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

December 4, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 4 December 2003 Jeudi 4 décembre 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENTS

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENTS

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

RUN FOR OVARIAN CANCER

UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

PROPERTY TAXATION

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

ROGER NEILSON

TAXATION

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

CABINET MINISTERS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

DE L'ONTARIO

MACDONALD-CARTIER

FREEWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE MACDONALD-CARTIER

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

ORDERS AND NOTICES

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

AND ACTION ON

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

HIGHWAY TOLLS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

EDUCATION FUNDING

MEAT INSPECTION

POLICE SERVICES

NUCLEAR ENERGY

VISITORS

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

NORTHERN TAX INCENTIVE ZONE

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

PETITIONS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

TUITION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

OPTOMETRISTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

OPTOMETRISTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENTS

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES

Mr Levac moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students / Projet de loi 3, Loi visant à protéger les élèves anaphylactiques.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Levac has moved second reading of Bill 3.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Thank you, Speaker. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to address the House today, but before I move into the actual

content of the bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have made contributions, particularly my previous assistant, Jane Almeida; today's assistants, Melanie

Francis, Stephanie Radcliffe; and Mr Bill Chopp, the superintendent of education in the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board for his input; and to the many stakeholders, in

particular NASK, the Niagara Anaphylaxis Support and Knowledge group struck out of the Niagara region, which works very diligently, soon to arrive. I see they're slowly coming in. Cindy Paskey, the

president of NASK, and Renee Backshall and Roland Seehagel will be joining us shortly. I welcome them in the gallery today, and I thank them very much for being here, for their support.

I think it's important for us to point out some issues that have arisen in the not very distant past, just a little while ago. We have some situations that bring

home why this bill is important. I want to start from the onset. This situation, anaphylaxis -- that's the response -- kills. We've had examples of young children dying as a result of anaphylactic

shock.

Thanks to the work of NASK and many other people, we have come to realize that this extreme measure of allergic reaction is deadly, so in our platform we will

provide public schools with guidelines on how to treat a child in anaphylactic shock due to these extreme allergies. Without immediate attention, severely allergic children can die from

anaphylactic shock. To protect children with life-threatening allergies, we will require every school to develop an anaphylactic plan based on province-wide standards.

Where those standards come from will be indeed in consultation. We need to get this bill into committee so that all the stakeholders have an opportunity to give

input into their concerns, their issues, and an issue I want to bring to the attention of the House immediately is one of privacy and legal issues. I will not propose to you that every single bill

in this House is perfect, and I stand before you asking the House to ensure that our stakeholders on this issue have input, including NASK. They are quite aware of the bill, they support the bill,

but there are some issues that need to be addressed.

I want to walk over some general facts before we get into the actual detail of the bill. Some 2% to 5% of all Canadians, approximately 600,000 people, live with

the risk of anaphylactic shock or reaction. More than 50% of us know someone, somewhere, with a life-threatening allergy. Those allergies can come under the guise of food and man-made products.

Quite frankly, we all know somebody who has heard that before. They're allergic to peanuts; they're allergic to peanut oil; they're allergic to nuts; they're allergic to grass. They're allergic to

many things. But what I want to make sure that everyone understands is that this is not a bill to take care of allergies; this is a bill to take care of anaphylaxis. I have a colleague who will be

speaking to the medical issues involved around this. We're sorely behind when it comes to the protection of those people who can die in less than two minutes if we do not take care of this issue.

We do know that people can die within minutes if not treated properly, and minutes translate into seconds to save a life. So I'm asking the House to get involved.

Right now, as it stands, the Education Act is silent on this issue, silent on this specific issue. It's a life-and-death issue, and the Education Act is actually

silent. What it does say is that principals are responsible for the health, security and safety of the students in the schools. There are some guidelines in existence.

I would suggest that a vast majority of our school boards have taken this issue seriously. They do have policies; they do have procedures in place, the vast

majority. However, what we do know is that we do not have records of the consistency across the province on how this is dealt with. We do not have that.

Food is the most common cause for anaphylaxis, but reactions can also be caused by bee stings, insect stings, medicine, latex and, believe it or not, exercise in

some cases because of the reaction in the body. We're learning more and more about this response as we move forward, but the one response that I have been passionate about is the consistency of

standards, either through the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health -- whatever body decides that we need to standardize the response for the sake of those children, we need to get those

ministries involved to set that standard so that no matter where you come from in this province -- Moose Factory, Windsor, Brantford, Simcoe, Mississauga -- you know that the children in our

schools have a plan, it's mandatory and it's consistent and knowledgeable. It's based on three pillars.

The first pillar is education. Believe it or not, we have people in our schools who don't know what anaphylaxis is. We need to show them how to respond. We need

to know proactive stances of how to make them less likely to be exposed to anaphylactic response. That's important; something as simple as taking a garbage pail and not letting it sit in front of

the door, where kids line up to go in and out of school; simply taking that garbage pail and moving it somewhere else so the bees go there instead of in front, where the kids are.

The second pillar is response, medical information; knowing that, in the responsibility of our parents to work with our schools to ensure that we know who has

this response. We will have to work with the Attorney General's office to ensure that our integrity is held in terms of law. We will have to work with the privacy commissioner. We will have to work

with many stakeholders to ensure that our students are cared for.

This is not about party politics; this is not about this place; this is not a territorial or a geographic domain. A bee doesn't know where a border is. This is

not about organizations and stakeholders, about principals councils, the teachers groups, the school boards, the parent groups, the health officials, the legal field; this is about pulling all

those stakeholders together and saving lives.

We've got examples. Right now, they're dealing with a sample, in this province, of a seven-year-old girl who was suspended from school because she had an

anaphylactic response. Is that not backwards?

We need to spend our time, our energy, our effort, in saving the lives of children who, through no fault of their own, are faced with life-threatening

situations. There has been great work done in our province from stakeholders, from groups, from organizations, from concerned parents, who need to be able to get in the door and work with our

schools, our school boards and ensure that those children are protected and not stigmatized through no fault of their own.

I personally have had to deal with this issue as a principal over a 24-year education career. I've had to face this five times. One time was critical. We had a

plan in place and we did what we were supposed to do, but I dare say that's not the case across the province. My support is not based simply on a book knowledge; my support for this bill -- and I

hope each and every one of our members will be able to say this too -- is based on the fact we need to put things in place to protect the lives of our children, and anyone else for that matter.

I will explain to the House that I want this to go to committee, because there are some concerns about the bill. I want the stakeholders to step forward. I want

the commission, the legals, everybody, to work on this bill to make it work. I'd rather make it work right the first time than to have anyone step into a school and say, "You can't come to school

because you've got a medical condition," or worry about liability issues, lawsuits and work.

The reality is a simple one, a very simple one. This type of legislation is going to lead the nation, clearly, that we have identified a problem, we are going to

fix the problem and we are going to assure those children and their parents that they can go to school and be protected to the best we can do. I'm asking for support of this bill in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate this morning with respect to this private member's bill

from the member from Brant. Certainly I can relate to the situation we're dealing with here in terms of legislation, which is Bill 3, having children in the school system and having -- probably in

the last couple of weeks -- received a letter from the school indicating that there is a child with that type of disability and not to have your child bring any peanuts or whatever in their lunch

bucket.

I think the boards -- at least my board; I'm dealing with the boards within my riding -- do have a policy with respect to dealing with this particular issue.

It's an important issue. But, I know from my personal knowledge that that is something that's been enforced within the schools. I think perhaps the member, in his private member's bill, is trying

to establish a little bit clearer guidelines, with respect to how to deal with that.

It does indicate that this was a part of the election platform of the governing party. I have to commend the member for pushing this forth, but it's certainly

not the government that is doing this. This is a private member's bill. It would have been a lot stronger, I would submit, having done private members' business, if this would have been a ministry

bill put through by the Ministry of Education as part of the government initiative in this area. The fact that it's not does suggest that the member is pushing this in his own way to bring it to

the attention of his own government because they're not driving it. Everybody who has been here for a while knows that in private members' business, you can push your bill to the point of having

committee hearings and it may just die there because it doesn't have the backing of the government. There's nothing here that indicates that this has the backing of the government other than it

being a promise that they've put forth in their platform.

I think we have to look at it in that particular vein. If the member, who I believe is the government whip, has got the power to make sure that the government

lives up to this commitment, I commend him for that. But the fact of the matter is and the reality of the matter is that this not a government bill; it is a private member's bill that could face

the order paper that we do every time with respect to private members' bills, and they don't get into law.

As everybody knows the process, there's a first reading, a second reading if the House decides, and the House will decide today whether there are going to be

public hearings. After the public hearings, we come back to the House for third reading. If it receives third reading, then it will go to the Lieutenant-Governor for his consent. That's the

process. Certainly that's what we're going to have to deal with today as we go through this.

In principle, I certainly support what the member from Brant is trying to accomplish in his own individual way as opposed to the government living up to their

commitment, which they said they would do during the election. Here we have a private member bringing forth a bill to bring the government in accordance with their promises to live up to what they

said during the campaign. I guess time will tell whether this, in fact, will become law.

I will say that there are some interesting legal issues here. I think the member has put it forth very correctly with respect to issues facing the Attorney

General and the Privacy Commissioner. I think one of the main ones here that catches my eye is that in his backgrounder he indicates getting signed consent for school staff to supervise and/or

administer the use of physician-prescribed medication for suspected anaphylactic reactions. That in itself will be a challenge because, first of all, you're going to have to get the consent of the

parent to allow that to happen to their child. Secondly, you're going to have to get the consent and willingness of the individual from the school board to actually do that, and then the caveat

that comes on with it is that there be no action for damages resulting from the administration being permitted.

That's obviously going to catch the eye of any parent with respect to having their child being administered drugs prescribed by a doctor by an individual who

does not have that professional capability and training with respect to how to use that. I think what we're talking about here are very extreme measures where this could be used. Then there's a

further caveat with respect to there being no action for damages resulting from the administration being permitted "unless the damages were the result of gross negligence." That is a wide-open term

with respect to that. If I was a school board individual being given that particular coverage, I would be very hesitant, very reluctant with respect to administering a medication. I'm not a doctor;

they're not doctors. They can be trained to a certain degree, but "the damages were the result of gross negligence" -- "gross negligence," when you're dealing with someone who is a layperson, who

is not a doctor, that's going to be a very wide term and it's going to be a very contentious term with respect to what gross negligence would be. If you're faced with the situation where you know

the child has that type of reaction, you've got a situation where you believe from whatever training you have received that the child is in discomfort, the question then becomes: How do you extend

that to say that the child is at risk? Who are you as a layperson to make that decision? That's going to be a problematic situation.

I give credit to the member for Brant, because he's a straight speaker and I think his intent is certainly there. He recognizes that's going to be an issue. It's

going to be an issue. It's something that we can maybe work out, but that's sort of standard language that you see with respect to non-profit agencies that deal with people who have developmental

disabilities, are developmentally challenged. There is always that caveat. There is also that qualified right with respect to, when you do provide that particular treatment, you're not going to be

sued. That's what is important.

I think what the member is trying to accomplish here is that we need provincial standards; we need provincial guidelines. We want to make sure everybody is on

board. That's right, because this is a serious situation. I can tell you, from my own riding, the school boards that are there are doing that.

Then you take it to the next step, in terms of how we help that child in a situation where you can't get them to the hospital and you can't get the ambulance

there, that's going to be a tricky situation, and the member's correct when he states that, in terms of how we're going to have to deal with that.

He says that the plan should ensure that schoolteachers, staff and appropriate volunteers are trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of a reaction, and to

fulfill emergency procedures that are specified. That's going to be the challenge. Certainly people are trained to deal with CPR and to deal with the obvious situation. That's the kind of training

that I guess they're going to have to be able to administer in a situation where they're going to be able to save a life. That's what we're talking about here: saving a life. That's training that

will have to be provided to be able to deal with that, like in CPR, where there is that training. It's a last resort. It's a situation where you're trying to keep the individual in a state where

they're safe and protected until the professionals get there. I think that's where you're going to have to deal with this.

The member states in his backgrounder that in the instance of "an emergency ... staff would be permitted to administer medication without consent." That's going

to be a problem. Any parent who has their child with that situation is going to raise the red flag and say, "Wait a second, you're not going to administer anything to my child without my consent."

I think that's where there's going to be a problem. Because, as a parent, I'll be quite frank with you, I would never support that -- never.

It goes on to say, "No action for damages resulting from administering medication would be permitted unless the damages were the result of gross negligence." I

don't care what happened there. Bottom line is, they're going to require parental consent to deal with that child. If you think you're going to get a piece of legislation through here without

parental consent to deal with a child who has a disability, I think you're dreaming.

I could support this bill in principle, but there are going to have to be changes with respect to those consent provisions before I'm ever going to support

something like this, because parental consent is going to be the key to this, and also consent and willingness from the school board officials who are being asked to go into an emergency

situation.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the time to speak on this. I commend the member for Brant for at least in principle bringing forth something that his own government

hasn't decided to bring forth at this time.

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I'm delighted to be able to stand up in support of the anaphylactic bill. I also would like to thank

my colleague from Brant for pushing it. It's a good idea, regardless of whether it comes from a private member or from the government as a whole.

I believe that as a parent myself, if it came to life or death -- guess what, I'd sign the consent form, because there is no alternative to death. This is a

situation that is extraordinarily difficult for parents and for schools to resolve without some support.

There has been some work that has been done by Canadian school boards back in 1995, where they brought in the legal associations and the medical associations to

fully look at this problem of anaphylactic shock in our schools.

There's no question that this is happening currently in some of the schools. The challenge, of course, is that it's hit and miss. It is not as thorough in some

schools as it is in others. People also forget that within the Education Act there are two requirements: One is a safe environment for all children in order that they can in fact attend school; the

other is that in a public school system, the school is open to all children, not just to some children, regardless of their disability. So I think that needs to be considered thoroughly when

looking at this bill.

Also, in Ontario there is something called the Good Samaritan Act, which requires that you do not walk away from a situation in which somebody is endangered. You

need to put all of this into context before you simply decide not to give support to this bill.

One of the greatest challenges we all have is that you can either have education or you can have ignorance. With ignorance, lack of education, our situations

then put children in jeopardy. You need to be able to find processes, and ways and means to support them, in order that those processes can be put in place in a way that engages people so that

they're educated, first of all, about what anaphylactic shock is, so they can understand just how serious it really is: that if a child has peanut butter in the lunchroom and forgets to wash their

hands -- and we all have children and know that doesn't happen after they use the facilities -- and they go into a classroom, touch a desk and leave, and then a child with anaphylactic peanut shock

touches that desk and then their mouth, they could die. Some people cannot understand that happening. That's how serious this is, and yet they think that sounds impossible, just something that's

not possible. It is possible. So our role is to enable that education process to happen in a way that not only engages the students in the particular student's classroom but also those parents and

ultimately the school to understand the seriousness of anaphylactic shock and what we as a society can do to protect a child.

I can remember a particular instance when I was involved with this back in 1995. A parent phoned me, and we ended up on all the talk shows right across Canada.

Her point was, "My child eats only peanut butter. I can send only peanut butter sandwiches to school." That was it. She wasn't moving from that position, even though in that school was a child who

suffered from reaction to peanuts and would have gone into anaphylactic shock and it was as serious as death. Her position was, "Why should my child be jeopardized for this child?" My question back

to her was, "Could you live with the death of the other child for the sake of your child?" Of course not.

How do we engage those people in that understanding? How do we provide the alternative: "Could you have the peanut butter and crackers after school to satisfy

the need? What are the nutritional components of peanut butter that you could use as an alternative in school?"

We know if we teach the children, they teach their parents -- happens all the time. So when you engage the children in a classroom to help and understand, then

ultimately that's their peer and their friend, and they're not going to put them in jeopardy. So you can find ways and means, and that's what this bill can do. There are a number of processes out

there that we can use; we don't have to reinvent the wheel. The legal aspects have been looked at thoroughly by the best legal minds in Canada. You have an Attorney General here who certainly can

help the parents in Ontario. But better still, it enables and provides a framework for principals to work with in engaging that community in what this issue is and just how serious this issue is as

well.

The consent form from every parent I've spoken with who has an anaphylactic child is not a problem. All they need to know is that they can send their child to

school and that the child is safe; that in the event that something unforeseen occurs, there is a process in place whereby they can feel that their child will be either revived or put out of harm's

way until 911 is called. My understanding as well is that even if you give an epi-pen, it's not as serious an issue as if you didn't give it when in fact the child was in anaphylactic shock. So it

helps to build relationships in schools; it helps to put some stability school-to-school; and it can make a difference. I'm full-heartedly in support of this bill.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise to also speak to Bill 3, the Act to protect anaphylactic students, introduced by my colleague

from Brant. Part of our purpose is to enable people to better understand the nature and scope of some of these allergies that people run into, not only in schools, but in restaurants, supermarkets

and corner stores. People are at risk of a wide range of allergic symptoms ranging from a scratchy throat, to hives, swelling, nausea, shock and sometimes, sadly, even death.

This proposed legislation, as we know, makes reference to the need for training and emergency procedures in our schools and the need for the administration of

drugs. I do agree with the administration of drugs by students in some cases -- senior students -- teachers or secretaries.

I suggest that this bill be amended. This bill should be broadened in scope to deal with other ailments. I'm thinking of epilepsy, for example, something my

family knows about. When a child has an epileptic seizure, the symptoms can be alleviated by medication. In many schools, someone in a responsible position can administer medication for a child

suffering from epilepsy.

We are focusing on allergies, and I'll focus on nut allergies. I picked up a tea biscuit in the cafeteria this morning and there was a sign above the display

case, "These products may have come in contact with, or may contain, nuts." Prevention is key, and a sign like that is an excellent way to continue to keep the word out.

One of my colleagues, on staff, can tell us a bit about his 35 years of personal experience with a peanut allergy. There are two serious dangers for children or

adults who have these kind of allergies: first of all, the wide range of foods and food products that may contain nuts, or traces of nuts; secondly, the equally wide range of reactions that can

accompany the ingestion of these products by someone who is allergic.

I'll use a couple of examples from just chatting with my colleague. Several years ago he related, going out for dinner with family and friends -- for the rest of

us it's really not an issue -- he has to study the menu. There's a myriad of specialty foods and treats that potentially have danger.

One evening he went out on a limb and ordered a new tofu dish to go with his usual chicken balls and rice. He ate some of the tofu and noticed the strange but

familiar feeling of scratchy throat, this awkward feeling. He checked again with the staff, and it turned out the tofu had been cooked in peanut oil. He was fortunate -- nausea, was sick for

awhile, and it subsided.

Five years earlier, it was a different situation. At university he ordered mushroom soup, the soup of the day. He had the same kind of feelings: swelling in his

throat; he lost his voice. He had to write a note to another student, and they got him into the emergency hospital. This is the kind of issue that an adult is dealing with.

Where are we left with very young children who are not in the home with their parents but in a school setting, as the member from Brant is trying to impress on

us today? What happens when it is a child with an allergy and the child doesn't know enough to protect himself -- especially in the face of so many tasty, sweet treats? Again, my colleague has a

number of incidents that occurred to him when he was much younger as well. I think the intent of this legislation is certainly worthy.

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): My honourable colleague the MPP from Brant, Mr Dave Levac, who has brought forth this bill, and my

colleagues in the House, first of all I think it's a very important bill, not only to be proactive about the state of allergy readiness but also as a matter of education.

Speaker, with your permission, in order to contour my remarks, I'd like to offer some road signs, some guideposts to some of what I'm about to share with this

chamber. I'd like to speak first of all under four or five broad headings: (1) the importance of this bill; (2) some commentary about anaphylaxis, and I speak not only as the representative of the

great riding of Etobicoke North but also as a medical doctor; as well, some of the elements of this bill in terms of the avoidance of anaphylaxis and its treatment. But before I engage in those

particular remarks I would, with your permission and indulgence, like to engage in a little bit of rebuttal to some of the earlier remarks.

First of all, with respect to the MPP for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, I believe his comments regarding the inclusion of epilepsy, while noble in intent, are

probably really beyond the scope of what we're attempting to achieve here. I'd probably like to share some of the medical details with regard to the management, especially the acute emergency

management, of epilepsy at a later date.

I'd also like to more aggressively deal with the comments from the MPP for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, attempting to, I think, with the tenor of his remarks,

diminish the calibre of this private member's bill or the import in which the government holds it. I would like to state for the record that we have the full weight, support and imprimatur of the

government of Ontario, and that is the new direction that our leader, the Premier of this province, has shared with all of his caucus members. Democracy has a new day and a new way --

Interjection.

Mr Qaadri: And I would like to say, with respect, particularly to you, Mr Baird, as you're cackling in the front row, that this is a new day in

Ontario.

Secondly, this is especially important as, just to share some particular --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Who wrote this speech?

Mr Qaadri: This is coming from the heart, sir, in answer to your question of who wrote this.

Our Premier, for example, for this very specific reason, to illustrate the new day of democracy, has appointed every single member of our caucus to a cabinet

committee. That's why we have perhaps the most boisterous caucus meetings in living memory, and whether we have responsibilities in this chamber, in committees or as parliamentary assistants, or to

bring forth private members' bills, I would suggest to you that this is a great contradistinction to your own way of doing things.

To return to the bill, as I'm being directed by some of my colleagues, the importance is actually extreme. As a doctor I can tell you, first of all, that

"phylaxis" is the Greek word for "protection," as in, for example, the word "prophylaxis." "Anaphylaxis" means "without benefit of protection." As a doctor I can tell you that these are in fact

very serious, potentially life-threatening reactions.

As my honourable colleague MPP Dave Levac from Brant has highlighted, there are several hundred thousand Canadians who may be prone to developing anaphylactic,

full-body reactions, whether they're provoked by things like foods -- whether it's peanuts or peanut oils, shellfish or mushrooms -- other things like insect stings or particular medications, and

even, as he quite rightly pointed out, something as benign-sounding as exercise.

Again, as a physician, as someone who has dealt with anaphylaxis first hand on a regular basis in my practice and in emergency rooms and even, I would sadly

say, in social settings, as has been rightly pointed out by this chamber, I can share with you that, whether it's in, say, a restaurant or on a school field trip or in summer camps and even at

swimming pools, with the chlorine exposure and so on, it affects multiple body systems; it affects particularly the respiratory tract, as well as the cardiovascular system. Basically, individuals

may develop full-body hives, itching reactions and actually drop their blood pressure. So there are a number of issues that are really important with regard to this bill.

First of all, part of the intent is to educate the community that is associated with this bill, whether it's the parents, the children themselves -- the school

community, broadly -- to avoid unknown emergency situations. For example, the intention in this bill is to have individuals who may be prone to anaphylaxis actually wear MedicAlert bracelets, to

also share with them beforehand that they may be prone to this so that all the various communities will understand what the various protocols are.

Another thing that is brought up here is the idea of injectability. One of the things we doctors do is that we prescribe what we call epi-pens, or

autoinjectors. It's not as if the school coach or gym teacher is suddenly going to be injecting a syringe and drawing up a particular dosage at whim. These are self-administrable calibrated

injections. That's why I would like to support this bill and would strongly encourage all of us to. And to reemphasize, it has the full weight and support of this government.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): As I did previously in this House, I will be supporting the bill from Mr David

Levac, the member for Brant, because I think it's good public policy, it's one that's overdue, and it recognizes that this is a challenge that has to be met across Ontario and not simply something

that has to come from the grassroots in each of the communities.

I want to quote from a letter to the editor from Cindy Paskey, the president of NASK in St Catharines. I think it best captures what this legislation is about

and why it is in need of our support. It reads as follows:

"I am writing to let your readers know NASK (Niagara Anaphylaxis Support and Knowledge) is spearheading an Ontario-wide campaign supporting passage of Brant

Liberal MPP Dave Levac's private member's bill" -- and that was Bill 19 at that time -- "An Act to Protect Anaphylactic Students.

"Anaphylaxis is an allergic reaction that can be extremely swift and even life-threatening. There is no clinical way to predict the progression and severity of

a reaction. A mild reaction one time may be followed by a severe reaction the next time.

"Briefly, Bill 19 would set consistent, province-wide standards regarding anaphylaxis in Ontario public and separate schools.

"Key elements are prevention and emergency strategies, communication with the school community, training, and waiver of liability except for instances of gross

negligence. All of these are good reasons for the legislation to be passed.

"Notwithstanding, NASK has been told the Conservative government supported a `grassroots approach to managing such issues.'

"I understand this to mean parents working with the principals and parent/student councils of their schools.

"The result is parents across the province ... duplicating each other's efforts. Duplication wastes valuable time and resources.

"A more productive focus would be prevention and cure of this increasingly common health care concern among children. This focus will not happen as long as the

parents of these children are spending their precious time and emotional energy trying to ensure the very life safety of their children while at school.

"It takes practice, experience and support from others to harness deep emotions and become effective at advocating for the safety of your child's life. I speak

from seven years' experience living with our son's life-threatening allergies to tree nuts and peanuts."

Cindy Paskey is right. She puts the need for this particular piece of legislation better than I could possibly put it in this Legislature. I call upon all

members of the Legislature to support this legislation and to ensure that it goes to committee and that it ultimately becomes the law of the province of Ontario.

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

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thank you, kindly, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: -- has up to five minutes.

Mr Kormos: I want to indicate -- no, thanks.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to quickly make a couple of comments on the bill. Generally, we support the bill and its concept.

However, there are a couple of things that I think we're going to have to have a discussion in committee about. One is the whole concept of absolving people from the ability to be sued for having

administered medication. I understand what the member is trying to do. We're trying to deal with making sure that the medication can be applied in a case where a child is in a seizure. However,

that's a pretty wide, gaping hole. I think that at committee we're going to need a little bit of advice from leg counsel and others about what that really means in practical sense.

In the first place, what the bill basically says by way of that clause is that a person could not be sued for having administered medication if a person has

passed out. However, they could still be sued for gross negligence. That's a pretty wide, gaping hole, and I think anybody who has any kind of a legal background would understand that that in

itself can be an

interpretation for the courts that could mean a whole bunch of things as far as, if your intent really is to try to protect the person when administering medication. If I happen to

be in the school as a teacher, a custodian, a secretary, whoever, and all of a sudden I see someone who has passed out and is having some kind of seizure, and I grab medication, how do I know what

kind of medication I'm administering? I could be charged by a lawyer in defence of the other side, saying I was negligent in my use of the medication because I didn't read it properly. There's all

that kind of stuff that comes up. So I will just say that I support what the member is doing and I'm going to vote for it, but obviously we're going to refer this bill out to committee, and I think

we need to look at that particular issue.

The other thing we have to talk about when we get to committee -- in fact, we may have to have a talk about it now, at second reading -- is that if we're going

to say to schools across this province that we're going to make sure they put in place a plan to deal with these kinds of situations -- I think all of us here in the House agree -- are we going to

be financially supporting those schools and school boards to put those plans in place? What do I know, as a school principal or teacher or custodian or secretary, about what a plan is? Obviously,

there's going to be some structure put to this, there are going to be some guidelines set around this, and you're going to have to administer a plan that's in keeping with the intent of the bill.

It's going to take some money to be able to develop the plan in the first place and it's going to take some money for the school boards to be able to put this policy in place and train school staff

when it comes to fulfilling the intent of this bill.

I'll just say that one of the things I would really like to hear from Mr Levac, the member from Brant, is what the intent is of the government vis-à-vis

his bill. Has he had any discussion with the Premier or with the finance minister or the Minister of Education around making sure the school boards are funded? I would like to hear back on that.

It's not contingent on my support. I just want to make sure that we don't put yet another burden on school boards and tell them, "We have the great ideas provincially. Now you've got to pay for it

inside existing budgets." We know that the previous administration did that on a number of occasions when it came to issues, where they would pass some legislation here in the House and say, "Look

how smart we are," and then throw it to the municipality or the school board to say, "What the heck are we going to do to pay for this?" They had to follow the law. So I really need to know that

the government is in fact going to deal with that particular issue.

Again, generally, I'm in support -- that was my heart pacer going off. Don't worry. I have a pacer in my heart.

I would just say that we generally support what the bill is all about, but we need to deal with those two issues, as I said: (1) making sure the school boards

are resourced, and (2) the gross negligence clause of this bill.

I also want to say, and it's a good opportunity to remind members by way of this debate, that there's another such bill in this House, in the name of the

member from Nickel Belt, my colleague Shelley Martel, that has come to this Legislature at least twice, and that's the meningitis C bill. As you know, there was a young man by the name of Michael

Maxwell in, I think, 2002, who died within about a day after being brought to the hospital with meningitis C. The whole idea is to make sure that the provincial health units across Ontario are

given the resources to do the inoculations that are available to deal with this. As we know, that has been on the increase, and a number of young people have died from that. I would just remind

people, as we vote in support of this bill, not to forget that there's another bill coming to this House that's very important as well, which the previous government did not support but the Liberal

caucus did at the time. I look forward to the support of the Liberal caucus on Ms Martel's bill when it does come up.

The Acting Speaker: The member from Brant has two minutes to reply.

Mr Levac: I thank the honourable members from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Etobicoke Centre, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Etobicoke North, St

Catharines and Timmins-James Bay for their participation and kind words, and in some cases ill-placed words, about this bill.

I want to start off by explaining very clearly to the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford that there's a new way of democracy in this place. I also made it

clear that this was not about politics; this is about saving a life. He has acknowledged that. Thank you. Stay on that premise and we're going to be doing fine for the people of Ontario,

particularly the children. This isn't about partisan politics. This isn't about taking an opportunity to whack the government with your standard stuff you've been doing. Leave that for another time

and place.

This is time for private members' bills. Each and every one of us will have issues we want to bring to this place that have true meaning and effect on the

lives of the people in Ontario. I've heard that from members from all sides, that it's time for us to bring this place into what it's been known for, and that is protecting, saving and helping the

people of Ontario.

I want to say specifically to all of you that this is an important issue that goes well beyond partisan politics. I'm asking you to put that aside for a while

and understand clearly. I know there are issues with this bill. They will be going to committee. We will work out the details. I'm convinced that each and every one of us here wants to save those

children's lives. If we don't, get out of here, because it's not the place to do this. Put those things aside. We're talking about the children of Ontario. We're talking about the kids who are

being refused to go to school because they have anaphylaxis. That's not acceptable in the Ontario that I know. Let's get on with this and make it work.

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should live up to its campaign

promise to "strengthen democracy" through "democratic renewal."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Murdoch has moved private member's resolution number 2. Pursuant to standing order 96, the member

has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Murdoch: First, I'd like to say a few quotes that have been around and bring them to the attention of the House.

"We will make our institutions more democratic by freeing your MPP to represent you....

"We will create new lines of communication to make sure your voice is heard in government....

"We will respect and draw on the talents and expertise of every elected representative, including opposition members."

You know where they were? They're from this book, Government that Works for You: The Ontario Liberal Plan for a More Democratic Ontario. We heard all through

the election and since we got here about how this government is going to make it more democratic in this House. They're going to let members represent their riding rather than all the bills and all

the orders coming out of the Premier's office. We want that to happen, but it doesn't seem to be happening that way right at this moment.

I want to tell you a little story about after the election. Right now, as you know, Christmas is coming, and there are a lot of Santa Claus parades. Mr

Speaker, I'm sure you go in some of those parades also. In most of the towns, there are thousands of people lined up on the streets for Santa Claus -- definitely not for us, but we may be in the

parades.

Interjection.

Mr Murdoch: Maybe in St Catharines, but in other places I'm sure they're waiting for Santa Claus. Maybe the member for St Catharines is Santa

Claus; we're not sure of that.

Half those people didn't vote in this election. We had only approximately 54% of the people in Ontario vote. Something's wrong with our system. Something's

drastically wrong when we can only see where 54% of the people of Ontario voted. I know it varies from riding to riding, but that was the average all over. Something is wrong.

Our Premier said that the people don't trust politicians to do what they said they were going to do. The Liberal platform even states, "People have lost faith

in their politicians and their institutions of government." My question is, do the Liberals feel they've made it better or worse since they've come into power?

Well, they had a chance when they came into power -- a big chance -- to show that they meant what they said. Unfortunately, another promise has been broken --

another promise that this government has broken. They had a chance to make this place more democratic.

In the past, we've had three parties represented in this assembly, and now we only have one official opposition. The government said that they would let them

have more democracy. They were going to let the members be more democratic, let them bring the ideas from their ridings. But when one of the parties here had a chance to be recognized, no, that

didn't happen. All of a sudden, all these promises we heard on the election trail, that we were going to do better and that this government will make sure that they get a chance to represent their

people -- what about the 15% of the people across Ontario that voiced their opinion and said that they would like to see the NDP represent them? All of a sudden when the chance comes up, this

government says, "No; we're not going to let you do that." They could have easily done that. I think it's approximately 660,000 people who voted that way -- 15% who voted. Unfortunately, there

should be more people voting.

To point that out, when I was on the campaign trail I was introduced to this couple in a business that was at the back of my campaign office. My wife knew them

and she introduced them to me. I had mentioned, of course, as probably as most MPPs would, or most people running, "If you can support me in this election I'd certainly appreciate it." Well, they

looked at me and said, "You know, we generally vote for the Green Party." I sort of smiled and said, "That's your business. If you want to do that, that's fine. But if you can support me I'd

certainly appreciate it." They said, "We may not even vote." I said, "Why would that happen?" They said, "Our vote will never be heard. We'll never get a chance to have our vote to be heard in the

Legislative Assembly, so we may not vote." They could have become part of that 46% of the people who didn't vote because they feel that this place doesn't represent democracy any more. There's a

problem here.

There are many more quotes that we could go on with. It's in this paper that the Liberals put out -- many, many more quotes in here that say, "We're going to

fix this place up. We're going to make it more democratic." They had a chance to do that right at the start. What happened? This government said no, right off the bat. What a way to start this

assembly off.

Since I've been here for the past 13 years, I have complained a lot about representative democracy, that we don't have that any more. This was a chance. This

is a new government. They had all kinds of new quotes. They were going to make this place so much better and they didn't do it. They let us down again. Do they not want the people out there to get

some renewal so that they'll go out and vote?

We had the municipal elections -- not much better. In my city of Owen Sound, only 40% of the people came out and voted. In one of the surrounding

municipalities, 26% voted. Something's wrong. People are not believing in their elected people.

Again, as I go on to say, there are many, many quotes in here that they could have done something about.

They were going to talk about proportional representation. We haven't seen that. I admit that they have appointed a minister to look into this, but where has

he been? We haven't heard a thing.

We can go back to the point: They had a chance to do something. The very first day we were in this House they had a chance to do that. And then what did this

government do? They add insult to injury. They put the NDP at the far end and us at this end, and put a rump in the middle just to make sure that we don't have effective opposition. If this

government wants to govern Ontario and govern it well, they need effective opposition over here. We know that. Look what's happened in Ottawa. The Liberals have run amok up in Ottawa. They just do

what they want to do up there; they're not worried. The opposition has been splintered, and they've just run amok. This is what's going to happen with this government if they don't figure out that

we need to have more democracy in this House.

This government has gotten arrogant and they've only been in for less than two weeks. Something needs to be done to have renewal and make sure that we, as

representatives of our areas, have a chance to speak here. To do that, you need effective opposition. This government needs to recognize the NDP and fix the seating up in here the way it used to

be. The rump should be at the far end, and then the NDP, and then we should be sitting here. We can at least work together to make sure that this government is effective when they bring their bills

in. They need us to do a good job.

Four years from now when an election comes, they will regret the decision they've made by not allowing the NDP to have their official status. This has been a

sad day in this House. I'll be the first to say that the NDP can be a big pain when you're in government. We were there for eight years; we know what they can do. But they do bring that voice of

over 15% of the people. If we look at the next election, if those 15% decide they're not going to vote, we're going to be down around 40%, less than 40%, of the people voting -- something wrong.

You have a member in your caucus, Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde, who goes to other countries to observe voting. He'll tell you some of the stories where people walk for miles and miles in their bare feet,

and they get there and there are armed guards standing there. We don't want that in this country. This country is open and free, and we want people to get out there and vote. That's what democracy

is all about.

Then when the representatives get to this place, they need to be able to express their opinion without the leader's office or the Premier's office coming down

on them, saying, "You don't have a right to say that. This isn't our policy." I've been here for 13 years, and there have been difficulties on all three sides. I sat through when the NDP was in

government and their Premier ran everything from his office. We had troubles in ours. I'll be the first to admit the Premier's office certainly ran a lot of things when we were in government, and

it didn't do us any good, and you see where we're sitting today. If this government over here is going to let the same thing happen, which looks like it's happening -- I listen to the answers we

get from the ministers when they're asked a simple question in the House, and they get up and talk about a bogus deficit. We're not even near the end of the year yet, and that's what their excuse

is. Where does that answer come from? That comes from the Premier's office. Don't let the Premier's office run you people over there. I'm sure the member for St Catharines won't let that happen. We

need some democratic renewal in this House.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my privilege to introduce George Sardelis, who is in the gallery,

the great Conservative candidate in the riding of Toronto-Danforth.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order, but we welcome visitors to the Legislature.

Further debate.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): First of all, I want to tell the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, who may not know this, that Dalton

McGuinty, the Premier of this province, has actually appointed a minister responsible for democratic renewal. As you know, I'm the parliamentary assistant in that capacity. We had the political

will, immediately upon being elected to government, to actually do something about it.

I find it interesting that the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound does not recall the contempt that the Conservative Party had for democratic process when they

took the budget and presented it outside this Legislature, which was a contempt of this Legislature and a contempt to every representative here who represents the public interest in this chamber. I

would suggest that the member remember this.

I'd like to list to this House what we're going to proceed with to enhance democracy in Ontario. As you know, we're going to change the Audit Act, so we can

better understand where the money is spent and how it's being spent with our funding partners.

We're also going to make public agencies like Hydro One covered by freedom of information. It was in 1997 that the Conservatives decided to put a blanket of

secrecy over Ontario Hydro. What is democracy about? Democracy is about the right of the public to know, and this is one of the actions the government took in 1997. We're going to change that.

Banning of partisan advertising: That is what we're going to do. Why? Because it is not the best use of public dollars to spend them on self-promotional

advertising. That's what the government has done to a great degree over the last eight years.

Another

part is making sure that ministers are here in the House during question period. We're going to be bringing forward legislation to make sure that

ministers attend question period.

As well, we are going to put in fixed election dates.

We are going to reach out to youth, because it's important that they understand they are an integral

part in participating in our democratic process.

We're also going to have juries on election financing, because too many times the ones who have the most clout in policy are the ones who can make the largest

contributions.

As well, we're going to move forward on actual voting reform.

It's very important that you have a government that has the political will to do these things, and we are going to do it.

We released the democratic renewal part of our platform over two years ago, because we believed it was an important part of changing how government does its

work for the people. We have seen over eight years a closure, if you want, of our democratic process over and over again. We want to change that, because government is here to work for people, and

we want to do that.

We will be looking at the standing orders, for instance, enhancing the role of the private member, potentially, meaning that we can actually agree on certain

legislation. Members from the Conservative Party, along with members from the Liberals and the NDP, might be able to agree on something and we can actually present a bill as private members and

coordinate the effort.

Certainly we agree the government is going to live up to its campaign promise; it has. We've already established a ministry for democratic renewal. I didn't

see that happen in the eight years the Conservatives were in power. I know the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound wants to make hay out of this, because he can go back to his constituency and say,

"You know what? I really pushed for democratic renewal in the Legislature," when in fact his government has done exactly the opposite.

I say to the members in this House, yes, we are going to maintain our commitment for democratic renewal. We're going to act on it, and we're going to see that

when we finish this four-year mandate, more people are going to get out and vote, because we will restore the confidence in why government is here.

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We'd like to recognize the presence in the visitors' gallery of a group of

grade 5 students from Divine Mercy Elementary School on Duncairn Drive in Mississauga and welcome their teacher, Pedro Tomas.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, but we welcome the students. Further debate.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also commend the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound for bringing this --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will the member from Niagara Centre refrain from speaking to the gallery.

Mr Barrett: I do commend the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound for bringing forward this resolution on democratic renewal. As we've heard this

morning, given the trail of broken promises that the Liberal government has left in its wake -- and, again, after only two months -- I join this call for the government of Ontario to live up to its

campaign promise to strengthen democracy through democratic renewal.

On that note, I'd like to examine some precedents, both near and far, aimed at strengthening democracy through the power of people to recall their government

members. This is a private member's bill I'll be introducing later in this session.

As we all know, "democracy" is derived from two Latin words. It means literally "government by the people." I can't think of a better way to ensure that this

could be accomplished than to give people the power to remove their elected officials, not just at election time but any time the people feel a politician isn't living up to his promises or his

requirements in the office.

To be sure, recall is not something to be taken lightly. I do believe that in a democratic society the electorate should have the right to hold elected

officials accountable between elections.

Of course, as we've heard recently, there's a good example of recall legislation in the state of California. They were given a chance to voice their opinions

on the track record of then Governor Gray Davis through a recall vote. We all know the outcome. Here again, I stress it's serious business and not to be entered into lightly. That was certainly the

case in the state of California. Recall has been a fundamental part the governmental system in that state since 1911. It applies to both state and local officials, and to ensure that recall is not

abused in California, it requires that, to qualify for recall, proponents need a minimum of 12% of the votes cast for the office of governor on a referendum ballot. What would a ballot like that

look like? There are two parts. On the first part, voters vote for or against the recall, and secondly the voters select the replacement candidate, and the replacement candidate's occupation and

party affiliation are also included on the ballot.

A little closer to home, MP Ted White introduced a similar bill in the House of Commons in 1999, Bill C-269. It was introduced as "An Act to establish the

right of electors to recall members of Parliament." Again, the purpose was to allow electors of an electoral district to vote in a recall election no later than three months after a petition asking

for a recall vote is signed by at least 25% of the number of electors who voted in the previous election for that electoral district. In MP White's bill, signatures may be collected during a period

of 12 months after a proposal for a petition.

I present to you, Speaker, several examples of where other jurisdictions are strengthening democracy, and I look forward to the chance to debate this further

in my recall legislation. I certainly join MPP Bill Murdoch in his call for this government to live up to its campaign promise to strengthen democracy through democratic renewal.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'm pleased to speak to this resolution. It is very commendable for the member to bring it forward,

but it's almost surreal that we're debating it, considering where it's coming from. This is something Monty Python would have written for a script. As I read it, what this member is saying is, in

essence, their government, when they were in power, did so much damage that they're imploring us to try to undo some of the damage. It's also very clear to me that they really don't understand the

magnitude of the damage that the previous government did to democracy in this province. They're looking for it to be fixed. We've sat eight days now, and they're looking for it to be fixed in eight

days? Well, they took eight years to do the damage. It's going to take a little bit more than eight days to fix it, but it will be fixed.

Why it's going to take more than eight days -- let's have a look at some of the things that were done to destroy democracy in this province. There are so many

examples, but let's start with the budget. The budget was done in a private facility that banned the general public from coming. For as long as we've had democracy in this world, one of the key

foundations was having a chamber where the public could come and view -- we had some schoolchildren introduced a few minutes ago -- and see it in action. They couldn't have attended this so-called

pseudo-budget that was presented before. The consultation that went into that pretend budget was done by invitation only. Even the general public didn't have an opportunity. There was a complete

lack of openness, and indeed, it now turns out that the budget and the numbers that were presented bore no relation to the actual reality, but I never heard the government. Now, the government is,

in a sense -- not in a sense; the government is owned by the people. The owners of this province, each and every citizen, was entitled to know the financial status of their province. That was kept

from them. That is a blot on democracy in this province.

We have seen a history over eight years of omnibus bills, bills that included into one the spectrum of every possible act and amendment. One of the reasons for

it, I believe, was to make sure that it was so large and so complicated that the general public could not find what was actually being done to change their province. That, again, was a major

assault on democracy.

Time allocation: Time allocation was used on any bill, of any significance whatsoever, over the previous eight years. Absolute lack of consultation, no

opportunity for people who had been elected in their ridings to voice their constituents' opinions.

We have seen over the last eight years a significant reduction in the number of bills that are being referred to committee, and we've seen the committees

travel very, very little over the last eight years.

An example that particularly bothered me was when the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, for what it was worth, was rammed through the Legislature. Consultations

took place over four days. Persons with disabilities were given about 24 hours' notice to apply and to be at the first consultation. I am proud, very proud, that over the last four years the

Liberal caucus did their own consultations on the Ontarians with Disabilities Act and travelled the entire province.

When the issue of insurance started to rise and the previous government said, "We just don't want to deal with it," it was our member, George Smitherman, who

travelled Ontario with other MPPs and with Dalton McGuinty to hear the advice and suggestions from everyone in the province. It is that important that we believe everyone should participate.

Now we find out, after the election -- if the media is correct, and I believe they are because they're basing their information on conversations with members

of the previous government -- the Premier didn't even consult his own cabinet ministers, his own party, with decisions that were being made.

I applaud this resolution because there has been a great deal of damage done to democracy in this province. Thank you for highlighting what damage you have

done, and yes, we will fix it.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm very pleased to join in the debate this morning on the notice of motion put forward by the member

from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound: "That in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario should live up to its campaign promise to `strengthen democracy' through `democratic renewal.'" I believe

actions are greater than words, especially in the case of the current government, especially the way the government is breaking its promises.

This morning I had breakfast with the egg farmers. They're here promoting egg supply management and consumption of eggs. John O'Toole, Frank Klees and I had a

kitchen table discussion with the farmers and their spouses. They asked the question, "Why do politicians promise one thing and then do another after the election?"

It's like the Liberals electricity price promise: They promised to maintain the price until 2006, then very quickly have broken that promise after being

elected. Why do they promise one thing to get elected, and do something very different after they become the government? I very much believe this breeds cynicism amongst the voters. It causes

people not to bother to vote. Is democratic renewal going to become another Liberal broken promise?

Actions are greater than words, especially in the case of this government. Let's look at the Speaker selection process. The first order of business for this

new Legislature, the selection of the Speaker. It's supposed to be -- it is a secret ballot. I'd been lobbied by two prospective candidates, Liberal MPPs who wanted to be Speaker. Mike Brown sent

me a letter stating his intention to want to be Speaker of this House. He'd been the Deputy Speaker, a very well-qualified candidate, I was considering supporting him. Alvin Curling gave me a phone

call asking for my support.

What happened? Mike Brown declined his nomination to run for the position. Instead of an election, we had an acclamation. I suspect that what happened was the

Premier decided who would be the Speaker and Mike Brown was told not to run for the position. This was one of the first actions of the new government. This is democratic renewal, Liberal style.

Another action demonstrated by the Liberal Party which is anything but democratic is their process of hand-picking candidates. The leader of the Liberal Party

is able to hand-pick candidates to get around the normal nomination process, something I find unbelievable. I think in the case of this election they hand-picked at least four candidates,

including, I believe, the member from Scarborough Centre. I find this very offensive. I'm just amazed that the Liberal Party would do this. Is this Liberal democratic renewal, denying the people of

a riding their rightful choice?

What about the way the NDP has been treated by this government: Denial of the recognized party status, their seating position in the Legislature? The NDP

received 15% of the vote in the last election. There are a lot of people who support their socialist principles. I'm not one of them, but I respect those who did vote NDP. I believe that those

people's votes should count. If you want more participation in elections, then those people who believe in the Green Party or the NDP should feel their vote means something.

As I said, actions are greater than words, and so far the actions of this government have been anything but democratic. I support the notice of motion of the

member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and call on the government to start its democratic renewal process.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today in support of the motion made by the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. I rise in support of

it not only because what he is saying is timely but also because we need to remind ourselves what this institution is supposed to do. We need to remind ourselves what we promised during the

election and what we are in fact delivering in the first eight days of this Parliament.

I have here the document Government that Works for You. I hope some of the members remember what was said a scant couple of months ago out there on the streets

of this province knocking door to door.

Reading from page 7, because I think this is the page that says it all and is the reason why the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound felt compelled in the first

action he has had available to him to put forward such a motion. It's entitled "Respect for your MPP." "We will give your elected representative more power." With the greatest respect, in the first

eight or 10 days of this Parliament, I have to tell you I do not have the same amount of power that I had sitting in the previous House, even under the Conservative administration. What have been

taken are the stripped rights of myself and my party in this Legislature to stand up and to speak in this Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr Prue: Listen to this: "Elect more members." This is always the answer from the other side. They will not acknowledge that they have

promised to deliver more democracy and in fact are delivering less democracy.

The next line: "Your MPP should be free to represent your views, not just parrot the views of his or her party." The first action of this government was to

deny that we even had a party. It was only upon appeal to the Speaker that we were allowed to be called the party for which we were elected, for which we put our names on the ballot, for which we

campaigned.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): And that was touch and go.

Mr Prue: And that was touch and go. The governing party has even tried to deny us this right by calling us throughout independent members. We

are not independent members; we are New Democrats.

There is another election promise that you're not keeping: You said you were going to strengthen the ability of the MPP within the party. "We will scrap the

changes the Harris-Eves government made to the standing orders of the Legislature that concentrated powers in the hands of spin doctors and advisors." You have scrapped any modicum of support for

the NDP, any support we might have had within the committee system, any voice we might have had within this Legislature. You have introduced a draconian bill, which is still being debated in this

House, an omnibus bill on closure. What you are trying to say is that we have no rights at all. You are trying to say that any time, at a whim, without the normal --

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It's not on a whim; it's rules your party supported.

Mr Prue: Come on, if you want to speak, stand up and speak later. You have nothing to say except to insult me.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Beaches-East York, make your comments through the Chair, please.

Mr Prue: I will address you, but I wish you would address him as well, Mr Speaker, with all respect.

The last and the laughable one: "We will bring a team approach to governing. We will respect and draw on the talents and expertise of every elected

representative, including opposition members."

No one has asked for my expertise, no one has asked for my participation. Today, I went to committee, and as expected, I am treated as an independent member --

as expected, and it comes as no surprise to me. I know what the rules of this place are if they're not to be changed. I have been told that I cannot be on the subcommittee. I have been told that I

cannot be substituted if I am not available. Those are the kinds of rules that are being used here, rules used flagrantly against democracy.

I and my party members are constantly referred to as independents; we are not. We are stuck over here in the corner, in a bifurcated rump, which I think is,

with all respect to the Speaker, and I heard the Speaker's ruling, actually instigated by members of the governing party. We are awaiting some really fundamental changes, and we do not expect them

to come in any hurry. But if this party is at all credible, if they intend to be at all credible, I want them to announce in very short order -- because it doesn't cost a penny; you don't have to

worry about the $5 billion or the $6 billion or the $8 billion -- when the election day is, because the people want to know that. We want to know when you are going to institute democratic reforms

on proportional representation.

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to recognize the LINC program from the Dufferin-Peel Catholic

District School Board. We have 50 new Canadians from the great riding of Mississauga East. I'd like to thank them for joining us here today in the House.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order, but we welcome the visitors.

Mr Patten: I'd be happy to support this particular resolution. I find it somewhat ironic that this resolution comes from a member of the PC

Party who probably contributed to this place being the worst Legislature in all of Canada in terms of the way in which it operates in the interest of being more businesslike, with business plans

throughout the bureaucracy. Education has business plans, social development programs have business plans; it's very business oriented.

In the interests of efficiency and being more effective, that essentially undercut the opportunity for many members in this particular House to fully

participate. Those rules will be changed; many of those will be reversed. There will be consultation. You will actually begin to see real consultation for the first time.

My democratic friend says that this government is not providing opportunities. They have seven members and yet they have more speaking time per member than the

other two parties. They don't have the right, according to the rules, to sit on some of those committees. We've invited them to sit on the committees.

Interjection.

Mr Patten: We can never get you to shut up, that's for sure; we can never do that.

So when you look at the long list of approaches under democratic reform, many of you will be pleased because it will open up opportunities for people, it will

help make government more transparent and more accountable. Just the Provincial Auditor's role, for example, expanding that to all government agencies; as it is now to the LCBO, it will be to

Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One and the fiasco we saw there before. All of that will be transparent for the auditor to take a look at.

The advertising that was abused, these self-aggrandizing promotions that were sent out, which were nothing more than campaigning and telling people how good

the government of the day was, hundreds of millions of dollars, there will be a stop to that. We will have an independent authority that will take a look at that and approve promotions that will be

done by government. That's a first. That is a very significant step.

I was so concerned with some of the changes to the rules in this House that I wrote a paper. If anybody wants to read it, I would be happy to share it. I

recall being quite disappointed when the rules of this House were changed. I'd like to read a couple of excerpts from my paper. I wrote at the time, and it's still the case now, and that's why

change is imminent, "It's perhaps a measure of the well-being of our democracy that we rarely, if ever, think of it as being in any peril. But by and large, we think of the health of our democratic

institutions as stable and solid, if nothing else.

"On the rare occasions that our thoughts do take a dark turn, we tend to imagine a loss of our democracy as a singular, cataclysmic event that would shake us

to our foundations. But what happens if it starts to slowly slip away?"

We're talking about the way in which people do things and people don't pay attention, much as the media doesn't pay attention. You see what happens. I want to

change that. Our government wants to change it, believe me. I'd like to say that most people are aware that there needs to be change.

I'd like to finish on this note: "Keeping democracy healthy is something that never happens naturally on its own. It must be nurtured and occasionally fought

for. Sometimes democracy can seem to be a slow, burdensome exercise, without a doubt; it has frustrations. Be that as it may, there is a clear, indisputable responsibility for those holding office.

Things may have to get done, yet they must get done while respecting the customs, institutions and conventions by which a healthy democracy lives and breathes."

With that sentiment, I'd be very happy to support the resolution from the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate with respect to the resolution by the member from

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound.

In this particular area, there's a text of a speech from the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. He says: "By changing the way our democracy works,

we can give the people a real say; we can make their vote count; we can reduce the influence of money on politics and we can take away power from the backroom people and ensure the people's elected

representatives are more than just puppets for political parties."

There are a couple of areas I want to address that I think should be alarm bells with respect to what the commitments are with respect to this government.

First of all, I want to deal with the backrooms. One thing I haven't noticed any change in, in this democratic renewal, is that standing order 106 deals with

the government agencies committee and how it works. What it has in there is that these appointments aren't reviewable; they're only dealt with by the government; they don't come to the committee.

What it says is that it excludes from review re-appointments and appointments for a term of one year or less. There's nothing in this democratic renewal that is dealing with that, and I think

that's the backroom that the Premier was talking about.

The first case in point was the removal of David Johnson as the OMB chairman. They put in a temporary appointment that did not go through the committee at all

because it's less than a year. How many more of these are we going to see from this government in terms of playing around with appointments, because they want to live by these rules? If they really

believed in getting away from the backrooms, getting away from having the money people influence appointments, they would change that standing rule. I'm putting it out to them today. I throw out

the challenge to that government that believes in democratic renewal, doesn't believe in backroom boys, to change that standing order so that any appointment goes through the government agencies

committee. I can tell you that that's important for democracy, so that backroom boys don't rule, especially with the OMB, when they put a hand-picked person in there who's not subject to any

review. So I say, review rule 106, show that you're committed to democratic renewal, get the backroom boys out of your appointments right now. We'll see if you do it. I put that challenge to

you.

The second thing is in the throne speech from the Premier. He says in his throne speech, and I commend him for this: "I'm going to introduce legislation that

there will be 11 ridings in the northern boundaries." That's not the same under the new federal legislation, where there are going to be nine boundaries in the north. He says there are going to be

11, and that's a good thing; the more northern members we have, the better. But the bottom line is, he's going to do that, which is contrary to the Federal Election Act, which we're now mandated to

follow with respect to our riding distributions.

What is the Premier going to do with respect to the southern Ontario boundaries? That's a big challenge with respect to what he's committed to in the north.

He's committed to the status quo in the north because we currently have 103 members, and 11 of them are from the north. What is he going to do with respect to the south? Is he going to be honest

and say, "We're going to leave the status quo," or are we going to get into riding gerrymandering?

Members across the way, you should be very concerned about it because of all the powers in your Premier's office. You should be very concerned about what

they're going to do with respect to the rest of the boundaries. What are they going to do with the remaining 92 boundaries? Are they going to create new ridings? Are they going to keep the status

quo? You may end up seeing that you're going to have a situation where you're going to have to fight for your own riding because your Premier unilaterally will just basically say, "We're going to

redistribute. I'm going to increase the number of ridings in the south," or, "I'm going to maintain the status quo."

You don't have to be worried. You can go back to sleep like the way you are now and just say, "The status quo is going to be fine." Then you can go back to

sleep. But don't be sleeping if he decides to fool around with the boundaries. You're going to find yourself in a situation where you may not have a riding. You may be fighting your neighbour with

respect to that riding. That's a big change. I don't know what he's going to do with respect to bringing democracy and fairness so we know what's going on.

A supplement to that is what's in your platform with respect to referendums and how we vote. You say that right now we have a first-past-the-post system, where

whichever candidate has the most votes wins a constituency, even if there's less than 50%. There may be a fairer way of doing things. We need a full, open public debate on voting reform. The public

should decide on whether we need a new system, and if so, what the new system should be, through a binding referendum.

Along with riding reform -- because that's what I think the Premier is looking at, is fooling around, with the ridings, after he sees what happens in the

federal election --

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): You're against the north.

Mr Tascona: I'm in favour of the north. I'm almost in the north in Barrie; you know that, member for St Catharines. I can tell you that what

we're looking at is -- look what happened in the election. Fifteen per cent of the people voted for the NDP, a recognized party on the ballot. They came back to the Legislature because they have

seven seats, not the mandated eight, and now they have no status. But I'll say this, Speaker, and I think you would accept this view: Opposition is good for the government. It keeps them on their

toes, it keeps them honest and keeps them accountable. That's all these people are asking for: that they have a voice.

Every four years we do review the standing orders. I'm saying, review the standing orders with respect to democratic representation here if you believe in

democratic renewal, if you really believe an opposition is good for a government to keep them on their toes. So if you believe in democracy, if you believe in opposition, then I don't think you're

going to have much trouble dealing with the standing orders with respect to the number of seats to give a representation with respect to how you do your appointments. It's important for them to

change their appointment process if they want to be transparent and people want to know what's going on in the appointments process. They've got to get rid of that loophole with respect to less

than one-year appointments and re-appointments, if they really believe in democratic renewal.

I support the member for Owen Sound because this is about time that we got to deal with this issue.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I want to thank the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound for bringing this short but important resolution

to the House today. You can say what you like about the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, and there's a lot to be said about the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound -- I can't say it all in five

minutes. But one thing that we saw with that member, when he sat in the backbenches in the Tory government -- he never made it into cabinet. He was a maverick. I didn't agree with many, many of his

policies and positions -- still don't -- but if you just look at his record on democracy, he railed against his own government when they changed the rules to further diminish democracy and members'

individual rights and opposition rights in this House. We should all applaud him for that because he had the guts, unlike other members in his party, to stand up and speak out against his own

government when it was necessary to do so.

What the Liberals are promising to do is fiddle around the edges. There are lots of announcements about changing this, changing that -- don't look so dismayed.

That's what this is all about. What we need to do is change the system. Fiddling around the edges and pretending to fiddle around the edges is not going to fix an archaic system that no longer

works for the people of Ontario. You've got a first-past-the-post system. That sets up a dictatorship in this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, and that includes those who are giving me advice.

Ms Churley: That's what people have been seeing, not just with this government and the previous Tory government, but with the NDP government

and the Peterson government before it, and with the election of each new government it gets worse. The power gets more and more entrenched in the Premier's office. I don't even blame the

government; that's the system we have.

It becomes a dictatorship, and whoever is in power has the opportunity to change the rules if they're not getting their way, which is in fact what we just saw

the Liberals do with an omnibus motion that is actually draconian, the worst we've seen in this place in terms of including five pieces of legislation in one motion -- three bills and two motions

-- and enacting closure without talking to anybody in the New Democratic caucus; a deal worked out with the Tories in the back room. That is wrong, my friend, so don't stand up there and say, "We

believe in democracy."

There is an old saying: "Where you stand depends on where you sit," and that's what we're seeing here. Whoever sits on that side of the House, from any party,

stands changed dramatically when they get over there and thinks, "We're the government; we should be able to do whatever we want."

I want to debunk some of the myths. Dalton McGuinty said on day one, after New Democrats were reduced to seven seats but with an increase in the popular vote,

"Hey, the rules are the rules; we can't keep changing the rules." At the same time, this is the same Premier who promised to change the rules. At the first opportunity to demonstrate that he meant

what he said, that this system is no longer working for democracy, for the people of Ontario -- to say what happened when the Tories reduced the number of seats in this House from 130 to 103, they

did not at the same time reduce the corresponding ratio, not only for the number you need for party status but also for a quorum in the House and members on a committee. None of that was done at

the same time. We had an election with reduced numbers. The NDP came back with nine, I believe, at the time, and suddenly negotiations happened. The Clerk and the Speaker were not asked to come up

with a fair number for all those; it was negotiated. It became a political football. Eight was plucked out of the air. David Christopherson and I were involved in those negotiations. We objected

and said, "Let's take the average from across the country." For instance, in Ottawa, you only need 12 out of over 300 members.

The quorum was reduced here from 20 to 12, almost a 40% difference. It benefited the government of the day to have a huge reduction for a quorum. None of these

numbers make any sense. They were plucked out of the air.

I would say to the government, it doesn't follow, it doesn't make any sense that the rules are already changed and we can't change them again. You can't be

cherry-picking rules depending on whether or not it benefits your own party, which is what is happening in this case.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to congratulate the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound for having raised this motion, because I

think it raises a number of issues that are quite apart from what we experienced in the last election.

I just want to say, on that particular point, the member from Riverdale --

Ms Churley: Toronto-Danforth.

Mr Bisson: -- it used to be Riverdale; it's now Toronto-Danforth -- raises a really excellent point. On the one hand, we've got a Premier who

says, "Rules are rules; that's the way this place has to operate," and then we listen to the Liberal backbenchers and some of the Liberal cabinet ministers whine when we use the rules. Quite

frankly, it's a little bit difficult to take. If the Premier says, "Rules are rules," then why are you whining when we use the rules? I just think it's kind of an interesting point.

What really is galling is that the first chance the Premier has to come into this House and demonstrate there's going to be a breath of fresh air through this

Legislature and he's going to live up to his campaign commitment to put more democracy in the Legislature, what is the first thing he does? He brings the mother of all time allocation motions into

this House.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I can't say what mother; it's not parliamentary. But I would just say it's one heck of a time allocation motion.

What the government is now doing by way of the time allocation motion we debated two evenings ago, and quite possibly that we'll debate some time today or in

the next few days, is to say, "The standing orders? Throw them aside." There are only four ways to end debate in this Legislature, as there is across this country in all the Legislatures and in the

federal House. One is that no member wishes to debate any more, which ends debate. The other way to do that is basically by way of somebody putting the question. In other words, under standing

order 47, it's basically a closure motion where an individual member gets up and says, "I move that the question now be put." But that allows for at least four or five days of debate, I would

argue, and probably more. The only other way to close debate in this House is by standing order 46, which says you have to have three days of debate before the government can even contemplate

bringing in a time allocation motion.

Now, I sat in opposition and the member from St Catharines and other members of this government who are now whining about us using the rules used to sit on

this side of the House when the government introduced how many time allocation motions? Sixty or 100 or whatever the number was. Each and every time the government would introduce a time allocation

motion, the now-government was up on their feet and they would be whining -- squealing is the right word -- against the Tories, and rightfully so, because the Tories were trying to reduce debate in

this House.

So what's the first thing this government does when it has a chance to show Ontarians that there is true democracy in the Legislature of Ontario and that

Dalton McGuinty is living up to his campaign commitment? They break that promise. Another promise made, another promise broken. What you're going to do by way of your motion -- your huge time

allocation motion that you have in here -- is to basically say we no longer have rules in this House. By fiat, the majority of members in this House can basically decide to stifle the

opposition.

I just want to put this proposal to you: We have a Charter of Rights in this country, and we understand that the basic right within the Charter of Rights is to

protect the minority, because we have said in this country that those people in a minority have to be heard and have to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Can you imagine if one Premier

in this province, or a Prime Minister, was to say, "I want to make a change to the Human Rights Code, because those protestors are such a pain. We don't want to hear them any more. They're using

the rules. So we the majority of Ontarians and Canadians will, by fiat because we're the majority, suppress the rights of the minority." This country would go wild, because we accept basic,

fundamental human rights and we have enshrined that within the Charter of Rights of this country.

What this government is doing is analogous to us making an amendment to the Charter of Rights that says minorities don't have a say in this country and don't

have to be heard and don't have to be respected.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: That's exactly what this is. Can you imagine if the government was to change the Charter of Rights to say, "We don't have to listen

to the minority"? That's exactly what you're doing by your time allocation motion. You're saying, "We suspend the rules of this Legislature. We will no longer take into account whatever little

rules we have in this House to give individual members the right to debate. We will take that away, and because we're the majority -- and the Tories, who are in the pockets of the Liberals, because

they did the same thing when they were in government when it came to time allocation, say, "Because we're the majority, we're smarter, we're better and we don't have to listen to independent

members." I just say that you will rue the day you pass this motion and you go down that road, because we will all have to live, unfortunately, with what you're setting up by way of precedent. It's

not only a broken promise; you should be ashamed of yourselves.

The Acting Speaker: The member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound has two minutes to reply.

Mr Murdoch: I appreciate all the debate we've had here tonight -- or this morning, I guess; we're not here at night -- and I want to thank the

members from Sarnia-Lambton, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Prince Edward-Hastings, Beaches-East York, Ottawa Centre, Toronto-Danforth and Timmins-James Bay.

We had a number of speakers here, and it's good for debate.

Something I want to remind the government of on the other side: They mentioned that it was ironic that a Conservative would bring this motion up. Well, I think

it's rather ironic that they would say it was me who brought it up, because in the past eight years, I have complained about democracy in this House. If they had listened to me, I think they would

have known about that.

They are the government now. Quit whining and complaining about what we've done over here. Look where we're sitting. We didn't have good opposition and we

ended up over here. Now you people need good opposition, or you're going to end up back over here. Now you people need good opposition or you're going to end up back over here, so you'd better

start to listen. It's nice to have all those ideas that you have and all the promises your Premier has made, a lot of promises. The member from Sarnia-Lambton brought them up. Now you have to live

up to them.

But here's the problem. You broke the promise right at the start. Sure, you've only had eight days and you mentioned that, but in eight days you've broken a

whole lot of promises. This is the problem. How do we trust you over here? You had a chance to bring democracy to this House. You had a chance to recognize the New Democratic Party and you didn't

do it. So how do we believe you?

I'm telling you, just like I said to you, we're over here now. We made mistakes; yes, we did. The problem is that we didn't have any good opposition and we

ended up over here. If you don't create good opposition, you're going to end up over here in four years, and that'll be your fault and your own misgivings.

The Acting Speaker: There being no further debate, pursuant to standing order 96(e), proceedings are suspended until 12 noon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1200.

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENTS

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Levac has moved second reading of Bill number 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95(j), the bill is referred to committee of the whole.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek that the bill be sent to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Shall this bill be sent to the standing committee on general government? It shall be sent to the standing committee on

general government.

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Murdoch has moved motion number 2.

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

There being no further private members' business, I declare the House adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I'd like to speak briefly about the Liberal government plans to cancel the equity in education tax credit.

Apparently this government is hostile to the notion that parents should have the right to choose where their child can best be educated. I wonder why that is. It's certainly not about the money.

The government is making funding announcements in education, as they did yesterday.

This government falsely claims that the EETC drains money from the publicly funded school system and only benefits the wealthy. An

article in the Globe and

Mail today reasserts that only 5% of Ontario's independent schools can be considered elite. The overwhelming majority of them meet specific needs, diverse needs: religious needs, linguistic needs,

developmental needs that are not addressed adequately in the public school system. There are over 850 independent schools in Ontario, and two thirds of the children that attend these schools come

from low to modest levels of income. There's a tuition eligibility cap of $7,000 in the EETC. In fact, most Canadians have the benefit of a tax credit or a tax support for independent schools, and

that includes Canadians living in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, and so far, in the province of Ontario.

I urge the members opposite to reconsider their discriminatory repeal of the equity in education tax credit.

RUN FOR OVARIAN CANCER

Ms Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): A small group of dedicated people in London have done something quite remarkable. Today I rise to

celebrate that accomplishment. This group was inspired by a vibrant Irish Canadian named Ann Crowley from my riding of London North Centre. Ann was a real character, full of energy and life. Her

friends at the Waltzing Weasel can attest to that.

In August 2002, Ann was diagnosed with stage three ovarian cancer. Rather than simply accepting her diagnosis and pursuing her own cancer treatment regime, Ann

launched a fundraising and public awareness campaign. The vehicle would be a run for ovarian cancer and the goal would be raise $5,000 to $10,000. Many told her it couldn't be done, but she

recruited other women, like Elaine Pensa and Nancy Ford, who are also fighting a personal battle with ovarian cancer. She recruited friends like Michelle Kerr, Tony Malloy and Val Morgan. Dr Akira

Sugimoto, the London Health Sciences Foundation and countless others joined in.

Ovarian cancer is known as the whispering disease because the symptoms -- Abdominal pain or bloating, gas, change in bowel habits, backaches or indigestion --

are so easy to ignore, especially for middle-aged women. Too many ignore the symptoms until it is too late.

On May 5, 2003, despite rounds of chemotherapy and sickness from the disease, Ann Crowley showed up at the park and was met by 500 runners. I was one of them.

We raised $93,000.

Ann Crowley passed away on July 5. Her team continues in her spirit and is currently working on next year's run. I know all members join me in congratulating

this extraordinary group of people.

UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise to pay tribute to Canada's newest university in my riding of Durham. I was pleased to join the founding

president with the dream, Gary Polonsky; elected officials, including MPPs Jim Flaherty, Jerry Ouellette and Janet Ecker; students, staff and leaders in the community to celebrate the first day of

school at UOIT.

The University of Ontario Institute of Technology has welcomed its first class of approximately 1,000 students. Enrolment is expected to increase to 6,000.

Indeed, the work underway on a 160-hectare site at the Durham College/UOIT campus is the largest construction project in Ontario.

UOIT offers nine undergraduate programs, some of which are unique to Canada. Areas of study include science, engineering, nursing, business, teacher education

and justice studies. In keeping with the needs of the 21st century, our university offers career-focused learning and is fully accessible to laptop computer technology anywhere on campus. Of

particular interest to the energy sector in our community is the school of engineering and nuclear science.

I would like to recognize the past chair, Bob Strickert; Garry Cubitt, current chair of the board of governors; Vice-Chair Lorraine Sunstrum-Mann; and all the

board members for bringing this university to conclusion. Most of all, congratulations to the faculty and staff, such as Ken Swan, who is president of the student association at UOIT and Durham

College. To all of our leaders and pioneers in the 21st century of education, congratulations.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): It's that time of the year when property owners are receiving their new assessments. Of course, as usual, our

constituency office is flooded with concerns about their 2004 assessment notices. Some concerns are legitimate, especially when homeowners see their assessment going up by tens of thousands of

dollars, but many other concerns are created when some councillors refer them to the MPP's office, blaming the provincial government for their increase in assessment.

For the benefit of our constituents, there are two roles that we should be making crystal clear when it comes to the assessment of residential properties. We

believe that we find the answer right in the memo sent from the finance department that says:

"What role does the government play in determining assessment?

"The province establishes assessment policies to legislation and regulations only. For example, provincial legislation states that properties must be assessed

at their current value.

"Who is responsible for assessing the property?

"It's a municipal organization called, in short, MPAC, which is administered by the local municipalities and they are responsible for assessing residential

properties."

I believe the passing of more information makes for better-informed taxpayers and better-informed constituents.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the importance of the mid-peninsula corridor highway. This

will probably be the most important investment in a generation for the folks of the Niagara Peninsula, particularly those in southern and western Niagara. It stands to be a major artery of

investment for trade and for tourism, creating jobs from the Niagara River to the Grand River.

We were prepared as a government. Under Premier Eves, Transportation Minister Klees moved the next step to get that highway moving, to build it, to take

advantage of those investments and those jobs. I thought during the campaign that the local Erie-Lincoln candidate, Vance Badawey, also seemed to agree when he stated that we have to look at

getting the second highway, the mid-peninsula corridor, built immediately.

However, they said one thing during the election; now they're saying another while in government. I was disturbed by the Minister of Transportation's remarks

earlier this week in question period when he said he was going to go back to square one, the full environmental assessment, which, as I understand, involves a needs assessment. They're trying to

determine whether they even need the highway to begin with. In fact, some of their Hamilton area candidates even mused about that during the campaign.

The need is clear. The need has been demonstrated. The need has been proven. It is time to move ahead with the mid-peninsula corridor, to get that highway

built, to bring the jobs to southern and western Niagara. I call upon the Minister of Transportation to move forward with the mid-peninsula corridor expeditiously and also to meet with our new

regional chair Peter Partington, and a delegation of councillors from Niagara to discuss next steps to get that corridor going.

ROGER NEILSON

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I would like to pay tribute to a true Canadian hero, Roger Neilson, who passed away at the age of 69 last June

after a courageous battle with cancer.

Roger lived in my riding, just north of the city of Peterborough in Bridgenorth. His dedication to hockey and those learning the sport is unsurpassed. In his

35-year career he coached more NHL teams than any other coach in history. Locally, in nearby Lindsay, he ran a hockey camp and coaching clinic, which is now in its 27th year.

Last year, Roger's hard work was recognized when he was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame and received the Order of Canada. In June, the Ottawa Senators,

where Roger was an assistant coach, announced they would honour his memory by building Roger's House. The facility will be constructed at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario to provide

pediatric palliative care and help the families of those children battling cancer.

His contribution has also been recognized in the community of Peterborough. A city street has been named Roger Neilson Way. The street runs past the Memorial

Centre, where he coached the OHA Junior A Peterborough Petes for 10 years, from 1966 to 1976. The Senators, the Petes and the OHA provincial Junior A Lindsay Muskies, a team Roger owned, are

wearing commemorative patches on their sweaters this hockey season.

Just last week it was announced that the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board would name a new school in Peterborough's south end after him. Roger Neilson

Public School is scheduled to open in September 2004.

Roger was well known as a warm-hearted, generous spirit who supported many charities. I hope the community of Peterborough will always remember his

contributions and carry on his legacy.

TAXATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Next Wednesday, December 10, a number of Ontarians will be visiting Queen's Park to tell the

Liberal government that they do not appreciate the Liberal U-turn on their election promises. Tax Freedom Day in Ontario is already June 29.

The people of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and all Ontarians are working one half of the year to feed the beast of government, whether it is federal, provincial or

municipal. So 50% of our workday is used to pay the government. Put simply, the government is taking half of our annual income, even before we can start to put food on our table, pay our rent or

mortgage, or before we can begin to pay off our credit cards and debts.

In the recent election campaign, the Liberals claimed that they will protect hard-working tax payers. But what have they done since the election? They have

broken their promise. They have given Ontarians the largest tax-hike in a single day, and they did so without any shame. Liberals believe we should all be working for the government and we should

be working into each July for the benefits of government. This is unacceptable.

That is why hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers will be coming to Queen's Park next Wednesday to tell this government that they cannot afford higher taxes and

reckless spending. Ontarians cannot afford higher debt and more broken promises.

On behalf of the PC caucus, I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Ontarians who are watching at home to come to Queen's Park next Wednesday at

noon to tell Dalton McGuinty to stop raising taxes and breaking promises.

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): It is an honour as a member of provincial Parliament to stand before this Legislature and take a

moment to acknowledge and recognize the famine-genocide that occurred in Ukraine in 1933.

To date, the exact number of victims of the famine is not known. What we do know is that more than seven million Ukrainian men, women and children were starved

to death by the occupying Soviet regime from 1932 to 1933 -- an appalling event that was hidden from the outside world for generations.

It is only by acknowledging the reality of such a horrific occurrence that we can together work to ensure that such a tragedy does not again repeat itself in

our lifetime or in generations to come.

This year, the month of November was set aside by the Ukrainian community to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the famine-genocide through a series of

concerts, lectures, visiting teachers and something that was undoubtedly heart wrenching, the testimony of remaining survivors.

I urge you to join me in supporting and acknowledging the Ukrainian community and, in particular, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress Toronto branch's

famine-genocide committee's efforts to increase public awareness about the famine-genocide. Their continued work to include the teaching about this terrible tragedy in our schools and their work

toward ensuring our youth are aware of the millions of lives lost in the famine-genocide is critical to the prevention of its repetition.

CABINET MINISTERS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise to express concern related to Premier McGuinty's failure to have his cabinet appropriately

represent the various areas of the province and, in so doing, his failure to recognize the long service of many of his loyal and hard-working caucus members.

Instead of appointing members such as Hamilton's Dominic Agostino, Essex's Bruce Crozier, Thunder Bay's Mike Gravelle or eastern Ontario's Richard Patten and

one of his longest serving members, Jean-Marc Lalonde, Mr McGuinty turned his back on these long-serving members and instead opted to have almost 50% of his cabinet come from the Toronto area. This

is wrong.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'd like to hear your list, sir.

Mr Runciman: If you had not been in the chair, Speaker, I'm sure you'd be a member of the cabinet.

In any event, this is wrong-headed, and we are already seeing decisions in agriculture, environment, education and elsewhere affected by this Toronto bias at

the expense of underrepresented areas, especially small-town and rural Ontario.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I think a lot of people in this province woke up this morning to quite a pleasant surprise. They opened

the door and must have been shocked when they picked up their morning newspaper. Right on the front page they saw a politician who keeps his promise. The new mayor of Toronto, David Miller, has

kept his promise. During the recent municipal election, he promised to stop the Toronto Island airport bridge, and yesterday he kept that promise. When asked why he did it, the quote was very

simple: "I've done exactly what I said I would do."

Imagine that, politicians keeping their promises. That must come as a huge shock to the McGuinty Fiberals, because you know they don't believe in keeping their

promises. Look at their sorry track record: they broke their promise to protect the Oak Ridges moraine -- promise broken; they broke their promise to cap hydro rates -- promise broken; they broke

their promise to stop P3 hospitals -- promise broken; they broke their promise of an inquiry into the Aylmer meat scandal -- promise broken; they broke their promise to give money to reinvest in

health and education, and now they're talking about a $4-billion shortfall -- promise broken. I say to the new government, learn a lesson from mayor Miller. Clean up your act and quit breaking your

promises.

VISITORS

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today in the east gallery we have my aunt, Italia Berardinetti, and my

uncle, Antonio Berardinetti, who are the parents of the newly elected member for Scarborough Southwest, Lorenzo Berardinetti. I'd like to welcome them to the House.

Today my uncle marks his 50th year of arriving in Canada at the famous pier 21 in Halifax. Fifty years ago today, he arrived at pier 21 with so many other

great Canadians.

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to recognize some brothers who have joined us in the House today

from the Teamsters Canada union: Jim Chalmers, John McCann and Brian Smith. Welcome to the House, and I hope you enjoy your stay.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Jackson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 12, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les personnes handicapées de

l'Ontario.

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

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): This bill amends the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, to require that a municipality that operates

public buses for transit purposes and did not operate them before this amendment comes into effect shall ensure that all of these new buses that they acquire will be accessible for persons with

disabilities.

MACDONALD-CARTIER

FREEWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE MACDONALD-CARTIER

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to officially recognize Highway 401 as the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway /

Projet de loi 13, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun afin de reconnaître officiellement l'autoroute Macdonald-Cartier.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have got it.

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

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Tascona, Joseph N.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed?

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 79; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for second and third reading of

the bill.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House? I heard a no.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of adoption disclosure / Projet de loi 14, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les

adoptions.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): For new members here, you will think t