that is there in education is absolutely no different. They need an advocate who understands the

programs that are available; they need an advocate who knows how to work through the system and find out the programs that are best available for the individual student; and they need an advocate

who will provide them with advice on training that the parents in fact may need in order to better understand the needs of their own children, better understand how they can plug into the system

and help them to read and write better, plug into the system and help them to get the necessary tools or aids to make their life at school better, and to give them the encouragement that they can

go on.

There are many special-needs people in our society who have proven to have done wonderful things once given an opportunity and a few basic tools so that they

could not only compete with others who do not have special needs but use their unique abilities in ways that many of us could not have foreseen. We saw the other night, those of us who were

privileged enough to go to the awards ceremony, the investiture of the Order of Ontario, a remarkable young woman who has already been spoken of, a remarkable young woman who has represented Canada

at the Special Olympics, who has done fundraising work. She was but one of many recipients. I draw the attention of the members of this House to other people you may know as well.

I still have frequent contact with, and hold in some esteem and awe, Gary Malkowski, who was a man who was born deaf and who is, of course, to this day

profoundly deaf. I hold him in awe because of his ability to communicate once he had the special tools and the skills made available to him as a student, who was able to communicate in this

Legislature, who was able to communicate with the people of his riding, who was able to articulate and advocate for the needs of special individuals. He once told me that when he was a young man

his goal was to be a janitor. He didn't really know much else or figure out much else that he would be able to do, and he wanted to be a janitor. It was only some time later, learning American Sign

Language, going to study at university, understanding the unique and great gifts that he had, that he was able to profoundly change his life and to make an enormous contribution to this Legislature

and the people of this province. He went on after politics and continues to work for the Canadian Hearing Society in an executive position, and has done remarkable work for the deaf community and

all of the community of Ontario. That is a man who had some special needs that were met.

But for every Gary Malkowski there are others whose special needs are not being met. They need an advocate. They need someone who understands and can plug into

the program. They need an advocate, someone who can speak on their behalf. They need an advocate to explain to people like Gary Malkowski's parents that he need not be a janitor -- nothing wrong

with being a janitor, but that if he had other goals, those goals could be met and that they had a role in inspiring him and supporting him to meet those goals.

I remember also a colleague in university. She was a year behind me, but she did share a class with me on one occasion. She was both deaf and blind. Every day

she came to the class with a person who signed on her palms and made her understand what the class was. She had been trained to use a typewriter, she had been trained to communicate through her

interpreter, and she came to the classes with us with her written notes, she came to the classes and the tutorials and explained what she had learned. She graduated a year after me from the

University of Toronto, the first deaf-blind graduate in the history of the university. She went on to do some remarkable work on behalf of the people of Ontario. Unfortunately, she died a very

young death. But I remember her and the opportunity that was available to her and the fact that she was able to do that with the help of people who had advocated on her behalf, who were there and

prepared to help her to learn to work and then to make the remarkable contribution that she did during her all too brief and short life.

We are here today to support this motion because we believe that special-needs young people need an advocate. But more importantly, we believe that their parents

also need an advocate to try to get that which is best for them. There are all too many people on the waiting lists. There are all too many people waiting for special-needs education. There are too

many in a province as rich as this province. There are too many in a country as rich as this country. Every time we fail one of those special-needs students, we fail ourselves as a society. We fail

ourselves because they do not have the full potential to offer what they may offer. They do not have the full potential to advocate, to work at the Special Olympics, and to come back and advocate

for all people, to make Canada proud. We fail because we do not have other people like Gary Malkowski in this House, who, with a little training and a little help, would be able to make remarkable

contributions. We fail because, as a society, we are poorer without their contributions.

An advocate will make sure that doesn't happen. An advocate will be something like an auditor -- and I don't want to scare the members opposite. An advocate will

be somebody who will stand up and speak, and say that the system is not working -- the system that is supposed to work -- will point out those things that are wrong. He or she will be able to

articulate and study and know where improvements can be made. All members of the House would be able to turn to them for advice. The staff would be able to phone them when constituents came in

looking for help for their special-needs students.

To my mind, this is one of the best things we can possibly do in the education program, to look after those students who need that extra little bit of help. For

years, school boards across this province have been giving a little bit extra to special-needs schools, a little bit extra to schools in areas that have lower socio-economic status and where the

students need a little bit more one-on-one counselling, or where the educational grades haven't been as good as in some middle-class schools. The province and the school boards have made great

efforts to provide every child with an opportunity. This is but one more means to provide that opportunity, and to do it well. It is but one more means to take that large list that exists for

special education students, and to narrow it down and focus it, and to make sure that the problem the student is encountering is remedied, to make sure that it does not recur, to make sure that the

opportunity exists for each and every one of them to be exactly who they can be, the best they can be -- and proud of the education system, proud of the government of Ontario, and proud of their

families -- that they have been able to attain a goal which only a generation or two generations ago or three generations ago would have been impossible. That is what we must do.

We should not stand in the way of what, I think, is an excellent bill, proposed by my colleague here, that will help every single child in this province.

Mr McMeekin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd be sadly out of place if I didn't take a moment to introduce Linda Carey and Karen Dunbar, the

inspiration for the bill. Linda is Emily's mother, and Karen is Carleigh's mom. Welcome. You've been a real inspiration.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this morning to say a few words on Bill 114, Carleigh and Emily's Law. I thank the member

for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot for his initiative in what is intended to improve special education. I'll be sharing my time this morning with the members for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and

for Kitchener Centre.

Specifically, the bill recommends the creation of a special education advocate who would advise and assist parents and guardians of students with special needs,

investigate and report to the minister on matters related to special education, and advise the minister on special education programming, services and funding.

Our response to this bill is that it is not helpful. It merely duplicates the expert advice already in place in the system to support both the ministry and the

school boards.

There are a number of reasons that the bill does not deserve the support of this House, and I will be detailing them. In addition, I want to describe for members

the impressive strides our government has been making to improve the quality of special-education programs and services throughout our province.

Our government's education reforms have a simple and clear goal: it's a provincial education system that is focused on student achievement and on giving our

students the best education possible. We are building a system with higher standards that has the will and capacity to measure its effectiveness, assess its success and take action to improve.

This vision of a modern and capable education system includes students with special needs. That is why we have taken a number of important steps to protect and

increase funding for special education, to build consistent, province-wide standards for special education, and to improve accountability for special-education programming to parents.

There are approximately 193,000 students with special needs in our province. Our government believes they deserve the same opportunities to learn, grow and reach

their full potential as all other students. We fully recognize that many special-needs students face significant challenges and that that their parents only want the best for their children.

All school boards are required by the Education Act to provide special-education programs and services to students who have been identified as exceptional

pupils. This requirement also extends to pupils who attend school earlier than age six and to students with special needs up to the age of 21.

When our government began its first mandate, we quickly became aware of a number of important issues in special education that had to be addressed.

We knew that the involvement of parents in their child's education makes a major contribution to learning and achievement. Yet parents of students with special

needs told us they were often frustrated by the lack of a voice and a role in making decisions about special education for their children.

We found that special-education students' needs were not being addressed in a consistent manner throughout our province. The problem was particularly apparent

when a student moved.

We had a funding system that provided funding for special education but didn't make school boards accountable for spending that funding on special-education

programs and services.

In addition, the old approach to funding did not attempt to match funding to need. It did not respond to the needs of students who required high-cost specialized

equipment or intensive classroom support.

In our first term, we made significant changes to special education to address these issues.

We started by giving parents a legal right to participate in all meetings, discussions and decisions about the identification of their child as a

special-education student.

In addition, we introduced individual education plans as the centrepiece of each child's special-education program. The IEP is the key to an effective

special-education program because it describes the individual student's strengths and needs, expectations for the current year, and the programs and services that will be provided to help the

student reach his or her goals. We also provided parents with the right to provide input into this plan.

We introduced protected funding for special education for the first time in Ontario. School boards can now spend their special-education funding only on

special-education funding and programs.

We set up a two-part special-education grant that matches funding to need. First, there is general special education funding based on each school board's total

enrolment. Second, there is intensive support funding for students who need a relatively high level of specialized programs and services.

Following the introduction of these changes, the government monitored their implementation carefully. Members of the minister's special education advisory

committee and local special education advisory committees provided their advice. What we found was that parents were not satisfied with the support their children were receiving through special

education. They told us that further changes were required to ensure that their wishes were respected, and that we needed to hold boards accountable for following the regulations and meeting the

needs of exceptional students.

As a result of the advice we received from parents, in early 2000 the minister announced a three-year plan for improvements to special education. The focus of

this plan included greater accountability to parents, the development of province-wide standards for special-education programs and services, and increased funding. I am pleased to advise members

that we have been making significant progress towards all of these goals.

Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity this morning and pass it over to the member.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'm not sure if I need to say this, but I'll be sharing my time with the member for Brant.

It's almost a shame, isn't it, Mr McMeekin, that we need this bill. We shouldn't need a bill to advocate for the weakest in our societies. That is the Canadian

way. That is what makes us unique in the world. And for us now to have to bring this important bill in is an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment to us as Canadians, as Ontarians, as educators, and

definitely as parliamentarians.

The good member opposite from Simcoe North talked about the old approach versus the new approach. I was there during the old approach and I was there during the

new approach, and I can tell you, the new approach is why I am here. The reason why I came here is because of what you did to special education.

As I've said many times before, I worked with special-needs kids as the Hamilton board's chief psychologist and I saw special education decimated under this

government. I am not saying that you purposely got up every morning and said, "Let's see how we will attack the weakest in society." No. I know that you have good intentions. All I'm saying is,

your plan didn't work, isn't working and won't work, and you need to listen to the good member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot. You need to listen to the parents who are in the galleries.

You need to listen to, I'm sure, the hundreds of letters you're getting in your constituencies. I get them and all our colleagues get them.

When I was chief psychologist, we saw children within three months -- children with learning disabilities, children with behavioural problems, children with

emotional problems. Within three months we were able to see these kids; within six months able to have a program in place. When I left in 1999, the waiting list was one year. I was being influenced

to instill a moratorium on the waiting list and I refused. Sadly, the new regime at the Hamilton board did institute a moratorium, which means that parents whose children have difficulties can't

even get a psychological assessment to pinpoint the reasons for those difficulties. They can't even do that. Why is that? Because the waiting list would have been two years and it looked bad.

What I say is, let the waiting list be what it is. How else are you going to show this government that there's a need?

The member opposite talked about the old approach versus the new approach and he made it sound like this government discovered IEPs, the individual education

plans. They've been there for 20 years. It was the good Progressive Conservative government of Premier Davis that instituted that over 20 years ago.

He talked about the advisory groups that they have put into place. Those advisory groups have been there for 20 years. It is those advisory groups that are

saying to us that it's not working.

I have three constituents' children who I am sure would like an advocate. Bryan Woods is a speech and language disabled child who has Tourette's syndrome and

ADHD and, due to the new criteria, the new approach of ISA funding, is no longer eligible for an educational assistant. He once had one-on-one educational assistant support. Last year, he had

one-on-one for half days. This year, he has a tiny bit of it only when he visits the comprehensive classroom, and he's failing badly for the first time since before his identification. The new

ministry criteria for ISA funding severely restricts children like Bryan from accessing the extra necessary assistance.

Laura Zaffiro-Smith has an autistic child in kindergarten. He requires major assistance with occupational therapy. Due to cutbacks in funding to CCACs, regular

systematic occupational therapy is not available. Finally, in November, after a lot of advocacy, Mr McMeekin, some schools on the east mountain were allotted a minimum of OT time. To make a long

story short, her little five-year-old gets OT help once a month. If it wasn't so serious, it would be a joke. Once a month. Hamilton is a very high-need area. The constituent knows of unequal

funding across the province in special ed and feels that funding should be in line with the needs in any particular area.

Then there's Kelly and her son Brett. He's 15 but his mental age is 10. He has severe mental and emotional problems. He's not attending school since there

isn't an appropriate program. I have a 10-year-old. I can't imagine this 10-year-old not attending school, but he's not attending school. There isn't a program. We used to have programs in the

Hamilton board for kids like this: hard-to-serve kids. We don't now. They were cut with this government. He is medicated with very potent drugs to control his mental illness episodes. He has side

effects, severe incontinence problems, and there's no respite available for his mother. He's on a waiting list for assessment for an alternative school placement, and the waiting list is over two

years long. He's at home alone when his mother works part-time. These are serious social problems.

These three kids came to my attention in November, last month. We could talk for hours here about the kids who need help.

Theoretically, we have advocates within the school system for special ed children. They're the special-ed consultants and the psychologists, the speech and

language pathologists. But they don't have a voice. They go to their superiors within the board and the superiors say, "Sorry, there's no money." They go to their MPP. We write you letters. We

write the minister letters. We bring it up here in the Legislature. And finally, maybe, one or two children out of 50 that come to our attention may get the help after a lot of political pressure.

Think of the taxpayers' expense just for that process. Wouldn't it be easier to put that funding back into special education?

I agree with the member from Beaches and I agree with my good colleague from Ancaster that we as Canadians definitely need to look at this and fulfill our

obligation to the weakest in society. It is embarrassing, but at the same time I have faith in my colleagues, I have faith in the system and I have faith in democracy that at the next election the

people will see what is truly important and should be truly important in Ontario and will elect a government that cares for the weakest. Because when we care for the weakest, that is truly when we

have progress in this province.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I am very privileged and honoured to speak to Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide for a Special

Education Advocate.

I want to thank the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot for choosing very carefully in his private member's time -- and I want to reiterate

"private member's time" -- to tackle this issue in a very non-partisan and very caring way. My seatmate is to be congratulated for this gesture. It's not just a gesture, and I want to make sure

that's understood. This isn't a symbolic motion by the member. This is a passionate plea for assistance for those students who, through no fault of their own, have been left behind.

Quite frankly, I want to talk a little bit about what was mentioned by the member for Simcoe North. My disappointment is not just in him but in the fact that I

think, by the way he spoke, he was speaking for the entire party on a private member's issue, and unfortunately he forgot to mention that this province has an Ombudsman, this province has an

auditor, this province has, through their design, a Red Tape Commission to make sure things are done in a proper way. It's really unfortunate to now say, in their logic, that there need not be an

auditor of some sort to ensure the delivery of a system for those students who need that special help, who through no fault of their own require the levelling of the playing field for their

educational purposes.

This request for an advocate is absolutely visionary to ensure that people across this country get the message loud and clear that Ontario cares for those

children. Quite frankly, we have heard from OSSTF, we've heard from OECTA, we've heard from school boards, we've heard from thousands of parents across this province responding to my colleague's

bill saying thank you, because there's a trap here. They're falling into this trap, and you have not provided them any way to get out. Why should a parent have to come to a legislator in the

province of Ontario to seek help for their child inside a system that already exists? It's because of the bumbling of special education.

Why do I say that? In 1998 and 1999, I was the principal of an elementary school. In 1998, I went through the process for the ISA grant structure. I received

two special assistants, two EAs, in my school to assist two students. The following year the ISA structure was completely revamped. What did this government do to assist those students? They raised

the bar on the ISA grant structure so that those same students who received help -- I had to tell those parents with heads in their hands and crying that they couldn't have that EA help any more.

Why? Because they raised the bar, and they had to have that much more difficulty in their structure.

Those two students I received help for the previous year had advanced a year and a half in grade level. Guess what happened to them the following year with no

assistance? They went behind a year and a half. Quite frankly I was disgusted to think that this government would look at, "How do I save money on the backs of those children?" They implemented the

system, and I compliment them for doing that, because it did focus on the kids. But when they discovered it was going to cost them too much money to provide that help, they had to come up with a

system that said, "No more. We can't give you any more money. As a matter of fact, we've got to cut down on the amount."

This bill should be, must be, supported by this Legislature in order to ensure that the parents have a place to go, that the students have a place to go, that

the school board has a place to go and the government has a place to go, to rely on the fact that they are doing the right thing. I support this member wholeheartedly, and I beg and plead with the

members on the other side: don't play the game of how much money you've spent and how great the special-ed system is, because it isn't working. They're telling you it's not working. So please,

please pay attention to this bill. It's the right thing to do.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It's a pleasure to join this debate today, because finally for many people around the province, for

many parents and most importantly for many kids, there is a ray of hope after five years of neglect by the government; after five years of a problem that is governmental in a way I have not seen

problems in many years, a tying up of the most intimate personal attributes of some of these children in bureaucratic paperwork and procedures in a whole Soviet-style approach that denies the very

essence of what these children are and what they need.

This is about special-needs children. It's about the kids who are most vulnerable in our education system. What the government has done -- and I guess at this

point, especially in private members' hour, we don't care whether it was deliberate -- is to make these children be evaluated four times in the last five years, using huge amounts of resources that

can be quantified at about $85 million a year in teacher time alone, not counting the medical specialists on OHIP and on private fee to parents, who are being used to do assessments, so that this

government can have a warehouse full of paperwork to look over the shoulders of the special-needs teachers, the trustees and the boards around this province, but to no end. Every single year this

paperwork has been done -- this huge amount of paperwork occasioned by this government's requirements -- they don't even look at this paperwork. They sample it, and at the end of the day they don't

even use this paperwork to help these kids. Instead we have kids out there who need someone to help them.

We say to the members opposite: cancel the paperwork and start fixing this problem. This bill we have today, Bill 114, Emily and Carleigh's bill, is an example

of what could be done as a beginning, not as total solution. There are many more things we need to do to live up to the implicit promise we make to vulnerable kids in this province that they will

be treated with the same kind of respect as other kids. There are members on all sides of this House who know what I mean. They've sat across from these families. They may even know some of these

families. They may be part of some of these families.

I was in Windsor last week in a room full of them to hear them tell me and tell others about these children who were successful one year ago, two years ago or

three years ago. These children with autism, with incredible challenges in their lives, were working successfully in their environments, and those supports had been taken away from them. The idea

of an auditor is simply to start putting us on our marks. We simply cannot be in a position, even if it is inadvertent -- this morning we offer the government the possibility that this isn't

something they planned just to cut money; we know the directors of education said $300 million was taken out of special education when the government took it over.

More relevant today is whether there's an intent in the House to do something that is better for these children. There's something we can do about the anxiety

and the frustration parents are feeling. Stop labelling their children by their negative deficits. Stop calling them things that I think we can't even say in public conversation any more, that have

to go down on forms for the government, rather than an effort being made to put as much resources as possible to helping people. The current rules would have us stop helping children with special

needs, with reading problems, with medical problems as soon as they improve. It doesn't make any sense. An auditor -- any fair-minded person who looked at that and had the power to do something

about it -- could fix this for those children.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to join in the debate with respect to the bill brought forth by the member.

Certainly there's a lot style to this bill and very little substance.

I'll tell you this: the province has done a lot of work with respect to special education, not only in terms of funding but also in terms of standards across

the province, to make sure that special education is implemented across this province with respect to fair standards that respond to the need for special education. The ministry has implemented

those standards with special advisory education committees working with parents and school boards.

The bottom line here is accountability. What I think the member is proposing here is a school board czar. They're saying there's a need for parents to have a

place to go, for boards to go and for the ministry to go. What system do we have in place right now? As far as I'm concerned as the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, in terms of working with the

education partners, we have a system that's set up, in place, and I have confidence the school boards are doing their job. They're also part of the implementation process with respect to these

standards. The parents have a place to go. In terms of the situations I have dealt with, they deal with the principal, the superintendent, the director. If that doesn't satisfy them, they deal with

a trustee. That's the process that's in place.

The member is not proposing a solution here. He's basically setting up what he considers, and what I can see is an adversarial situation. He's talking about

investigating and reporting, he's talking about recommendations to the minister, and then he's also talking about advising and assisting the parents and guardians of the pupils in special-education

matters. How much of a bureaucracy are we going to create, in addition to the ministry, in addition to the regional offices the ministry has, and in addition to what we have with respect to the

school boards, to actually implement what the member is talking about?

He's talking about, in a singular sense, a special-education advocate. There is nothing singular about this. When you look at what is required here, at what

they're proposing this individual will be, this individual is going to stand above the Ministry of Education. This is a school board czar. It's not addressing the needs and the concerns parents

have with respect to special education.

The funding formula: this is the first government that has basically set forth in very clear terms what the board's responsibilities are in terms of protecting

funding for special education. What they're doing here is they have to spend the money for special education -- it's very clearly set out -- on special-education programs and services. I understand

that in the current fiscal year, school boards are receiving in excess of $1.37 billion for special-education programs and services. That's an increase of 17% since 1998. As well, boards have been

given flexibility to use $360 million in increased funding to address local priorities, which would include cost pressures related to providing support to students with special needs.

In addition, the minister has committed to continue refining the funding mechanism. That's what's been going on ever since this funding formula has been

brought in: refining, dealing with the partners and trying to make sure the money goes to the places it's needed. What we want to do and what the funding formula is set up to do is to provide fair

resources to school boards for the delivery of special-education programs and services to students, including all students with high levels of need.

What is being asked for here today is to set up a special education advocate. Let's not misrepresent what this can actually accomplish. This is not going to

solve what parents need in dealing with their boards. The boards are responsive to the parents in terms of what their concerns are with respect to this. We have given the school boards the

responsibility to implement and make sure that the special-education programs and services are provided to their respective school boards --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): But you didn't give them the money.

Mr Tascona: They have been given the money -- and to make sure that school boards are not taking money out of special education. That's a very

firm part of the special-education funding formula.

Formerly, I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education. We were dealing at that time with bringing standards across the province so there were

fair services provided to all school boards. We have set up a special education advisory committee that works with parents and the boards in implementing what is important with respect to these

standards, and getting more ideas. So this is not a fixed situation; it's a fluid situation -- I think the member opposite recognizes that -- in terms of refining the funding formula and looking at

what is needed in special education. That's why the standards were brought in, to deal with this situation.

The point of this is that what's being proposed here today is not a solution. It's not a solution for parents who have concerns with what is going on with

their children. What's important is for parents to recognize that the relationship they have with their school board is a very important one in terms of what they can have to accomplish that.

Otherwise, why do we have school boards? This is basically a shot across the bow, saying, "School boards are not doing their job. They're not the vehicles to provide it." I can't interpret this in

any other way, because they're basically saying, "Set up a school board czar above the Minister of Education and above the school boards and this person is going to have all the powers necessary to

deal with special education problems."

That's just not going to be fair and is not going to be the reality of how this will be dealt with. The province has set up standards for special education.

The province has set up a funding formula for special education. They have a system in terms of delivering special education, and that's through school boards.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I rise to address the specific provisions of the bill. The bill calls for the creation of a special

education advocate. We've heard that before. If this bill were to be adopted, the special education advocate would have to investigate and report to the minister, make recommendations on program

changes, funding and services, and would advise and assist parents with special-needs children. There are significant problems with this. The Minister of Education already has in place a number of

bodies with clear mandates to provide advice. The proposed role and function of the special education advocate would duplicate the roles and responsibilities of these bodies.

First of all, the Minister's Advisory Council on Special Education is mandated by order in council to meet three times a year to provide advice on special

education policy, programs and funding. The council is made up of representatives from parent groups, professional groups and the education sector. It responds to ministry proposals and provides

advice to the minister on a variety of special education issues.

Secondly, there are special education advisory committees, mandated through regulation 464/98 to provide advice to every school board in the province on any

matter concerning the establishment, development and delivery of special-education programs and services. They provide information to parents as requested and participate in the board's planning

and budgetary processes.

Next we have school councils. They provide an avenue for parents to provide advice to principals and school boards concerning education in their own schools.

This may include advice about special education, to the extent that it's offered in and impacts on the schools.

Finally, there is the restructured Ontario Parent Council. It now includes regional representatives of school councils, providing school councils with a voice

at the provincial level. The Ontario Parent Council continues to advise the Minister of Education on issues that concern the parents of elementary and secondary school students in Ontario.

I think that's a pretty impressive list of advisory bodies. Those four advisory bodies were either established by this government or have had their mandates

significantly strengthened by this government. I believe it's difficult to mount an argument that the special education advocate is needed because there are no avenues for parents' voices to be

heard, as the member would like us to believe.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr McMeekin: The only people who aren't impressed are the parents of special-needs kids who see their children falling between the cracks. I'm

not advocating any school board czar here. In fact, I'm pleased to report that at least half a dozen school boards in the last week have, by resolution, actually endorsed this option. If they were

fearful, unlike the government, they wouldn't be doing that sort of endorsation.

I want to be clear here: whatever failures exist, no one's guilty but we are all responsible. This bill simply attempts to put in place a process that would

enable those who really care about the special needs and equal opportunities for our kids to be able to share their dreams together, to be able to celebrate, to find a way to rise above the

fragmented structure that the member opposite was describing, to celebrate and to share best practices and to commit to working together to point direction rather than fingers.

Do you know what happens right now? The school boards say, "We don't get enough money." The minister says, "Oh sure you do." Then you send it off to a whole

fragmented group of so-called referees who don't have the power to implement any change anyway. This bill would give somebody oversight responsibilities. I would think only a government with the

wrong look in its eyes would fear putting someone in place to supplement, to augment, what they want to believe is a system on the verge of being flawless. Why would a government fear putting

somebody in place to work with all those who share the dream of an Ontario where everyone could stand and grow? I just can't understand why members opposite wouldn't support it.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on this ballot item. I will place the questions needed to dispose of this

item at 12 o'clock.

PUPPY MILL BAN AND ANIMAL

CRUELTY PREVENTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES USINES À CHIOTS

ET LA PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

Mr Colle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to ban puppy mills and other cruel animal-breeding activities and to protect animals bred for commercial sale from abuse by amending the

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 100, Loi visant à interdire les usines à chiots et autres activités relatives à l'élevage qui

sont cruelles et à protéger des mauvais traitements les animaux élevés à des fins commerciales en modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de

l'Ontario.

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

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I appreciate that, Mr Speaker.

As you know, over the last six months or so, it has been brought to our attention that across Ontario there are individuals who, for profit, are systematically

abusing defenceless animals and are doing it essentially in 400 different locations that are known across Ontario. These locations are called "puppy mills." If I could read from an

article from the

North York Mirror of December 5, by Lorraine Houston, it defines this practice for everybody out there:

"Puppy mills are a multimillion-dollar business in Canada. They are breeding operations where dogs are bred for financial gain under substandard conditions.

These so-called businesses excel in assembly line puppy production. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. They have little or no regard for the welfare of the puppies."

This is an attempt, hopefully, by this Legislature to put an end to these practices, which are proliferating for profit right across this province.

I would like to first of all thank all the people across Ontario who have come to the aid of these defenceless companion animals and have signed petitions.

I've got over 15,000 citizens who have signed petitions, all the way from Thunder Bay to Cornwall to Kingston. They have written letters, e-mailed, saying, "Please do something. Enough is enough.

These people have to be put out of business."

As you know, Mr Speaker, the famous case north of Toronto, the Misener case -- this despicable group of individuals has been in this business of puppy mills

going back to 1964, repeat offenders who are making money off these defenceless companion pets.

I would like to thank my colleague Jim Bradley, who saw the urgency of this and allowed me to bring my bill forward and switch places for this bill to come

here today. I'd really like to thank him for sacrificing his time slot. I'd also like to thank the work that my colleague Sandra Pupatello has done in Windsor, raising awareness about puppy mills

in Windsor -- certainly Dominic Agostino has done the same thing in Hamilton -- and all the members of both sides of the House who care deeply about stopping this incredibly inhumane so-called

business activity.

What my bill attempts to do is strengthen outdated and very weak provincial laws that exist. The provincial laws that are on the books don't even give the

humane societies or the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals the ability to inspect one of these premises. They have to get a warrant to do so. This is one of the reasons why I put in

my bill that an officer of a humane society or of the SPCA should have the right to inspect one of these business operations and certainly be able to fine them and close them down. Right now, they

do not even have the right to enter the premises where these business activities are going on. That is uncalled for.

These premises are usually known, because in this province we've got a great number of reputable, excellent breeders and kennels that love their animals.

They're sensitive people. These are the good people we don't want to go after. We want to go after these mercenaries who are operating, basically selling dogs at the roadside, selling them in

newspaper ads and sometimes, sadly enough, through pet stores. That's why in my bill I'm also saying not only to fine the puppy mill operators $50,000 if they're found to be doing this practice,

but also if a pet store knowingly and willingly sells a pet from a puppy mill, because that also puts an onus on them that, before they sell pets, they make sure the animals are well taken care of

and don't come from these puppy mills. Sad to say, right now many of these pets you buy in pet stores have no guarantee that they don't come from a puppy mill. In my bill, I'm also saying you have

to let the pet store owners know they could be fined if they collaborate with these puppy mill operators.

Also in my bill, I ask for some licensing to be done of breeders. Essentially, it would be a simple process, that if you allow the SPCA or the humane society

to come to your place of business to make sure you have a clean, hygienic operation, you have veterinary support, you are a reputable business operation, on that inspection you could get a licence.

Therefore, you could have a licence posted in your place of operation that shows the customers, potential purchasers of a pet, that you've been inspected. Right now, anybody can claim to be a

breeder. You don't need a licence to be a breeder in Ontario. There are no provincial laws governing the breeding of pets in this province. The laws that are there say that you can operate without

any licence. So I'm saying there should be a licence provincially, that you pay every 10 years or whatever, that at least you've been inspected and are subject to inspection if there's a complaint,

like any other licence.

In this province, we license dogs. If you own a dog, you have to have a licence. But if you're a breeder of dogs, you don't need a licence. I think good

breeders would want to support a licence, because they are the ones who are good business people. They're not out to harm their animals as these puppy mill operators are. We also regulate, license

and inspect restaurants. We inspect cars through the Drive Clean program. We inspect workplaces. We have health inspectors and building inspectors. Yet there are no inspectors in this province who

could enter a premise to make sure animals aren't being abused. They have to get a search warrant. That is not necessary. If they have probable cause, they should be able to go in there and make

sure the animals aren't mistreated. That would close these places down very quickly.

I want to thank all these people who have certainly educated me in this area. I've got people like Candice Ptolmey, from Angel House Rescue; Pauline Gallie,

from Georgina; Kimberley Kent-Rodgman, from Sherlock's Maple Haven Animal Sanctuary; Leanne Potter and Krystyna Hunt, from No Puppy Mills Canada; Kerri Vincent, who is an animal behaviour

consultant in Cobourg; Brenda Stevenson, who brought her dog Bell, whom she saved from the Miesner puppy mill; the SPCAs all across this province, that need more power.

Donna Perry from Toronto collected 5,000 names for this petition. That's how strongly she felt to do something to protect these innocent animals that can't

defend themselves. Maxine Watson, from DaMax Kennels in Stratford, got 800 names. She's a kennel operator and she says, "We need to protect these defenceless pets." Barbara Jennings, from

Orangeville, even went into the police station in Orangeville and asked the police officers to sign a petition. All the police officers in Orangeville at that division signed the petition. There

are so many unsung heroes: Karen Stimson of the Dufferin Animal Clinic; Elaine Gaynor. All these people feel so strongly about getting our provincial government to do something.

In this Legislature we've got a golden opportunity to say that these disreputable mercenaries who abuse animals systemically across this province can be put

out of business and should be put out of business immediately. It's something we have within our power. We get very tough with criminals, but we should also be tough with people who are basically

bordering on the criminal on a daily basis by abusing these defenceless animals. Right now, there's a hodgepodge of regulations where in one municipality there is a strong SPCA, a strong animal

control or humane society and in others there isn't. We need a provincial law that says it is illegal to take advantage of animals for profit and breed them for profit without any kind of

licence.

This free-for-all has to end. These animals cannot speak for themselves, and the public wants us to do the right thing. We have a great opportunity here

today.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House this morning and speak on Bill 100.

It's important to recognize that all of us, on both sides of the House, are sensitive to the kind of public education we've had in the past few months with

regard to puppy mills. All of us understand the fact that a mark of our civil society is the way in which we treat our animals. Certainly everyone is moved by the kind of evidence that has occurred

in the province in the past few months that demonstrates that there are situations that exist in our province that leave vulnerable animals exposed to neglect, to maltreatment. It's in that

context, then, that we are looking at actually two private members' bills that deal with this issue.

There are a couple of points I would like to make with regard to this particular bill, and one of those is the question of the need to license. Behind that is

the notion that licensing all breeders of dogs and cats would ensure that these animals would be well served. I think there's a mistake in assuming that licensing equals good breeders. Licensing

will certainly bring together those people who have that common interest. That will mean there's a network of people who have as their interest the betterment of individual breeds, who appreciate

the companionship and the opportunity of owning a dog and of being able to provide a dog for others to enjoy.

But I think that's the end of the opportunity that licensing represents. If you look at those who choose to be outside that category of a good breeder, being

licensed is not the answer. Good breeders, yes, by and large, are already members of the Canadian Kennel Club. They already ensure that they meet the standards of registration, that they do not

knowingly sell animals for resale. So they have already established themselves in that capacity. Municipalities, recognizing their role in licensing, not only license individual dogs and their

owners but obviously provide in some cases very significant bylaws that protect.

All these examples demonstrate the fact that good breeders are already in those categories of licensing. What fails to be met in this is the fact that people

who want to operate outside that category will continue to do so. It really is the same kind of logic that suggests that criminals register their guns. People who don't provide adequate care

operate outside the registry, operate outside the registration. For instance, those people who operate outside will offer for sale and will say to their purchasers, "We aren't providing the papers

for this dog," and the purchaser will say, "It's OK, I don't really need the papers. I don't know why I would need them." The reality is that that's contrary to the federal livestock act. You are

required, according to that act, to provide a registration for this animal.

The point is that what we're talking about is a question of who would be caught by this proposed legislation. I submit to you that it would not be the people

who are not providing the care, who are neglecting their animals. That is the issue for all of us to consider.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Let me just say at the outset how pleased I am to support my colleague Mike Colle's private member's

bill. As a great show of support from my own community, we have some 2,500 signatures on a petition from the Windsor-Essex area alone in support of the Mike Colle bill that would ban puppy

mills.

I find it interesting that we have a member from the other side of the House who is a breeder herself and doesn't find some level of conflict of interest in

discussion of a bill that may well license breeders. If this were a discussion at other levels of government, surely that would be ruled as a conflict.

But let's go back to what it means to ban puppy mills and why this is important. It's important, as my colleagues know, to have this discussion just before

Christmastime when so many puppies and pets are bought for children. All those who are in the business in a professional way know this is the worst time of year to buy pets for children. There's

far too much commotion, far too much emotion around the purchase of a pet, so children who are helping to make these decisions are doing so without necessarily knowing the requirements and

responsibilities of being a pet owner. So this is a very good time of year to have this discussion in this House. We can make those parents aware that they should just wait until things calm down

to make a rational decision about whether children are ready for pet ownership.

It's important to know what puppy mills do. Those individuals who are breeding, literally churning out puppies, are doing so at the detriment of those little

puppies and their moms, the dogs having litter after litter after litter without the proper time in between. We have inbreeding going on that results in dogs with genetic disorders, with immunity

issues. As a consumer protection issue, we should be concerned that these pets sent out to be sold come into the hands of families that face huge, needless veterinary bills, and often these puppies

that come out with very aggressive tendencies because of this inbreeding will then be sent to the local humane society and they're going to be put to sleep. We want to ask ourselves if this is

fair.

When we see what's happened in puppy mills across Ontario, many around the greater Toronto area that have been busted, only to be open for business again

within a couple of months, we know the Mike Colle bill is going to address the demand for the puppies. If we can address the demand -- that is, fine the stores for selling these puppies that come

from puppy mills -- we'll go a long way to cleaning up this area.

Once again, the puppy mills are overbreeding the dogs, which is unhealthy for the animals -- problems with genetics. And there's the overpopulation of dogs,

that we get so many. Dogs that aren't wanted because they have all these problems are given away and then euthanized by human societies. These young puppies are often shipped away from their moms

far too early, so they're not there long enough to develop proper dog instincts. And they usually live in very unsanitary conditions because they're bred so cheaply. They live on mesh floors so

these breeders don't have to clean up properly after these little animals.

I think society at large should be judged by how we treat these other levels of humanity in our lives. We should be judged by how we treat our animals. Any of

us who own pets have to feel for how these little puppies are being bred and then brought into our families across Ontario. The Mike Colle bill addresses these issues, not just by looking at

breeders who are professional and do the job well, who are very supportive of this legislation, but also by looking to the pet stores to be responsible and not sell these animals to families

unsuspecting about the origins of these puppies.

I think it's important that we look at the licensing and registry that's mandated through this bill. Most importantly, it's very timely, that at this time of

year when everyone is looking at the potential of purchasing pets for the family at Christmastime, we don't get ourselves into a situation of going out to make these purchases without knowing where

the puppies come from. As some of the research shows, some 90% of the puppies sold in pet stores originate from puppy mills. We have got to do something about the demand for these animals and, if

we can, fine the pet stores that do not take into consideration that these puppies have been bred professionally. I think it's incumbent on this House to address the issue, to take care of these

little animals, which in turn are going to take care of us.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Let me say at the outset that I think the member

for Windsor West makes an excellent point when she says that this is a good time to be debating this, given what a lot of parents do vis-à-vis pets. There are a lot of young people in the

public galleries here today and possibly a lot of moms or dads at home watching. I think it's important that that message get out at this time.

Let me also just say that when we're talking about pets, next to our children and extended family members, a pet is about as close to a legitimate add-on to

your family as you're ever going to find. As chance would have it, just this morning I got a call from my legislative assistant, Linda Mitchell, who just loves animals and is very active in

supporting groups that want to protect and advocate the rights of animals. She got a little puppy just a little while ago, a couple of months ago, and last night the puppy was hit by a car. The

dog's name is Babe. They think their dog is going to be fine, but it's in that period right now where it could go either way. That's where she is, and quite frankly that's where she ought to be.

This is an important living creature in her life and it needs care, it needs love, it needs affection.

I would have to think the mindset that Linda has today for her pet has got to be about as extreme an opposite to the -- boy, we're restrained by parliamentary

language -- low-lifes who run these puppy mills. There's really no other description for them: an absolute, total disregard for life.

I find myself in the unusual position this morning -- I may just have to lie down on the couch and be analyzed for a while, because I find myself, for the

second time within two weeks, quoting and agreeing with Christina Blizzard, which I'm sure causes her as much upset and concern as it does me.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It's because of the season.

Mr Christopherson: As my friend says, it's the season.

She writes an

article in yesterday's paper, the Toronto Sun, and it's headed up, "Puppy Bills: One problem with two answers means no political solution." I

think that dichotomy's been set here this morning: Mr Colle advocating his bill; we heard Mrs Munro get up and defend her bill. Ms Blizzard speaks to the fact that you've got two bills that speak

to the same critical issue. If we aren't careful -- and I've been around here for quite a while now -- we're clearly going to ratchet this up to make it a partisan thing: the government's

backbencher bill versus the official opposition bencher's bill. In that kind of clash, it just comes back to who has the most numbers, who can drown out the voice of the other side. On this issue,

we shouldn't let that happen.

Christina Blizzard said, in closing her article, "Both Colle and Munro make good points, and they are both motivated by the best interests of the animals. But

they need to work together on this one. It would be truly encouraging if humans could put aside their differences so we never again have to see grotesque pictures of ailing, flea-bitten kittens and

worm-ridden puppies that are the inhuman product of the puppy mill industry."

I suspect if we had the opportunity to ask some of the young people who are here today if they care whether it would be a government bill or an official

opposition bill -- if it meant eliminating this blight from our society, do they really care whose name is on it or what party is attached to it? Then ask them if they think it's right that that

kind of partisan debate should stop us from taking action.

There is a point at which we have to stand back, and this is the time to do it. This is private members' time. This is the time when we come in and debate for

two hours every Thursday morning without our party membership card being front and centre, because there's not one of us here who agrees with every policy that our party puts forward. This is the

opportunity to speak from our heart, from our conscience, perhaps from a community perspective, one that is not driven by the party. Yet that's where we're heading here, very quickly.

I look at Mrs Munro's bill, which passed this place, by the way, on November 22, Bill 129. She obviously cares about this issue, beyond her own bill. She came

in this morning and spoke. I think that says a lot about her legitimate commitment to this issue. In the explanatory note in her bill, it says in part, "It" -- meaning the bill -- "establishes

standards for the care of cats and dogs by persons who breed cats or dogs for sale and creates an offence for the violation of any of the standards." A perfectly reasonable, well-thought-out

approach.

The bill from Mr Colle this morning, Bill 100, says in the explanatory note, "The purpose of the bill is to ban puppy mills and other cruel animal-breeding

activities and to protect animals bred for sale from cruelty and abuse by amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act." Another well-thought-out, well-intentioned

bill.

Is it really -- and I say this to all members here this morning -- beyond us to pass a second bill that deals with the same issue? I grant you it takes a

different approach, but isn't that the whole point of this crucible here? Isn't that why we're here: to take opposing ideas and at the end of the day, by the free exchange of those ideas, come up

with a law that is in the best interests of society and is the best law that we can bring forward? Is it so far beyond us that we can't pass this bill today and send both bills, simultaneously, to

whatever committee we want, with the instructions that we want them to look at both bills, hold public hearings and make recommendations back to this Legislature with regard to the best course of

action on a piece of legislation that we would pass?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): A good idea, David.

Mr Christopherson: I hear one of my colleagues saying that would be a first. Actually, it's probably not; it just seems like it most days

because we're always at each other. But quite frankly, there are many times when we take issues -- I remember when my friend Brad Clark was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. He

took the issue -- I can't remember the name of the bill right now -- of the rights of people with psychiatric disabilities. It went off after first reading, which was a mechanism Norm Sterling

brought in when he was government House leader, saying, "Let's try this. It's a way that I want to see if we can send legislation off before second reading, when we're all entrenched." What

happened was, that bill went out after first reading and there were public hearings. There was a major effort. I remember Frances Lankin, the former member for Beaches-East York, playing a key role

not in going after the government but in working with the government -- in this case Mr Clark -- to come up with the best bill possible. Now, at the end of the day we didn't get unanimous support

of the House, but the process alone defused any real anger or built-in opposition that we normally have as opposition members to a government bill. Some of us supported it.

I think the fact is that when we want to, we can do it. We just don't do it very often, I say to my friend from Brant, and that's why it seems like we never do

it. We can do it. We have the capability.

I would say to all my colleagues in this place that given the importance of this issue -- don't we all find it disgusting that in this day and age this is

still going on? It's one of those issues where people stand back and say, "Why isn't somebody doing something? Why are we allowing cruelty to animals to exist?"

We're halfway there. We've got one bill passed through this place. I was reading Hansard around the debate that day. It was an excellent debate. Let's not lose

that momentum because we're going to start to become entrenched with, "It's my bill," and "her bill" and "his bill" and "their bill." It's collectively our responsibility, particularly on Thursday

mornings, when it's private members' time.

So I would urge my colleagues to set aside whatever partisanship may be creeping into this issue. Let's pull back from that. Let's pass this bill. Let's have

both Bill 100 and Bill 129 on second reading, which is a matter of agreeing in principle -- there's nothing unparliamentary here -- and saying that our intention to speak as a Legislature is to the

issue that this must stop and that we are prepared to exercise the power that the people of Ontario have given us to make sure it stops. Let's leave the exact method and the regulatory process and

framework that we might build to a committee. Let's have the public come in, have the SPCA come in, have people like Linda Mitchell who might want to come in and have something to say about this

issue. Let them have their say, and then let a committee of this place decide what the best way to go is. Refer back here with the recommendation, and then let's get on with it.

Let's not do nothing, and let's not have a divided House on this issue, because it sends out the wrong message. The message needs to be loud and clear: "It's

unacceptable to do this to innocent animals in the province of Ontario from now on. That is the law." Let's not let it get lost or divided over partisanship. Let's keep our eyes on the prize. In

this case, it's doing what's right.

I want to commend both members. I hope we would have the same sense of purpose that we had when we passed Mrs Munro's bill just a couple of weeks ago and see

that take hold today. Let's pass Mr Colle's bill also and get on with doing what the people of Ontario expect us to do in this place.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about the bill brought forward by our good friend the

Liberal member.

Our government has always fought animal abuse and supported tougher penalties against those convicted of animal cruelty. We've funded various initiatives for

the Ontario SPCA and given funds to help in the ongoing battles against illegal puppy and kitten mills.

We're studying our own legislation to combat this intolerable situation but we are opposed to the private member's bill that was introduced by the member from

Eglinton-Lawrence. We feel that Bill 100 is problematic and will increase administrative delays, red tape and inefficiencies by forcing legitimate animal breeders to obtain a licence in an

unnecessary regulation.

Comparison can be made between breeder licensing and gun registration. It's costly, it's ineffective and it would target only the law-abiding. I can go on to

point out that the only province I'm aware of that does have licensing is Manitoba, where only some 40% of the breeders are actually registering -- it's a $100 fee -- and 60% of the known breeders

are not registering. Dear knows how many more who are not known are not registering. Registration tends to drive them underground. We notice that criminals do not in fact register their

weapons.

If this bill is adopted, it may require a constitutionally legal opinion with respect to charter implications of entering puppy and kitten mills without a

warrant. That's rather unprecedented. This could ultimately result in unnecessary delays in rescuing at-risk animals.

If adopted, Bill 100 would levy fines against pet stores that knowingly buy or sell pets from puppy and kitten mills. That would penalize legitimate

operations, and this indeed is not fair.

The public has a right to buy pets from legitimate breeders, but they should ask questions about the background of those animals. We do not support people

buying pets that were raised in puppy or kitten mills. There are hundreds of unclaimed animals in humane societies across the province, and these animals need loving homes. We encourage pet owners

to support their local humane society and adopt their pets from them.

We will also continue to press the federal government to quickly pass legislation that will give more teeth to the Criminal Code and increase penalties for

cruelty against animals. We encourage the member from Eglinton-Lawrence to do the same.

Mr Speaker, I'm sure you'll recall my resolution in November 1999 to encourage the federal government to increase the penalties, particularly after the

incident in my riding where Nikita was dragged behind a half-ton truck -- a most unfortunate situation for that particular animal. I am pleased to report that she did make a very successful

recovery.

Our government is serious about protecting animals and boosting animal welfare in this province, but Bill 100 would hurt legitimate breeders without stopping

the proliferation of puppy and kitten mills in the province. We use the terms "puppy mills" and "kitten mills" very freely when in fact some of these evolve from people having some animals that are

bred and, in ignorance, they end up in this kind of situation. We need more education out there so people are aware of the proper way.

The kind of bill that was brought forward by the member from York North, giving a code of practice on how these animals should be raised -- I'm very supportive

of that direction. But this direction of registration is indeed not something that's really going to be all that helpful, as proven in the province of Manitoba. The track record is there; all we

have to do is look at what's been happening in another province and recognize that it indeed is not working.

Yes, I would like to see a change in the OSPCA act. It's being worked on, and the sooner we can bring it to the floor of this House to have a thorough review,

I think the better for animal breeders, the better for the public who are concerned about animal welfare in general.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The time for private members' public business is a time where we're supposed to see a degree of

non-partisanship that we don't see in other debates in the House. I thought the member for Hamilton West put it very well when he said it's time put aside the partisan differences, try to meld the

two bills perhaps and come forward with a piece of legislation that is going to be helpful to the dogs and the people who love dogs in this province.

I've got to say that I think the bill that the member for Eglinton-Lawrence has brought forward is an excellent bill. It addresses many of the problems that

exist at the present time. I was moved when I was reading -- as we all are when we see it in any form in the news media when some problems are encountered -- the description of some of the cruelty

that has taken place. The Hamilton Spectator had an editorial on August 28 that started this way:

"Imagine almost 180 ill, flea-ridden dogs and puppies confined to makeshift clapboard pens in a dilapidated barn with inadequate food and water. Such were the

conditions in what Ontario SPCA officials describe as the most horrific puppy mill they have ever seen. The makeshift kennel in Vaughan north of Toronto came as a shock to Ontarians who thought

that animal abuse on a scale as massive as this was largely a problem for Quebec, known as the puppy mill of Canada as a result of being the only jurisdiction in North America that doesn't have an

animal welfare act.

"Whether dogs, puppies and other animals are suffering at the hands of unscrupulous individuals in Quebec or Ontario, people are outraged at both the extent of

animal cruelty in Canada and the weak, outdated laws that deal with it."

Clearly, what has happened is that this piece of legislation is designed to deal with a very serious problem, and I want to commend my colleague for it. It is

one of the reasons -- in fact, it is the primary reason -- that I changed places in the order of precedence for bringing forward legislation, because I think this bill is an urgent bill. It's an

urgent problem out there. I think it addresses many aspects of the problem that exists that perhaps previous pieces of legislation do not.

What we have, in essence, been saying is that there is a need to require the licensing of all pet breeders and kennels to operate in Ontario. We have a lot of

licensing that takes place. This bogeyman that has been advanced by those opposed to this legislation apparently is most unfortunate, because we license in a number of different areas and it makes

sense to do so. The people who are legitimate puppy breeders do not worry about that licensing at all; in fact, they want to see the other people put out of business.

We have to have legislation, as this legislation is, which allows full inspections of breeder and kennel operations by the Ontario Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals. We need legislation that will make it a provincial offence to operate puppy or other pet mills, punishable by fines of up to $50,000 and/or two years in jail. Those are

tough, meaningful penalties. It allows the imposition of a lifetime ban on individuals found operating pet mills. It imposes fines and jail terms on pet store operators that knowingly and willingly

buy or sell pets from pet mills, and is a bill which establishes a publicly accessible provincial registry of pet breeders and kennels.

We have seen a petition with some 15,000 names on it. In any community, if you put such a petition out, people would sign it quickly.

The member has given this a lot of consideration, a lot of thought. His enthusiasm for this particular issue reminds me of his enthusiasm for another issue,

and that was the Oak Ridges moraine, where he took it on as personal crusade and, as a result, we had legislation coming forward in this House which was largely recommended by the member for

Eglinton-Lawrence.

But I can tell you, that is not what my colleague is looking for with this -- his name on a piece of legislation. I can tell you that he's genuinely concerned

because he's met with the people who have brought to his attention the problems that are out there. He has, as I think we all have in this House, a genuine feeling for these animals. They're

vulnerable. They require our help.

Those of us who are in government have a role and responsibility to protect the weak within our society, and that doesn't only apply to human beings; it

applies to animal life as well. These helpless puppies that are bred in terrible conditions and sometimes have lifelong afflictions for that reason deserve protection. I think this bill has all of

the essential components for that kind of protection and therefore I support it today.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I see I have two minutes and a little, so of necessity I'm going to keep my remarks very brief.

I think the debate here today has been most instructive from all sides of the House. I would like to commend as well the two people who have brought forward

bills, Mrs Munro and Mr Colle. They've done an excellent job in highlighting the problems that exist here. I want to tell you that I wrestled between the two bills, which one I thought was the

better. I don't know whether we have to get into that, because I acknowledge and appreciate the suggestion made by my colleague Mr Christopherson that this should really just go to a committee and

should be hammered out, and the best parts should be taken from both bills and compromises should be made.

But what particularly brought me to Mr Colle's motion was the fact of the licensing and provincial registry, and the fact that pet store sales from unlicensed

dealerships would not be allowed to happen and would be the subject of fine or imprisonment. It is not that the people who are going to run puppy mills will necessarily want to go out and get a

licence. It's the secondary. It's the dealerships, it's the people who are in the stores selling the puppies and the kittens across all the malls of Ontario who will be very wary of buying from

unlicensed dealerships because they, in turn, would find themselves subject to fine or imprisonment. That's the importance of the bill, not that the puppy mills are going to run out and get a

licence. Of course they're not. But the secondary distributors are going to have to be very wary of it. That's what draws my mind to being the important aspect of this bill that should be added to

Mrs Munro's bill.

Another point was made, and I want to reiterate it, that we are never going to stop the wanton breeding of animals and the huge waste that is involved, the

tens of thousands of animals that die in these puppy mills, nor the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, that are put down every year at the humane societies, the SPCAs and the various

animal pounds of municipalities.

The public has to be brought to understand that it is just as important to rescue the pets from those institutions and to have them in your home as it is to go

out and buy a cute new puppy from a puppy mill.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to the member's Bill 100, Puppy Mill Ban

and Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, 2001. I think the member from Hamilton Centre indicated that on November 7 we had a bill before us brought forth by the member for York North. It was entitled the

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2001, and dealt, in the context of what we're debating today, with the same type of legislation with respect to the operation

of puppy and kitten mills.

I just want to point out for the record there really hasn't been any substantial change to the Ontario SPCA act since 1919. I can say that the Solicitor

General's office has been working on this in term of a working group looking to bring changes to that piece of legislation.

With respect to the legislation brought forth by the member from York North and the member before us today, there are substantial differences between the bills

in terms of approach to try to deal with the problem. I think all sides agree that there is a problem that we have to deal with here, and that was certainly brought forth by the media last summer

in terms of two operations in particular that could only be construed as puppy mill type of operations and certainly were not treating the animals the way they should be treated.

When you look at these pieces of legislation, both of them are looking to create a provincial offence with respect to the operation of puppy and kitten mills.

Where they do differ in one

part is in the licensing of breeders. That's not part of the plan with respect to the member for York North. I think it may be a false assumption to say that licensing

automatically will determine that there's a good breeder. There's an assumption there that we are required to license breeders and that's going to solve the problem. There is no basis for that

particular approach. The only other province in the country that has licensing is Manitoba, which has a small number of breeders in terms of the numbers that would be in this province.

The other difference in the act is that the member today in his Bill 100 is proposing warrantless entry. I think the member for Northumberland correctly

pointed out that that certainly would be subject to a charter challenge. There has to be some kind of judicial overseeing of the approaches to the entry of the premises. There should be some

judicial oversight and that's certainly not part of the plan of the member from York North. She proposes telewarrants and access to telewarrants by the Ontario SPCA inspectors where it would be

impractical to appear before a JP, and that is the judicial oversight that we're looking at. You have to have some judicial oversight. You just cannot ride roughshod over people in terms of their

property rights.

Fines for pet stores -- that's a difference with the member for York North's bill that went through the House on November 7, and to be clear, her bill did pass

through this House. The member today is proposing fines for pet stores. I would say to the member, certainly I understand the intent, but the scope may be far too restrictive in terms of the

distributor of pets and the type of operations we're trying to deal with that would distribute the pets from these puppy mills or kitten mills. The scope has to be focused. It shouldn't be

basically saying, "If we deal with pet store owners, that's going to solve the problem." That's a fairly narrow viewpoint of what we're dealing with here. So that's another group that the member

opposite is targeting. He's targeting breeders and he's targeting pet store owners.

Both of the pieces of legislation being proposed have penalties, increasing the fines moneywise and also the prison time. Both of them are looking at a

lifetime ban on operations, but one thing that the member's bill today doesn't have is standards of care, which the member from York North creates -- a set of standards.

The intent is worthy of recognition and we'll see today what happens.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Certainly I'm pleased to stand and speak in support of the bill of my colleague Mike Colle from

Eglinton-Lawrence. I want to congratulate the member for the effort and dedication he has put into this issue as he's driven and continues to drive this very important issue.

As well-intentioned as Ms Munro's bill here was, it's certainly my view and the view on this side of the House of the official opposition that it doesn't go

far enough. Clearly, this is a very important issue; it's a very serious issue. We have seen some absolutely horrific situations that have occurred in Ontario: repeat offenders, individuals who

time and time again have continued to operate these filthy, unsanitary, dangerous puppy mills simply for profit and with total disregard for the care of the animal involved.

The reality is this: you either want to be cute and fuzzy about this and say, "Well, this is nice. We've got some legislation that makes us feel good," or you

can really get tough on the violators and those individuals who decide that they're going to abuse animals for profit. This bill does that. I don't think it goes too far It's tough, and I think it

should be a tough piece of legislation. There should be some severe penalties for violators. I don't think it targets anybody who is above-board, who is a legitimate operator, who breeds puppies in

a manner that is acceptable. Their licensing will take care of standards. I believe inspections are necessary. This bill gives some real powers to go after those individuals who continue and who

believe it's acceptable to abuse these animals in the fashion that they do.

Clearly, we've got a decision to make here today. I'm a little surprised that the government is opposing this piece of legislation. It makes a lot of sense. I

think it adds to the bill that Ms Munro had brought forward. I don't see a problem. I really have a tough time understanding why the government side would have a problem with a fine or penalty on

those individuals who do not abide by this piece of legislation. It gives some real power here. It gives the SPCA some power to inspect, some powers to license.

Right now, they can only respond on complaints. I've met with the SPCA in Hamilton. I've talked to the folks there and I've toured the facility. They can tell

you horror stories. They're powerless right now unless there's a complaint. Once the problem occurs, they can move in and try to rescue those animals, and often it's too late at that point. So what

we need is a situation where there's a standard licensing process, where there's an opportunity for inspections and there's an opportunity to shut those things down before they become the horror

stories we have seen. This is what Mr Colle's bill is all about, what this bill does.

I'm really not concerned about the fact that we're going to go after individuals who knowingly sell these puppies because, clearly, in order for the puppy

mills to operate, there have to be individuals beyond that who are willing to sell these animals for profit as well. Legitimate pet store owners have absolutely nothing to worry about with this

piece of legislation, because the bill makes it clear that they have to know that they have purchased this from a puppy mill that was unlicensed, unregulated, that broke the law. So if someone

simply decides that they're going to make a few fast bucks by purchasing these animals and they know that these animals have been bred in a situation that's unsanitary, unsafe, unlicensed, then

frankly they should be up for prosecution, they should be charged and they should be fined if they're found guilty with whatever penalties are there. So it doesn't target the legitimate breeders,

it doesn't target the legitimate pet store owners; it targets those who knowingly and deliberately go about injuring, hurting and causing pain and lifelong damage and often death to these animals

for profit.

I cannot understand why anyone in this House would have a problem with that. I think we, hopefully, have evolved as a province over the years, as a society,

where we understand and respect the rights of animals. We understand they're simply not there to be abused and used and then discarded. Anybody who walks into an SPCA in the province can see that

every single day. It's a serious problem. The government says, "We've been looking at it." I think the Solicitor General has had the study group going for five years now and we've had five years of

inaction.

This piece of legislation, if supported today and goes forward, will finally give the SPCA some real power, will give them the ability to go in to inspect,

license, shut down and go after these criminals, frankly, who go out there deliberately and have no problem injuring or killing hundreds or thousands of animals simply to make a profit. I wish

everyone in this House would support this bill. I want to commend my colleague Mr Colle again for the effort, dedication and commitment he has made to this cause. I certainly hope that in a

non-partisan fashion today the government will support this piece of legislation and give some real protection that is long overdue.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Colle: I want to thank all my colleagues on both sides for their contributions to this bill. This bill targets puppy mill breeders, puppy

mill operators. That's whom it targets. We've got to put these disgusting people out of business.

There are 400 of these things going on under our noses all across this province. All we've done is study the damned thing. We have the opportunity to close

them down today if we want to. Instead, we hear the members opposite talking about the poor pet store owners across this province who knowingly and willingly are selling puppies every day when they

know they're from puppy mills. I won't defend those pet stores that do that knowingly and willingly, like the member across there.

Legitimate breeders aren't afraid of being licensed and legitimate breeders aren't afraid of being inspected. Right now in Ontario, the SPCAs and the humane

society can't even inspect these business operations. You can't even go on their property while they're doing this illegal practice. My bill says, give the right to inspect and license the ones

that are legitimate, and if they don't meet the criteria, take the licence away.

Right now it's basically a disaster across this province. We all know these exist. The government has been studying this for five years. For five years they've

talked about it. I've talked to people all across this province who are in animal rescue, SPCAs and humane societies. They've told me what would be needed to close these -- whatever they call them

-- down. They said you need to inspect them, you need to license them and you need to close down the pet stores that sell them. They're the ones that said to put this in the bill. I'm not a breeder

like Mrs Munro. I'm just an ordinary person. I'm not up here --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allocated for debate on this ballot item.

CARLEIGH AND EMILY'S LAW

(EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT -

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE), 2001 /

LOI CARLEIGH ET EMILY DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(CONSEILLER À L'ENFANCE

EN DIFFICULTÉ)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now deal with ballot item number 37.

Mr McMeekin has moved second reading of Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide for a Special Education Advocate.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will take the division after dealing with ballot item number 38.

PUPPY MILL BAN AND ANIMAL

CRUELTY PREVENTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES USINES À CHIOTS

ET LA PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Colle has moved second reading of Bill 100,

An Act to ban puppy mills and other cruel

animal-breeding activities and to protect animals bred for commercial sale from abuse by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will take this division after we deal with ballot item number 37.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 t0 1207.

CARLEIGH AND EMILY'S LAW

(EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT -

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE), 2001 /

LOI CARLEIGH ET EMILY DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(CONSEILLER À L'ENFANCE

EN DIFFICULTÉ)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr McMeekin has moved second reading of Bill 114.

All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

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

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32; the nays are 39.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

We'll now open the doors for 30 seconds.

PUPPY MILL BAN AND ANIMAL

CRUELTY PREVENTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES USINES À CHIOTS

ET LA PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We're dealing with ballot item number 38. Mr Colle has moved second reading of Bill 100.

All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Guzzo, Garry J.

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Tilson, David

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

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 37.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

This completes all private members' public business. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1214 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I want to address my remarks directly to the Premier and his failed education policies. We have seen six long

years of frustration, turmoil, crisis, cuts and chaos. Tonight the separate school board is facing a very tough and very difficult decision. They are put in a very untenable position of deciding

which schools they are going to close. There are five schools in my particular riding that are being contemplated to be shut down. They have the community up in arms.

Mr Premier, it's because of your misguided education policy that five schools are being contemplated to close down. You have the parents and you have the kids

up in arms. You have parents who moved into that particular community because of their community school, and now the school is being closed. How are the kids going to move out to another area after

they have spent many years in that particular situation?

It is because of your funding policy, it's because of the government education formula, that we are facing today the closing down of five particular schools. I

don't think that this is what the kids want, that this is what's fair to the board. This is the decision they have to make tonight. It's very unfair, and I call on the Premier to fund the schools

so that we can retain our schools in our community.

ANIMAL CRUELTY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to speak to the issue of puppy and kitten mills. Although I applaud the member for

Eglinton-Lawrence in his efforts to bring this issue forward, I would also like him to stay on the issue. It is easy to scream accusations and throw in red herrings, but that does not address the

issue of animal cruelty. I would like to suggest that the member opposite speak to the Integrity Commissioner and take up his accusations there and then get back to the real issue of puppy and

kitten mills.

Contrary to the Liberal opposition, this government is not protecting pet stores and puppy mill breeders. By implementing standards of care, we will have the

ability to eliminate these mills.

I think it is important to point out that the majority of breeders operate out of their own homes. Allowing the Ontario SPCA inspectors to enter without a

warrant gives them more authority than the police have in dealing with violent criminals, obviously a charter challenge issue. I don't think the member opposite thought of that.

I think it is also important to talk about Manitoba, the only province in Canada which does have provincial licensing of breeders. While licensing is mandatory

in Manitoba, it is estimated that only 40% of breeders have registered and 60% have not. We can see in this example that this does not work.

The only thing that can stop these horrible practices is by making sure these animals are cared for properly.

SCHOOL POOLS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): School pools are to a city what the great outdoors are to much of rural Ontario. School pools are not a luxury

for Toronto. They are part of an active, healthy, safe and supervised lifestyle.

Unless we have the funding for dozens of pools in our public schools, unless the funding conflict between the Toronto District School Board and the city of

Toronto and the provincial government is resolved, thousands of kids are going to go without this opportunity. I ask the government to maybe think of this less as a jurisdictional turf war and more

in terms of crime prevention. If these kids are not in healthy recreational programs, many are going to end up playing in the city's shadows, as it were. I don't think that's in the interests of

anybody.

I hope the government will take a close look at this and understand that the Toronto District School Board has a shortfall. Under the funding formula, it

doesn't have the money to provide for these schools. The city of Toronto has said in its finance committee that it simply cannot make up for that shortfall.

Let's make sure the kids in Toronto today have the same kinds of opportunities growing up in safe communities that many of us here in the House, I hope,

enjoyed. For the sake of the kids, not for politics, let's make sure we resolve this funding conflict over school pools.

CHRISTKINDL MARKET

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): About 700 years ago, around the year 1310, Germans in Munich participated in an annual opportunity for

farmers to go to town to do some shopping and offer their wares for sale -- the Nikolausdult Market. To this day, the festival continues in Munich. However, as times change, so do customs and

traditions. The festival is now called Christkindl Market, or Christ Child Market.

Along with the new name, the popular festival has adopted new traditions. As the custom of giving gifts around this time of year became popular, the market

adopted the custom. The market became a popular venue for crafts, gift items and foods and, of course, a place for the sale of toys for children. They became world-renowned for their ceremonies,

festivities, entertainment and outstanding gifts of food.

I am proud to say that Kitchener city hall is hosting Canada's own original Christkindl Market today through Sunday, December 9, 2001. Over 25,000 people from

across North America come to experience this event. I am also proud to inform the House that Kitchener's Christkindl Market was awarded Best New Festival by Festivals and Events Ontario in

My personal thanks go to the German community of Kitchener, and especially Tony Bergmeier and the German-Canadian Business and Professional Association, who

organized the event, for their hard work. I invite everyone to come to Kitchener city hall throughout the next three days to experience Kitchener's own Christkindl Market.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 128

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): A month ago, I introduced Bill 128,

An Act to permit the naming of highway bridges and other structures on the

King's Highway in memory of police officers who have died in the line of duty. In the

preamble to the bill I said, "We, the people of Ontario, are forever grateful to the dedicated police officers

who have courageously and unselfishly given their lives in the line of duty. Our debt to them can never be repaid." Today, I challenge the Harris government to call this bill forward, to give it

quick passage and to ensure that this is enshrined in law before we break next week. It is important to police officers who on a continuing basis put their lives on the line.

Today I am buoyed by a letter I received from the Ontario Provincial Police Association. It says, "91 Ontario Provincial Police officers have been killed in

the line of duty serving the citizens of Ontario." This association is asking for all members in the House, in a non-partisan way, to pass this bill and enshrine it in law.

Certainly, when I met with the Ontario Provincial Police Association this summer, they gave me the impetus to put this bill together, so in many ways they are

the authors of this bill. The police officers of the province of Ontario are the authors of Bill 128, and I ask the government, I demand of the government, I plead on behalf of the police officers

in this province: pass Bill 128, show your respect to them, and show your respect for community safety.

HOMELESSNESS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On December 4, the Social Planning Council of Sudbury released its third report dealing with homelessness in

our community. The report confirmed, from January to July of 2001, a 50% increase in the number of people who are absolutely homeless, having only temporary housing at the Salvation Army or Genevra

House, a shelter for battered women. In the same period, the total number of homeless, those with temporary housing and those staying with friends because they can't find adequate housing of their

own also increased by 13%, to a new high of 399. About 40% of the homeless are women. Infants, children under 13, and seniors make up a growing percentage of the homeless. Over 25% included

aboriginal people.

The researchers concluded that Sudbury has a serious problem with rents. Too many people are forced to spend more than 50% of their income on rent, and low

social assistance rates are forcing people to choose between paying rent and buying basic necessities like food. They concluded that both levels of government must make homelessness a priority to

reduce these appalling numbers.

It appears the federal government is moving forward with its promise to invest $680 million over the next five years. But the Conservative government's recent

response to homelessness is to trot out a repeat $20-million program to provide a sales tax rebate to developers building affordable housing. Since the number of homeless increased the last time

this program was in effect, it's clear it won't do anything to kick-start the creation of affordable housing for the thousands of people who need it.

Basic shelter is not a privilege; it is a right. It's time for this Conservative government to build affordable housing for people who need it.

CONSTITUENCY STAFF

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I want to rise today to speak about the amazing effort and support we as members get from the staff in our

constituency offices and at Queen's Park. Regardless of political party, the staff in each member's office play a valuable role in helping people with a variety of issues ranging from OSAP to birth

certificates to the Family Responsibility Office. The staff also provide the public with valuable information and help with the many services offered by the Ontario government and the community at

large. The staff in our offices also help to keep us politicians organized with our schedules, our speaking engagements and the thousands of letters and e-mails that come into our offices each

week.

Sometimes the constituency office staff do not get a chance to see what goes on at Queen's Park because they are too busy with work or too far from Toronto.

Today, I have invited my constituency staff from my Midland and Orillia offices to Queen's Park to see what goes on in this building first-hand. I'm hopeful that after visiting Queen's Park, they

will be able to make better-informed decisions on a daily basis in the constituency offices.

I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce my staff from Midland and Orillia: Diane Burt, Marjorie Roach, Marilyn Rolland and Mary Silk, and Janet Copeland

from my Queen's Park office.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport) : Reading this morning's headlines can make you sick. As many as eight Toronto operating rooms are set to close,

forcing patients to wait longer for elective surgery. Every non-emergency procedure at these hospitals, from joint replacements and organ transplants to cardiac and cancer surgeries, will be

affected. Starting Monday, Toronto General Hospital will close three operating rooms, Toronto Western Hospital shuts down two and Princess Margaret will close one. In addition, Mount Sinai will

close an operating room. Why? Because this government has failed to understand the basic premise of health care.

Doctors perform operations. The reason we don't have enough doctors is because presently there are 2,000 foreign-trained professional doctors not only in

Ontario but the majority are in Toronto. What are they doing? They're driving taxis, cleaning restaurants and delivering pizzas. We're asking today that the Minister of Health and the Minister of

Training, Colleges and Universities get off their hands and open the doors for these foreign-trained doctors to be able to perform. There is an opportunity today. We're asking for them