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

June 7, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 7 June 2001 Jeudi 7 juin 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMPROVED SAFETY ON 400 SERIES

HIGHWAYS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE

DES ROUTES DE LA SÉRIE 400

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PERSONNEL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA VIE PRIVÉE DU PERSONNEL

DU SYSTÈME DE JUSTICE CRIMINELLE

IMPROVED SAFETY ON 400 SERIES

HIGHWAYS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE

DES ROUTES DE LA SÉRIE 400

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PERSONNEL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA VIE PRIVÉE DU PERSONNEL

DU SYSTÈME DE JUSTICE CRIMINELLE

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

HEALTH CARE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

GOLDEN HORSESHOE MARATHON

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

POVERTY

ORTHOPAEDIC FUNDRAISING

TOWN OF COBALT

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT

(SEXUAL HARASSMENT), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL)

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

ITER FUSION PROJECT

EDUCATION FUNDING

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

EDUCATION FUNDING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

CONTAMINATED SOIL

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NURSES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HEALTH CARE

DIABETES TREATMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE

Thursday 7 June 2001 Jeudi 7 juin 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMPROVED SAFETY ON 400 SERIES

HIGHWAYS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE

DES ROUTES DE LA SÉRIE 400

Mr Mazzilli moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 50,

An Act to improve safety on 400 series highways / Projet de loi 50, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des routes de la série

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for London-Fanshawe has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): The 400 series highways have become very congested with traffic flow and anything we can do in this

Legislature to make things safer on 400 series highways will be important.

I am just going to read the section. This is an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act and how I see the improvement of a highway.

"If a highway designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a controlled-access highway under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act is

divided into more than one lane of travel for a direction, no person shall drive a motor vehicle of class A as described in Ontario Regulation 340/94 in the extreme left lane for that direction

unless the other lanes for that direction are obstructed."

I say "obstructed," and certainly that would have to be defined, but as class A vehicles normally are transport trailers -- I'll give the definition that I've

read about a class A vehicle. It is any combination of a motor vehicle and towed vehicles where the towed vehicles exceed a total gross weight of 4,600 kilograms, but not a bus carrying passengers.

So what we're talking about is the largest size of vehicles as far as weight capacity that is allowed in Ontario. Generally these vehicles are known as transport trucks.

The intention of this section, of amending the Highway Traffic Act, where there is more than one lane of travel on a controlled-access highway, is to have these

vehicles in the right lane, or if it's three lanes in one direction, the two right lanes. Unless a lane is obstructed, and of course that would have to be defined, but if traffic is moving at

normal flow, meaning 100 kilometres an hour, I don't see any reason for a class A vehicle to pull out and pass, creating a lane change, with the possibility of accidents.

As far as accidents in Ontario, we know that turning movements, especially left turns, are a cause of numerous accidents, and the other cause is lane changes.

Particularly at speeds of 100 kilometres an hour or in excess of that, a lane change can be a very serious infraction that can cause an accident.

I also acknowledge that class A vehicle drivers are professional drivers, many with many years of experience behind them in driving these vehicles. This bill has

nothing to do with their driving ability; it's simply the load size they carry and the load that follows them while making a lane change. Other vehicles that do not tow generally have an easier

time of making a lane change, but when your load is in a towed motion, that makes it much different.

I also have the support on this bill of the Police Association of Ontario -- which believes that this amendment will make it safer -- the Ontario Provincial

Police Association and the Canadian Automobile Association. The one thing that David Leonhardt from the Canadian Automobile Association wanted pointed out was that their members were concerned

about merging on to the highway, that presently, people would move over from the right lane to allow people to merge in. I say with sincerity that that is something that is a courtesy. But you know

what? Those courtesy movements are sometimes the most dangerous on the road. It is presently, and always will be, the onus of the person merging to do so safely. So when people move over into the

left lane to allow people to merge, perhaps that is courteous, but what could happen because of that courteous movement: perhaps someone who is not seen in the mirror while making that lane change?

I certainly don't want us to act in this Legislature to make legislation based on courtesy. I know the Canadian Automobile Association understands that point very well and it's very well taken.

We're likely going to hear from the Ministry of Transportation and others that there is probably no need for this and things are fine the way they are. There is

a

section in the Highway Traffic Act,

section 147, that says everybody should drive to the right of centre when practicable. The problem with legislation over the years is that we've made it so

open-ended -- that's for all motor vehicles -- with words like "where practicable." There is always a reason not to, so it makes enforcement very difficult, and when it's very difficult, it has no

purpose.

There is a regulation, 608, that supposedly restricts the use of left lanes by commercial motor vehicles. In there they have the definition of commercial

commercial motor vehicles are prohibited in the left lane of a highway shall be in the form and dimensions prescribed and illustrated in the following figure." I've never been able to see "the

following figure." I've talked to other members of the Legislature, but I've not seen many of these signs prohibiting vehicles in the left lane, even on three-lane highways, that this regulation

calls for. That tells me one thing: if the Ministry of Transportation and the province of Ontario are not meeting the regulation by posting these signs, with the dimensions that are usually in

regulation, then it can't be enforced. I know some people said they have seen these signs; they can't remember where. But if the signs are not up, how can you enforce it?

My amendment goes a bit further -- I will acknowledge that -- because it talks about two lanes, not just three lanes. I think we need some clear rules. I've left

this bill very short and open because I would like to see it go to committee to work on the "obstruction" definition. We don't need to let the courts define "obstruction." We can define

"obstruction," a reasonable definition. I've heard from the national truckers' association, who say, "What about on a two-lane highway? If someone's going 40 or 50 kilometres an hour, can we not

pass? How reasonable is that?" I would be the first to acknowledge that they should be able to. That should fit within the definition of the highway being obstructed.

It's always those arguments that prevent us from doing anything. I drive the 401 from my riding of London-Fanshawe two or three times a week, and I've not seen a

lot of traffic in the right lane at 40 or 50 kilometres an hour. Yes, perhaps it could happen on occasion. What I see is traffic moving normally, generally at well over 100 kilometres an hour --

not that I would be in that category -- yet class A vehicles moving into the left lane to pass other vehicles at 120 or 130. If someone asks, "Do you want to prevent that?" absolutely I do. I

believe they should be in the right lane. It would make visibility clearer too.

On the three-lane issue, if you're in a motor vehicle you're boxed in, so forget what we've ever learned in defensive driving; you're boxed in and you have no

escape route. We should prevent that, and I urge all members of this Legislature to support this bill.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): It's a privilege for me to rise this morning to speak to Bill 50 in the name of Mr Mazzilli from London-Fanshawe. I

can say at the outset that this is a bill that speaks of highway safety and I have absolutely no problem in supporting it.

As with any piece of legislation, though, it does raise some questions. I just received the backgrounder this morning, but I think it would have been useful to

know what the Ontario Trucking Association thinks of this. The two police associations support it, as well as the CAA. I'm a member of the CAA, so I guess that means I support it. But it would have

been interesting to have input from the trucking association as well.

The member has spoken to the point of two-lane 400 series highways. As he will well know, driving in from London as we do, many of us, there is a 42-kilometre

section between Kitchener and Woodstock that is just two lanes, and of course Carnage Alley, that goes from London through to Windsor, is only two lanes. The background information says, "The

purpose of this act is to include sections of highway that have two lanes." We know, then, the trucks are going to have to be travelling in the only other lane, the inside lane, in cases of

passing. It does say that if there's an obstruction in the right-hand lane, the class A vehicle can use that left lane. I take it there are going to be some instances where the police officers will

have to use judgment, as will the truck drivers.

Whatever it is, if we can have regulations that are understandable and contribute to highway safety on the 400 series of highways, as I said, I support it

wholeheartedly. But when the question of safety on our highways comes to all of us -- and it's a related topic -- we're all concerned. I mention very briefly Carnage Alley, that runs from London

through to the border at Windsor, and we're all aware, I'm sure, because it's been spoken of many times in this Legislature, of the unacceptable number of accidents that occur on that stretch of

highway. So through this debate this morning, I urge the member from London-Fanshawe to help us urge the Minister of Transportation that we, as quickly as possible, make those hard improvements to

the highway, the infrastructure improvements to the highway, to make it safe.

We feel that a third lane in each direction in that area between London and Windsor would go a long way to improving highway safety. The member from

London-Fanshawe -- and he did it with a smile on his face -- mentioned the speeds on 401. I, like he, travel the

section of 401. I drive a little farther on it, maybe another hour and a half each

week, and several times a week. I've almost hurt myself, because you've heard the old story that I got passed so quickly I thought I'd stopped, and I got out and I was running 100 kilometres an

hour.

Speed is a factor on the highway when it comes to safety. I'm not saying that 100 kilometres an hour should be the speed limit; in fact, I think it was mentioned

here a year or so ago that perhaps the speed limit should be increased on the 400 series of highways. But we shouldn't kid ourselves. Anybody travelling 100 kilometres an hour on the 400 series

highways is almost an obstruction, because most of the traffic travels somewhat faster than that.

I think there are other things that should be considered when it comes to safety on those highways: as I said, the improvement of the infrastructure as well as a

consideration for increased police presence on the 400 series of highways. One might even consider swallowing a little bit of pride and looking at photo radar again on the 400 series to keep

traffic flowing at a reasonable speed. We now have cameras at stoplights, and I think that should be considered on our highways as well.

I wish the member well with his bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join the member from London-Fanshawe in the debate of his bill dealing with

An Act to improve safety on 400 series highways.

Any of us who drive on the 400 series of highways -- my area being Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Highway 400 runs right through the heart of my riding -- have seen

over the years the increase in the number of trucks that are travelling, and large trucks, because obviously our area is an economic growth area with heavy, heavy construction that's going on.

Certainly we're seeing larger vehicles, not to the extent of what you're seeing if you go down to my colleague's area in southwestern Ontario in terms of the activity there with trucks going toward

the US border, but a significant increase in not only the number of trucks, but the size of the loads that these trucks are handling. Certainly in recent days you're seeing the OPP has been very

vigilant in terms of ensuring truck safety on the 400 series of highways through their efforts in terms of dealing with truck safety.

What my friend is trying to accomplish here today in the purpose of this act is to include sections of highways that have two lanes, and if the right lane is not

obstructed, his opinion is that a truck has no legitimate reason to be in the left lane.

This piece of legislation applies to the 400 series of highways. It applies to class A motor vehicles on controlled-access highways where there is more than one

lane. A class A motor vehicle is defined as, "Any combination of a motor vehicle and towed vehicles where the towed vehicles exceed a total gross weight of 4,600 kilograms, but not a bus carrying

passengers," pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act.

As I said, the purpose of the act is to make it an offence -- it's very, very specific, and that's what the member wants, to make it very, very specific -- for a

class A vehicle to be in the far left lane on any of the above-mentioned highways, which is the 400 series, unless there is an obstruction forcing them into the left lane. The intent of the

legislation is to make our highways safer by keeping larger-sized vehicles in the right lanes of the province's busiest highways.

The benefits would be improving the flow of traffic, increasing driver visibility and reducing driver frustration. I think there's a lot of common sense to that,

because it's not so much when you have good traffic flow that you're going to find a truck in the left lane. Where you're going to find them in the left lane is where there's a congestion and where

there's a slowdown in the traffic, be it for an accident, be it just because of the volume, and you tend to find that you'll have vehicles moving from one lane to the other.

I think that's where you see the visibility problem in terms of trying to get through that area, for people who aren't driving trucks: the congestion has really

built up because of the volume that's out there and the traffic flow is going to be impeded by them being over in the left lane.

One area that I think needs to have some clarification in this legislation, when I was reading it -- I'm not very clear in terms of the regulations that my

friend wants to put forth. He indicates under subsection (2) that, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing circumstances in which subsection (1) does not apply." That's

where he doesn't want a truck to be in the left lane. But it goes on, under subsection (3) that says that regulations that are made "may be general or particular in their application and, without

limiting the generality of this subsection, may apply with respect to certain classes of motor vehicles or persons, but not other classes."

I'm not really clear what the intent is, what he's trying to accomplish there, in terms of building in circumstances for the regulations to make his piece of

legislation not apply. I think that might have to be a little bit more clear, if the intention is that it doesn't apply to vehicles other than class A.

I'm pleased to speak and I wish the member support.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand in support of the member's private member's bill with regards to safety on our highways, the 400

series.

I thank the member from London-Fanshawe for bringing this forward, because it provides me with an opportunity to talk about a highway that isn't very safe. It's

Highway 69, and deals directly with the bill, because the 69, as the member from London-Fanshawe knows, goes into the 400 series of highways.

I would suggest to the member from London-Fanshawe that although he's dedicated to his own area with regard to upgrading the safety on the 400 series, there is

work to be done on Highway 69, because, as the member from London-Fanshawe knows, we don't have the luxury of multi lanes from Sudbury to Parry Sound. So obviously we have to contend with class A

vehicles all the time and that's where the dilemma comes in.

I've talked to the member from London-Fanshawe about this before. He's a former police officer, so he wants safety on the roads; there's absolutely no question

about that. That's why this bill is good. But I have to put on the record that the commitment of the government of Ontario to four-laning Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound leaves much to be

desired.

I have to talk about some statistics here this morning, because they are indeed frightening. They are frightening to the member from London-Fanshawe and I hope

they're frightening to everybody else who's in the House.

In the last 18 months a startling 26 fatalities have occurred on that

section of highway from Sudbury to Barrie. That's approximately 176 kilometres -- a little

more than 176, because 176 kilometres brings us to Parry Sound. The newest member of the House, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, is in here and I know he supports -- I hope he supports -- the

four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound, because it will be good for his town and his area. Also, it is essential for the people who travel that road from Sudbury.

Let me go through some statistics that came from the Ontario Provincial Police. In 1996 there were 321 accidents on that stretch of highway, with 126 people

injured. In 1997 there were 291 accidents, with 132 people injured. In 1998 there were 249 accidents, with 116 people injured. That's 861 accidents and 374 injuries, and some of those involved

class A vehicles.

I think if we devoted the same attention to improving Highway 69 with this type of legislation, brought forward by a government member, we would be going a long

way in ensuring that people who travel from Sudbury south travel on highways that are safe.

So I commend the member for London-Fanshawe. I think this is a good initiative. I hope it goes to committee. I hope this isn't one of these government bills

where, you know -- "We're going to support it" -- and then the government is going to bury it in committee of the whole, because I think this is worthy of debate. When it gets to committee, I'll be

talking again about Highway 69. How? Because it's a natural link with the 400 series. The government has to commit more effort, more money, and speed up the process of four-laning Highway 69.

To be honest with the people in the House and the people of Ontario, the government has finished the environmental assessment for that first portion and indeed

has already done some property acquisition. They could start construction tomorrow if they wanted to issue the tender. There are lots and lots of paving companies that believe that four-laning

Highway 69 is essential, that it begin from Sudbury and begin immediately. I will be supporting this resolution.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity this morning to put a few thoughts on the record with regard to this initiative

by the member for London-Fanshawe.

I think anything that will provide more safety and give all of us a greater sense of relief when we get on the highways of this province is good. I don't think

we should be in any way critical of that. If it'll do the job, if it'll help, if it'll go a distance to reducing the possibility of carnage, of people getting into accidents, of the kind of grief

that happens because somebody is blocked off or sitting behind somebody who's either driving erratically or too slowly, if it reduces the possibility of that kind of frustration on our roads, then

we should be doing it.

However, I suggest to you that putting band-aids on what is a huge, difficult, complicated and sophisticated challenge for the province as we try to manage the

very troubling level of accident and incident where we see great damage and loss of life on the highways is not, in my view, the way to be going.

I think the member, even though well-meaning in bringing forward the bill that he has here this morning, would do better to be sitting down and influencing his

government and the cabinet to do precisely what the member for Sudbury has suggested, and even more so. The member for Sudbury is talking about Highway 69, and I think that's an important corridor

in this province as we try to connect the north with the south, and the south with the rest of Canada. Highway 69 hooks up to Highway 17, and we have a lot of traffic that flows, particularly in

the summertime but all year long, up that corridor and on to Highway 17 and off over through your riding, Speaker, and mine and into northern Ontario and western Canada. I think we need to be

looking at a lot more than Highway 69, although it is a good place to start.

If you look at what's happening on Highway 69 right now -- and again, I'm not criticizing in that they are four-laning, but they're only four-laning up as far as

Parry Sound. It sounds awfully political to me. The member sitting beside you, the member for Fanshawe-London, will understand that. I think there was a whole lot of activity of a visible nature

that actually took place during his election to indicate that this government is driven more by how they can benefit politically from initiatives they take and things they do on behalf of all of us

as constituents of Ontario, by political consideration, than doing the right thing and making sure that our highways are safe, investing in public institutions and public infrastructure that will

serve all of us, as opposed to the very narrow and short-sighted consideration and concern for the members of the governing party and their friends and benefactors.

If this government was truly interested in safety on our highways they would not have, in the first place, done away with photo radar on the highways. Even the

police, when we were in government, were saying that was a great idea. Not only would it save lives of the general public out there and slow down traffic -- as a matter of fact, it had slowed down

traffic. We had statistics to show that traffic was being slowed down on our highways, and it was beginning to have a very positive and significant effect. But this government, driven by its

ideology, decided to do away with that very effective and well-received initiative, as I said a few minutes ago, even by the police who have not only seen it as a vehicle that would reduce the

level of accidents on the highways for the general public but would reduce the danger to themselves as they participated in the only other alternative to the photo radar initiative that we brought

in, which was to get into their cars and chase these guys.

If this government continues to bring forward more and more reasons for charging people, create more and more laws that people have the potential to break as

they drive down our highways, you know you'll have our police out there chasing every second car that goes down the highway. I don't think that's what we want. I don't think that's the kind of

activity that our police believe they were trained to participate in and I don't think they believe that will go a long way to reducing the level of difficulty that we find on our highways

today.

So if this member were truly interested in safety on the highway, one of the things he could be doing is going to his government, to the Premier and to the

Minister of Transportation, and saying to them, "Hey, let's reconsider. Let's put the ideology aside and the political gain aside here and let's reconsider bringing back photo radar so we can have

a major vehicle to take a bite out of this very difficult issue"

Getting back to the four-laning of highways and the suggestion from the member for Sudbury, I agree, as I said, wholeheartedly that four-laning Highway 69 is a

tremendously important thing to be doing. But there are a lot more highways in the north that need to be worked on. I think this government, again, setting aside its ideology, setting aside its

fight with the federal government that it seems never to be able to get out of or avoid -- it's like the bully in the schoolyard who has found somebody that there's some gain to continually be

engaging with. This government seems to feel there's some political gain in continually bashing the feds and continually fighting with the feds over anything and letting that get in the way of

doing some deals -- money from them, money from us -- to actually improve the whole highway system in this province: Highway 69, the 400 series and Highway 17. I mean, God, we're probably the only

country in the world that has a highway that goes from one end of the country to the other that isn't four-laned, that's in some areas no more than a trail that was broken some 100 years ago and

has simply been paved over.

If this government was interested at all in highway safety, they would put some significant money, effort and time into looking at the whole highway system in

this province and improving it to the point where safety wouldn't be the huge problem that it is today. So I say to the government, do that. Sit down with the federal government, drop the axe, stop

the fighting, make a deal and improve the highways across this province.

Never mind the tolling. People in this province are sick and tired of paying the new fees you've imposed on them. Yes, on one hand you gave them a few pennies in

terms of a tax break, but on the other hand, every time you turn around, it's another cost to the citizens of this province for something else that used to be covered by the general revenue tax

system we had in place. So stop this notion and thinking and effort that's going into, "How do we build more toll roads?" Get into an agreement with the federal government and improve the highways

that we have in place now so we can have true safety out there and people can have the room they need to get where they're going in a timely fashion and not be caught in the bottlenecks that this

member across very sincerely and genuinely wants to do something about with this piece of legislation we're dealing with here this morning.

The other thing I want to put on the record with regard to this is the level of anxiety in the general populace out there today that is causing some of the

problems we're seeing on the highways as well. We have people in all of our communities across this province who, five or six years ago, were very comfortable and happy about their situation and

their future. They had jobs, they were involved in their community, they were taking extra courses to improve on their skills. They had growing families, they were working with those families,

those children, so that they might consider going on to college and university and have a life of their own. Even though there were challenges out there, of course, because of the very difficult

economy we experienced in the early 1990s, there was a sense that it had righted itself. There were a whole lot of people out there who had jobs that they had prepared themselves for, that they

felt in their heart of hearts would be there for them until their retirement, and they were looking ahead to their future with some comfort and peace.

But since this government came in and turned this economy upside down or turned the economy over to the whim of the US, we have a whole lot of people out there

now, and more and more with every day that goes by, who are anxious and concerned and worried about their future. They get on the highway, they're driving from here to there, they're driving from

home to work, and they're continually thinking and worrying about how they do more work, how they improve their ability to participate so that they might extend the life of that opportunity perhaps

another week or another month and buy themselves some time.

We used to have thousands and thousands of jobs in this province that were good, solid, paying jobs with benefits and pension packages. Most of those jobs over

the last few years have been turned into part-time, contract positions. Where a citizen of this province could, a few years ago, provide for themselves and their families on the proceeds of one

job, they are now looking at doing two or three jobs to put the same money on the table, in their bank, in their pocket, to cover the cost of living for themselves and their families.

This is creating the kind of difficulty on our highways that this member over here is bringing in a band-aid to try to fix. It isn't going to fix it. The only

thing that's going to fix it is an all-out, concerted, involved effort to improve our highways, to do a deal with the federal government so that we can four-lane Highway 69, as the member for

Sudbury said; so that we can four-lane Highway 17, which is the connecting link between Quebec and the rest of the country for the citizens of Ontario.

The other way we can do it is to go back to some of the initiatives that our government introduced, which were supported by all of those groups that had a vested

interest in making sure that our highways were safe.

They were things like photo radar, which had proven itself in its short life to have slowed down traffic enough to reduce the number of accidents that were

happening out there and the carnage on our highways. It gave our police officers, who are ultimately responsible for monitoring and stopping people who are doing things that are dangerous, a sense

of some control and the possibility of winning this battle out there as they sat and noted as people drove over the speed limit, and when they found that they were doing that, they would pull these

people over.

What we have now is a mishmash of rules and regulations and nobody seems to understand any more where it begins and where it ends. Every Thursday we come in

here, we get another crime-and-punishment member from the government standing up with another band-aid to fix a problem that requires this government to actually do some serious and significant

work, and I don't think it's going to do the job.

As I said, I think the only thing that will do the job is this government setting aside its ideological agenda, setting aside its crime-and-punishment agenda,

sitting down with some of the partners out there who actually want to work with them on some of these issues and bringing in a full and comprehensive response to this very difficult challenge of

the kind of driving that we see on our highways out there today; sitting down with the federal government and doing a deal so that we have the money necessary to improve our highway system,

particularly where Toronto is concerned; to get some money from the federal government so that we can improve the public transit systems across this province, in Metro Toronto and in other big

centres; sitting down with the federal government to see if we couldn't put a package of money together that would improve Highway 17 as it goes through North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, Wawa,

Thunder Bay and all those important communities so that everybody in those parts of the province feels like they've had their concerns addressed as well; setting aside their ideological agenda and

actually taking a serious look at the positive side of things like photo radar.

As I said, even though I note that the member across the way is probably very sincere in bringing forth this response, I don't think it's enough. At the end of

the day, I don't think this government will support it and, even if they did, it won't do the trick.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm most pleased today to rise in support of Bill 50 from my good friend Frank Mazzilli, the member for

London-Fanshawe. I think the member has shown his concern for the safety of individuals in the public dating back to when he was a police officer and served honourably with the London Police Force;

and subsequently as a member of the Ontario Crime Control Commission, where he did great work, and also as parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, where he also had a distinguished

career. I think his constant priority has been the safety of individuals, not just in criminal acts but also in accidents of this kind.

Now he's recognizing that the 400 highways and the Queen Elizabeth Way are getting crowded. I travel those highways periodically. I measure the prosperity this

province is presently enjoying by the number of trucks on the road. The more trucks, the more prosperity we happen to have. But unfortunately, the trucks do cause a concern; not so much the trucks,

but the heavy traffic on the roads does cause a concern for safety.

We've got to recognize that speed is important on the highways, but I happen to think that the flow of traffic is more important than speed, in other words,

that the traffic in particular lanes is all moving at the same rate so that we don't get stoppages, slowdowns, lane changes and things of that kind. This bill is meant to address it. The bill would

apply only to controlled-access highways, being the 400 series and the Queen E.

I should say that some good points have been raised, for instance, in regard to emergency vehicles. Would they also, in some manner, be caught by this?

Hopefully this bill will pass with the support of this House and hopefully it will be referred to a committee that can deal with amendments and recommend any regulation. Emergency units using the

400 series highways that might conflict with the legislation can be covered by the necessary regulation. We know this would only apply to tractor-trailers over 4,600 kilograms. I happen to believe,

and I think many in this House also believe, that this bill will prevent accidents and save lives. I'm sure we're all in favour of that.

My municipality, Cambridge, is always affected by the 401 in particular, being one of the series of 400 highways. As a matter of fact, Cambridge is split. The

401 basically goes through the middle of my municipality, formerly made up of Preston, Hespeler and Galt. As everyone in the House knows, Cambridge is located 60 miles west of Toronto on the

heritage Grand River, which is the second largest heritage river in Canada in terms of length. With the 401 going through the city, there are a large number of commuters both to and from my

municipality of Cambridge.

Strangely enough, I always thought most of the commuters were travelling from Cambridge to other areas -- Mississauga, Toronto, Hamilton -- but in fact there

are more commuters coming into Cambridge in the morning and leaving in the afternoon than there are going out. Whether they're coming or going, that creates a problem with traffic.

I don't believe this bill is aimed at the vast majority of professional drivers of tractor-trailers in Ontario. I happen to believe the vast majority are good

and responsible drivers. However, there are some who are not as responsible. This bill is aimed at those drivers. It will require them to act in a more responsible and safer manner.

As I said, the 401 happens to go through the middle of my municipality and is almost, as in Toronto, I guess, part of the road system of my municipality.

There's a great benefit to having the major highway of the province going through your municipality, but it also acts as a natural barrier. We have bridges over the Grand River to connect parts of

my city. We also have the same problem now with the ever-expanding and heavily trafficked 401. That requires some degree of partnership between the municipalities in the province to accommodate the

increasing traffic in Cambridge and our area.

The Townline Road interchange: There will be a formal announcement soon of $3 million from the province, matching our municipal partners, to replace the

bridge, with more lanes and to make access lanes safer and to upgrade traffic for commuters. The bridge not only services the municipality, but because of the off and on ramps, it also can lead to

traffic problems on the 401 if the flow of traffic is not able to escape on the road system in the municipality fast enough. We have a similar problem on Highway 8 with the Homer Watson

interchange, which is presently being worked on, and of course there is the Cedar Creek Road-Highway 97 interchange.

Improvements to these interchanges will make the 401 a safer highway, but the important

part is that because of the increased traffic on the 401 and other 400

series highways in Ontario, we must take a new look at regulating trucks, at what lanes the trucks can use. I think Bill 50, as proposed by the member for London-Fanshawe, is a good start, a new

look at how traffic should be regulated on our controlled-access 400 highways. This bill could and will save lives, and that should be the primary concern of the members of this House.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I am very pleased to get up on this bill. As a frequent traveller on the 401, from my hometown

of Kingston to Toronto on a weekly basis, I can well understand the member's frustration in sometimes getting behind these large trucks and being unable to pass them, particularly when they go much

slower than the speed limit, sometimes for miles upon miles.

I totally concur with the previous member that 99% of the truckers who are out there are responsible individuals who drive their vehicles in a very responsible

way, but just like everything in life, it's the 1% who insist on trying to pass somebody when they know they can't do it, sometimes holding up traffic behind them for probably anywhere from five to

10 kilometres. We've all suffered from that. As well, quite often, particularly when the weather conditions aren't all that great, they cause a potential hazard on the road.

I can well understand the member's frustration and why he wants to do something about this. This is a very positive move on this member's part, one of the very

few positive moves we've seen from this government in the last five years, so I would like to congratulate him on that. But I would suggest to the member that if he really feels that strongly about

this, he petition the Premier and ask to become the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, because then he could get involved in so many of the other transportation issues in

this province.

The reason I'm saying that, Mr Speaker, is that you and I know there are many highways in Ontario that are not currently four-lane highways that should be made

into four-lane highways. Look at what's happening along Highway 69, for example, that death alley from Parry Sound to Sudbury and from Parry Sound to Highway 400, where over the last 18 months some

26 lives have been lost, and where over the last three years about 374 people, minimum, have been injured. I say to the member, yes, this is an important issue, but what is even more important are

those roads that we know -- that you and I know, that the ministry knows -- are of extreme danger to the motoring public of the province. Why don't we insist that they be four-laned as quickly as

possible? If he would put that kind of energy into taking that kind of action, then lives can be saved, injuries can be prevented and the motoring public in the province would be a lot better off

for it.

I understand this bill has the support of the CAA, the Police Association of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police Association. I would like him to tell

the members of the House whether or not this bill has the support of the Ontario Trucking Association. We all know that if we want to have a booming economy out there, in this day and age, when

probably a large percentage, although I don't know what the percentage is, of goods and materials we consume on an ongoing basis in this province, and if we want to move to other jurisdictions,

particularly in exporting jurisdictions etc -- do we have the support of the Ontario Trucking Association? The highway system moves most of our goods and services, particularly in a booming

economy, and I'm sure they would have a different answer than what he's suggesting in this bill.

The other thing I would strongly suggest is that he put just as much effort into ensuring that the 400 series highways become three lanes as quickly as

possible throughout the entire province. I know the ministry has been doing some work in that regard in the last number of years. If the whole 400 series highways were three-laned throughout this

entire province, you could then put a ban on allowing trucks, for example, in the extreme left lane and have that lane just available for emergency vehicles and for passenger cars.

But having said all that, I will be supporting this bill. I think it's at least a method by which we can bring it to the attention of the ministry, perhaps

hold some public hearings on it to get the views of the general public on this situation, because I know many of the people who travel the 401 and the 400 series highways have exactly the same

concerns that this member has expressed in this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Response? The member for London-Fanshawe.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I apologize. Further debate? Apparently there was some time left that I didn't know about.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Yes, we have a minute and 40 seconds left, Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in support of this bill. Unlike the member from Kingston, I am not going to try to straddle both sides of the fence. He says what the

member for London-Fanshawe should do, but then he says he's going to support it. I will support the bill. I'm not going to say for a minute that there aren't flaws in the bill, but that is the

purpose of sending a bill to committee if we pass it in this House today.

For instance, right now the government uses regulation 608 to restrict truck traffic in the left-hand lane on those highways on which there are three or more

lanes. Do we need something a little more severe? According to the OPP and the Police Association of Ontario, we do, and I think that in the interests of road safety we do have to look at something

a little more strict than what we have.

Presently, regulation 608 does provide the authority that the member for London-Fanshawe wants on some of the busiest highways. However, we have to look at

what this bill provides. It provides a little bit more driver visibility and it reduces frustration. I think that is the important part here, and this is what the police are looking at. We have so

much road rage in this province, and we're trying to restrict that a little bit. The member for London-Fanshawe has done a very noble job.

The Deputy Speaker: I apologize again to the member for London-Fanshawe. Response?

Mr Mazzilli: I'm glad to see all the members of this Legislature have read the bill and analyzed it thoroughly, but on the issue of highway

improvement I would certainly support, on the basis of economic reasons, highways being expanded, whether to two lanes or three lanes, but not for highway safety. The more lanes you have, the more

lane changes there are going to be. I said before, the two main causes of accidents in urban settings are turning movements, particularly left turns, which are very dangerous. On the highway, I

have not checked with the Ministry of Transportation, but I will bet one of the top reasons is lane changes, and that's what this tries to prevent.

Yes, regulation 608, the ministry argues, covers commercial vehicles. I want to clarify the definition: class A vehicles. They're the tractor-trailer's

up, it's not enforceable, because you haven't met the regulation. I have not seen a lot of those signs along the highway, which means it's not enforcable.

When you have rules on different parts of the highways and you have the global economy that we do and truckers coming in from all over, how can they be

expected to know that in one

section you're supposed to do this and in another

section you're supposed to do that? So let's clarify. Let's make this amendment and get rid of some of the old

regulations that perhaps are obsolete. The member from Barrie asked why I left the exceptions in there. It's because exceptions for emergency vehicles -- possibly large fire trucks, which are class

A, road maintenance vehicles -- will be prescribed by regulation. So the member from Kitchener said there are flaws. I've left it like that intentionally. It's been well thought out, and I

certainly hope I have the support --

The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank you. The time for debate on this ballot item is now expired.

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PERSONNEL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA VIE PRIVÉE DU PERSONNEL

DU SYSTÈME DE JUSTICE CRIMINELLE

Mr Levac moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to protect the families of police officers and others involved in the criminal justice system / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à

protéger les familles des agents de police et d'autres personnes oeuvrant dans le système de justice criminelle.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Brant has 10 minutes.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): For the sake of the members here and the general public, I'd like to review the bill. Bill 27, as stated, is

An Act to

protect the families of police officers and others involved in the criminal justice system.

Organized crime is just that: organized. We need to send a message loud and clear that we shall be and we will be, we are, organized. We need to make sure that

the people who work inside that system who are going to be prosecuting and arresting and doing all of the things that we need to do to fight organized crime are protected, because we have a very,

very large problem, and that problem is intimidation.

Intimidation cannot and must not be accepted, and we need to send a message loud and clear from this House to organized crime and gangs that we are not going

to allow you to intimidate those people who work for our safety. Their safety must be protected in order for them to do their job. In a moment I will explain to you very clearly why that's not

being done.

This bill attempts and will try to stay to the message, with help from every member in this House, that we must protect them, to show that organized crime, as

organized as it is, will not be protected from us, and we will be just as organized as they are and send a message loud and clear that no one in this province shall go unprotected.

"The bill would create a board to examine issues regarding the collection, dissemination and safeguarding of personal information about personnel involved with

the criminal justice system. The board would be composed of representatives chosen by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Correctional Services, the Privacy Commissioner,

the Chief Justice of Ontario and various police associations. The board would be required to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly every year."

With those recommendations, we will be able to analyze, review and disseminate that information to the proper ministries in order for them to do one of two

things:

(1) Correct the procedures that they're presently using that makes it too easy to access that information, or

(2) Improve firewalls, if you will, around that information around those

personnel so that we do not provide easy access to that information.

Quite frankly, we are making it too easy for that information to be obtained, and we must take a step in order to stop that from happening.

Some people say that this is a "me too" bill, "me too" meaning that the NDP or the Liberals or anyone else other than the government of the day is trying to

jump on the bandwagon. Quite frankly, if anyone in this House decides to use that as a rationale not to support this, I say shame on them. But let's move to what we really should be doing.

I'm not going to assume that they're not going to support the bill. Quite frankly, I think the opposite. I believe that this bill will encourage all of us to

work co-operatively together to solve this very, very serious problem. Why? Because I believe that our process which we are now engaged in allows us to move this bill into the next phase of

reading. That goes to committee, and inside that committee we are now going to be able to collectively work together, which we do for the people out there. We do work collectively and collegially

together as three parties when we go to committee to work for the best possible legislation once it's passed, to make sure that amendments are offered, to make sure that changes are made to these

types of bills so that we can get the best protection possible, in this case, to the citizens and to those people inside the justice system.

To move right along, I don't think I really need to review the bill other than to say that I need to explain the mandate of the board. Of the people who are

mentioned to form the body or the core, that allows, quite frankly, the board to enlist those other professionals out there that can help us with this. Computer experts, people that have access to

information, those people who work in other ministries in this government can ask to sit on that board in order to help them improve their circumstances.

Why is the bill needed? It's pretty obvious, but I want to review with you some of the information we've obtained.

The Toronto Star recently revealed that organized crime figures regularly use personal contacts to access Ministry of Transportation databases. That's not

acceptable. We need to firewall that information.

Correctional officers have reported to us that following an inmate assault on an officer, the incident report contained the officer's personal information and

the inmate got the report. What we're basically saying is that a person who assaulted the officer was then given a report that allowed them access to the officer's personal information.

Unbelievable, but a problem. This bill would try to address that.

Some biker gangs have Web sites now -- and this is really interesting -- and on that Web site they post pictures of officers in their uniforms with the

statement underneath, "They watch us, we're going to watch them." We need to find ways in the computer world, in this Internet world, in the dot-com world, in which we can firewall -- that means to

simply try to put up a big wall around that information to protect those people who work in this system.

Parole and probation officers report that they have to park their cars away when certain individuals come to report to them to prevent them from obtaining

their licence plate number and, in turn, accessing their home address. Some people say that's not doable, but quite frankly if one person can access that information, that's one person too

many.

I will let you know that we do have some support. Brian Adkin, the president of the OPPA, recently stated that the spread of this personal information caused

him great concern, for him personally and for all of his charges that he's responsible for in terms of the OPP. That sentiment is held by many, many organizations. These types of incidents weaken

our justice system through intimidation and all of the other things that you know could happen with organized crime and biker gangs. This bill speaks to that very gently, very clearly, that we're

organized too and we want to take action.

What would this board do? If passed, the bill would establish this board consisting of police, parole, probation and correctional officers, crown attorneys,

judges, representatives of the privacy commissioner and police associations to provide us with information and recommendations of what we need to do at the legislative level to protect that

information and to make sure that all ministries are operating in a way that does protect that information and keeps it, to the best of our ability, out of the hands of those who would use it to

intimidate.

Speaker, just so that we can make sure you understand, we've now got stories coming out of Quebec, because it's been happening there longer, that licence plate

numbers were sold to biker gang members by people who work inside the ministry. We need to do something about this.

We may hear that, yes, there's a few problems and we need to shore it up. I welcome those amendments. As a matter of fact, I'm probably going to look at an

amendment myself. The crown attorneys got in touch with me and said they need specific information. They would like to share with this committee and be part of the board. I welcome it. So the

Ontario Crown Attorney's Association have expressed concern about the access of this information of their members. They would like to be represented on the board and I would welcome that as a

modification to the bill.

The Canadian Association of Crown Councils are interested in this. The chiefs of police are interested in this. The OPPA is interested in this. The PAO is

interested in this. Parole officers, probation officers, anybody who has been involved in this is interested in this bill and wants to work hand in hand with the entire government, with the entire

opposition, with the Legislature that simply says, "Let's get this to committee. Let's work through this and let's find the best way that we can to protect those people who work in that system so

that they can protect us."

Is anyone against this bill? I'm saying to you boldly that no one's against the bill. What they may say is, "Let's try to find another way to do this." I

welcome the opportunity to do that at committee. I encourage and implore the members of this Legislature to pass this bill on to committee so that we can do a just job and make sure that those

people who provide safety and security, who fight organized crime, who fight biker gangs, are protected solely. We must do everything we can to tell organized crime, "You're organized; so are

we."

We're going to make sure that you are, to the best of our ability, protected on an ongoing basis. The important thing to point out is that not one ministry is

going to take care of this; this is going to be done by the grassroots people and they're going to make sure that all of the possible information that's available is disseminated and given to us,

to make sure that we're doing the right thing for them so that they can do the best thing for us.

I'm encouraging everyone to support this bill and maybe give us some input as to what we should do in order to correct the bill at committee level. That's the

place where we collectively work together to make sure that we pass the best possible legislation we can for the people of the province of Ontario. I'm asking everyone to support this bill so that

we can get on with the job of telling organized crime, "Not in our province."

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Let me say at the outset that it's the intention of the NDP caucus to support Bill 27. We have some

concerns about specific aspects of it, and I'll comment on those as my remarks progress. But at the end of the day, I'd be very disappointed if the government members weren't on side with this. In

fact, only one thing would be acceptable if the government members -- and they're all backbenchers; there are no ministers in the House -- don't support this today: then I would hope it's only

because you've gotten assurances from the Solicitor General that indeed something is going to be done, because this is a very valid issue. I want to commend the member for Brant for raising

this.

As a former Solicitor General of the province, I know a fair bit about the issue of organized crime and the issue of police officers and their role as peace

officials, but also their role as citizens and as people and as workers and moms and dads and brothers and sisters. This is a legitimate concern that everyone, in my opinion, regardless of your

political philosophy, should be concerned about.

One of the absolute fundamental necessities of democracy is an open, unbiased justice system that recognizes everyone's fundamental rights and provides due

process. A key component of that is the individuals and how they see their role in that justice system. I want to say to the member for Brant, through you, Speaker, that I can just well imagine not

only how those police officers feel about seeing their pictures and names and other personal information on the Web site of a biker gang, but also how those family members feel. How do you think

the spouses of those individuals feel -- the moms and dads, the children? The intimidation is insidious because it's not something overt.

As we know, one of the toughest things we have to do in this place is to constantly balance the rights of individuals and the rights contained in the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms in this country versus our need to make sure that we give police and other justice officials the tools they need to enforce the criminal laws of this province.

Taken to its extreme, it's not unusual to read in the papers of the day where judges, crown attorneys, police officers are virtually publicly executed,

particularly those judges and crown attorneys who have stood firm and said they are going to do everything they can to prosecute organized crime members.

It's very rare in Canada to hear of a judge being threatened or intimidated directly. It happens, but not that often. More so with police officers, probation

and parole, crown attorneys, but there's nothing at all in this world to say that we couldn't be five or 10 and 15 years down the road, if we don't do something now.

We have an opportunity to deal with a fundamental part of our justice system, and that is the protection and the rights of the individual whom we ask and give

responsibility to for ensuring our safety and that our rights are protected as citizens.

As I was reviewing the bill, I do want to say that I understand there's some question about the governance issue, and I can understand what that is. I take it

from a little different point, I say to the member from Brant, and that is that if I take a look at all the individuals who would comprise this board, that's a lot of governance and a lot of

infrastructure and a lot of -- and I'll say it -- expense to deal with an issue that I think probably could be dealt with effectively, given existing structures and existing responsibilities,

particularly those responsibilities that are in the direct hands of the Solicitor General and, by extension, the Attorney General of the province.

I would hope we're going to hear from the government members that that's exactly what's going to happen, because we all know that private members' bills,

especially opposition bills, don't often see the light of day in terms of becoming law. This issue is one that we cannot afford to see left unresolved.

Let me take a minute to talk about this government's approach to the justice system. It ought to be worrisome that in addition to the kind of intimidation that

the member from Brant is recognizing and focusing on here today, there are other aspects of the criminal justice system where this government is letting the people down, notwithstanding your -- and

I'll acknowledge it -- somewhat public reputation as being law and order. But that just comes from being blindly tough; that's not justice.

One of the fastest, if not the leading, segments of the American economy right now is the building and managing of prisons. The United States and Canada have

the highest incarceration rates in the world. If putting more people in jail alone solved crime, then the United States would be the safest place on this planet. There's a lot more to justice and

law and order than just being tough. Sometimes you've got to do that, no question, but if that's the beginning and end of how you would deal with the justice system, I say to the members in the

government, you are -- I've got to remain parliamentary -- not being totally frank with the public.

Keep in mind this is a government that makes such a big deal about passing the Victims' Bill of Rights. I can't remember how many times I heard former

Attorneys General of this government stand up and talk about: "We care about victims," "We're going to bring in this bill," "We've brought in this bill," "Now we're debating this bill," "We've

passed this bill," and, "There you are. We're the only government that ever really cared about victims, and there's the proof, our legislation, and we're the only ones to do it."

That all happened, but what else happened? That very same government sent government lawyers into the courtroom to argue that two women who were victims and

asked that the rights they thought they had in the Victims' Bill of Rights be enforced -- the government lawyers were sent in at the behest of this government to argue -- get ready for it -- that

the victims didn't have those rights in the bill.

Judge Day was very clear about what he thought. I'm going to paraphrase. Basically he said it was just politics, it was rhetoric, it sounded good but he had to

agree with the government lawyers that there really weren't any rights in that bill. Shameful, absolutely shameful, after making all that noise about passing a Victims' Bill of Rights, that you

would send in government lawyers to argue that two women, two victims, didn't have the very rights you said they had.

I want to say that's just indicative of this government in terms of the difference between what they say and how they might label a bill and what really

happens out there in the world. Go take a look at some of the environmental legislation this government has put through since 1995. It talks about enhancing protection and enhancing the guarantee

of cleaner air and water, and they did exactly the opposite.

Whether or not the Walkerton inquiry ultimately makes a direct link between the cuts you made and what happened in Walkerton, you can't deny that you went in

there and massacred the Ministry of the Environment while at the same time your Ministers of the Environment stood here, looked all of us in the face and the public in the face and said, "Yes, we

are strengthening the protection of the environment." That's absolutely not the case, no different than this Victims' Bill of Rights.

I want to hear what this government is going to do about the increase in gated communities. I've always believed, even before I came here, that it's the middle

class, those of modest income and those in poverty who need the police the most. If you've got enough money, you can live in a gated community, and at some point -- we're beginning to see it more

and more in the States, and there's no reason to believe it's not going to happen here if this government doesn't take direct action to prevent it -- the hiring of private police to patrol those

gated areas. If you've got enough money, just like you have the ability to buy the kind of health care you want for your family and the kind of education system you want for your family, you can

also buy the kind of peace and security that everyone wants but that doesn't exist because things are underfunded.

So we're building more jails, privatizing them so that a profit can be made, allowing gated communities to be created, allowing slowly, insidiously the

introduction of private police, underfunding, from the provincial point of view, the police services in all of our communities across the province and introducing laws that you say mean one thing

and that you walk into courtrooms and argue mean exactly the opposite.

All of these things you have done, in the name of tax cuts and the almighty dollar, feed into this issue of the justice system because it's all about quality

of life, it's about hope, it's about the future, whether we're thinking about our children or it's our children looking ahead to the future. We had the kind of province where that promise was

there, and we always thought of ourselves as different from our neighbours to the south. They decide to build their society one way and that's their sovereign right. We chose a different direction,

and you've been dismantling that step by step. I don't believe for one minute that you deserve at all the reputation that I acknowledge you carry in terms of law-and-order issues.

In conclusion, I've no idea what the government members are going to say. I would hope that they would support the concept and recognize the importance of this

issue. Again I want to compliment the member for Brant, even though he's from the opposing party to me. I believe he cares and I believe he has brought this forward because he has identified a

vulnerability in our justice system that needs to be corrected. If the government can't support this bill, then please, please indicate to us today that you have assurances from the Solicitor

General that this issue will be dealt with.

I've mentioned all these things about the justice system, about our society, because I believe that the ability of anyone or any entity to intimidate, directly

or indirectly, anyone involved in the justice system hurts that justice system. When the justice system is hurt, then the people's rights and their ability to have the security they're entitled to

and the quality of life they're entitled to are also hurt, are also affected by that.

Let me end on this note: police are our neighbours. They are a part of our society. They are out there on our behalf, whether in the courts or on the streets

or in the probation offices. The very least we can do as legislators is to ensure that we are giving these justice officials all the tools and all the protection they deserve by way of our saying,

"Thank you for what you do," and making sure they have the tools to do it.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would everyone in the House welcome the grade 5 class from Sacred Heart

School in Midland?

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but we welcome you.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to speak on Bill 27, the bill brought forth by the member for Brant. I commend

the member for his efforts. The government takes the issue of protecting personal information very seriously, and we support the bill in principle. Protecting the personal information of justice

sector officials and their families is of particular importance. These people can become the targets of intimidation and harassment by criminals. This must not be tolerated, and it's very important

to maintain the integrity of the justice system in Ontario.

The policing community, however, has expressed concern over some aspects of Bill 27 as it is currently written. The proposed board's report and recommendations

would be made public. They are concerned that this information could be used by those attempting to obtain personal information of justice sector officials and would prefer to work directly with

the government to ensure confidentiality.

This is from the policing community; it's a letter to Mr Levac from Chief Bruce Davis, who is the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and

happens to be chief of police within my riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, the South Simcoe Police Service. I'll read the second paragraph. He states, "We feel uncomfortable, however, with the

establishment of a board, another level of bureaucracy to oversee this privacy issue. Would it not be better and more efficient to build on and strengthen our existing structures, ie, the

information and privacy commission, a body responsible for addressing these types of concerns, rather than establishing a new, separate board? When we open discussions on the problem and solutions

to the general public, it seems that we could potentially also be sharing information on new systems, procedures with some of the same public that we are trying to exclude from access to sensitive

information." End of quote from Chief Bruce Davis, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, expressing his concerns to member Levac from Brant with respect to his proposal.

Also, Brian Adkin, who's the president of the OPPA, Ontario Provincial Police Association, with respect to the board component states, "The board would report

to the Legislative Assembly through the Speaker and would be required to table an annual report on its activities, thereby making public the matters considered by the board and possibly exposing

weaknesses in the system, to the benefit of the criminal element."

These policing associations are showing fundamentally that there are serious flaws in the member's bill. The aspect they're referring to in the bill is

subsection 4(1), where it says, "The board shall report annually on the affairs of the board to the Speaker, who shall cause the report to be laid before the assembly." Obviously that would be made

public. Why did the member put that in there? Perhaps he wasn't thinking clearly on the issue of what's going to happen.

Today we heard the former Solicitor General, the member for Hamilton West, dripping with hypocrisy with respect to the need for this particular bill. He was a

Solicitor General and quite frankly he obviously did nothing --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You will need to withdraw "hypocrisy."

Mr Tascona: Yes, Mr Speaker, the dripping part.

The government understands the concerns that the member is trying to accomplish. The bill also --

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. Was that a withdrawal?

Mr Tascona: It's withdrawn. I did want to make sure what we were dealing with, Mr Speaker.

The bill also appears to duplicate the role and responsibilities of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. The mandate of the commissioner

includes conducting research on privacy issues and ensuring the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is complied with.

The government does not support duplicating government services. This government strongly supports justice sector officials as they work to enhance safety in

our communities, often at great personal risk. I think that's the intent of the bill, and that's what we support.

Our government has implemented a number of initiatives with respect to strengthening our justice system and the policing part of it: the community policing

partnerships program, by adding 1,000 net new front-line officers throughout the province; the government worked with the policing community to construct the Ontario police memorial honouring

fallen police officers, which I attended recently; the Sergeant Rick McDonald Memorial Act. We were the first province to impose severe penalties on criminals who take reckless flight from the

police. The public safety officers' survivor scholarship fund program: this $5-million grant was established to provide scholarship assistance covering tuition and books to spouses and children of

public safety officers who died in the line of duty.

The government takes its role of law enforcement very seriously. Those are all the comments I have.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I'm pleased to stand today to support my colleague Mr Levac from Brant in his Bill 27, which has been outlined and

explained by him.

It's interesting to hear the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford say that they support this bill in principle. To me, that means that they kind of support the

bill but they're probably going to vote against it, and I want to encourage them to support it. This is a bill that brings to our attention an issue of extreme importance in the province. I think

we should give this member, in private members' time, recognition for that, and adequate recognition would be supporting the bill.

We're not, any of us, without any concern about what the details of the bill should be. I think there have been suggestions made this morning and there may be

some made in further debate as to the specifics and what the bill should contain and how it may be amended.

I'm one who has always, and will continue to, advocated the issue of privacy. I think our personal, individual privacy is the most important thing we have in a

democracy. What we need then is legislation and rules and protections of that privacy. I guess there isn't any level of government or bureaucracy that is without some record of having the issue of

privacy invaded. I think back to the Province of Ontario Savings Office, where private information, with the consent of the government, was put in private hands. That's a concern. I think, as well,

of Ministry of Transportation records that are being sold today that contain information that some of us feel should be simply our own private business.

So whether this is a board, whether the Solicitor General's office or whoever may be involved in it, I think it's an issue that we all should take heart in and

we should support.

You will recall recently -- within the past year or so -- there was a glaring example of how harmful private information can be, particularly when it involves

someone in our justice system, if it gets into public hands. The chief of police of a major metropolitan area in Ontario had his address exposed by the media. It was not a criminal who did this --

although some might think the particular media that exposed it verges on that. It was the media in our province. That kind of thing shouldn't happen, because it gives information to the criminal

element that they may or may not have had. I wouldn't be surprised if they had that information anyway.

Also, this bill is not without its supporters. The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford read a couple of letters that expressed some concerns -- and legitimate

concerns -- concerns that could be addressed if and when this bill is passed and sent to committee. For example, the Police Association of Ontario in a letter addressed to Mr Levac said, "We

endorse the need for legislation to safeguard information in specific areas such as the Ministry of Transportation. The fact that criminals can access this information is a growing concern and

threat to our members." They go on to say, "Our only comment on the proposed legislation is that it may be too broad in nature and should be targeted at specific areas." A legitimate concern, but

they "appreciate and support the intent of this legislation" and have therefore written this letter.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union says, "As a representative of correctional officers across Ontario, I'd like to give my support to Dave Levac in

passing his private member's bill, Protecting the Privacy of Criminal Justice Personnel Act." That's signed by Barry Scanlon, the chair. In this letter he points out a couple of examples that some

of us might not have considered before. Certainly I hadn't heard of any specific examples of where there are problems, but I'll just point out the three that he has:

"The following are just a few of the problems facing correctional officers across the province:

"Correctional officers are concerned about their safety and the safety of their families due to private information falling into the hands of inmates involved

in organized crime.

"Inmates have gained access to private information on correctional officers in the past, subjecting officers to harassing phone calls and intimidation.

"Correctional officers are easy targets for retribution due to the extended periods of time they spend with incarcerated offenders."

That was contained in OPSEU's support for this legislation.

The Probation Officers Association of Ontario, in a letter sent to Mr Levac, has said, "The Probation Officers Association of Ontario would be willing to

participate in a committee to examine issues of this nature and make recommendations that would enhance the safety of those working in the criminal justice system." They "certainly welcome efforts

intended to enhance safety of officers and their families."

In letter from the Toronto Police Association over the signature of Craig Bromell, the president, says, "As the Toronto Police Association continually strives

to find methods of implementing safeguards to protect our members and their families, it is encouraging to know that the police officers of Ontario have your support and that you have proved this

by putting forward your proposal."

There is lots of support there. There are associations, groups and individuals who would like to have the opportunity to address the problem that's been

brought forward by this bill.

I would encourage government members to give their support to it so that we can move on with this very important issue.

Mr Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise this morning and discuss the member for Brant's private member's bill, Bill 27,

An Act to protect the families

of police officers and others involved in the criminal justice system.

I would like to compliment the member on his efforts in bringing forth this bill. I don't always agree with the member on some of his initiatives, particularly

on privatization issues, and we've had our disagreements on that, but he has introduced some very good legislation in the past. I was particularly pleased to see his private member's bill, Bill

107, the Firefighters' Memorial Day Act, pass second and third readings in the fall last year, especially in light of the deaths since then of two firemen, Dennis Redman of St Thomas and Patrick

Carey of Toronto.

I know that any time we have a private member's bill pass at the end of a session, it's a good feeling. The same thing happened to me a year ago with the

ignition interlock device. It's good legislation. I think all members of the House are pleased to see this type of information passed on.

I am speaking in favour of this bill, in principle, but I share the same concerns about some of the legislation that the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford

shares, as well as some of the issues brought up by the policing community about the bill. I also share the concerns that the legislation seems to duplicate the role and responsibilities already

given to the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario, whose duty it is to conduct research on privacy issues. The creation of another board or agency to do the same work as a commission

already in place may not be a wise investment in government resources, although we will hear about that as more discussion takes place.

Mind you, I do share his concerns about the protection of the identity of police officers and correctional officers as sensitive information. I attend a lot of

functions, particularly with the Ontario Provincial Police, and I know how close so many of the families are to their husbands and wives who are police officers. I don't think criminals should be

able to access any kind of information on anyone at all in the province, let alone police officers and those others who are involved in the criminal justice system.

Over the past six years, our government has enacted a number of laws designed to help police officers perform their duties. Some of those laws, and we've

mentioned a couple of them already this morning, include Christopher's Law, Bill 31, which just came into effect on April 23 of this year. The legislation requires persons residing in Ontario who

are convicted of a sex offence anywhere in Canada to register with the police in their community within 15 days of the completion of their sentence and to provide a current address. Those persons

have to update their registration within 15 days of a change of residence and on an annual basis. Ontario is the first province in our country to develop such an initiative.

We have created the Ontario Police Memorial, a memorial recognizing fallen police officers. As most members know, the Ontario Police Memorial is across the

street and each year we celebrate the memorial day on the first Sunday of each May.

I won't speak a lot on the rest of the bill, other than to say that I support the legislation in principle. I look forward to further comments from the other

members in this House. I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words here today.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise in support of Bill 27,

An Act to protect the families of police officers and others involved in the

criminal justice system. I commend the member for Brant for the outreach he has done with regard to this bill.

I believe it is imperative, regardless of partisan political stripe, that we provide maximum opportunity to protect the families of police officers and other

people involved in the justice system. Very shortly I am going to relate some of the experiences I had when I was a member of the Sudbury Regional Police Services Board. Back then, in the late

1980s, we were called police commissioners; now we're members. The reality is that the experiences we have as members of a police services board would want you to support this legislation.

Before I do that, the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford referred to a letter from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and I think left the distinct

impression that the chiefs of police of Ontario were against this type of initiative. The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford read the second paragraph. Let me read the third paragraph from Chief

Bruce J. Davis, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police: "Our association is prepared and more than willing to meet with you and/or other stakeholders to further discuss this issue

and work together toward creating a safer environment for police officers," etc.

Clearly the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police wants this to be passed at second reading and wants it to go to committee because they want to have their

input. At least this is what Chief Bruce J. Davis, the president of the association, is saying.

So I would suggest to the government members to support it more than in principle. Support it in reality. Pass it at second reading, refer it to committee and

let's debate it, refine it and make alterations to it, but at the end of the day, with Bill 27 we should have something in place that protects the families of police officers and others involved in

the criminal justice system.

I would now like to relate some of my experiences as a former police services board member-commissioner. I want to talk about the Greater Sudbury Police

Service for a moment, under the very good guidance of Chief Alex McCauley, Deputy Chief Jim Cunningham and Superintendent Ian Davidson. We are a seasoned police force of approximately 241 officers:

veterans like Dave Bedard, Grant Howard, with 28 years and who runs Crime Stoppers, Bob Keitch, Susan Evans, Al Asunmaa, Dave Linney, who is the head of the police pipe band, Brian Insley, who is

the past president of the police association of Sudbury, veterans like Rob Thurkell and Robin Tiplady. We have young police officers who are just beginning their careers, people like Sheila Weber,

Hally Moran, a former student of mine, Natalie Giommi, Mark Brunet, Steven Russell and Glen Greenough.

We gave a dynamic police force, but we have a history in Sudbury of having lost some excellent police officers, people like Joe MacDonald and Rick McDonald. I

believe this type of initiative put forward by the member from Brant provides maximum opportunity to protect those front-line officers who put their lives on the line every single minute of every

single hour of every single shift they work.

In the late 1980s when I was a police commissioner in Sudbury, I was the chair of the police complaints committee. Citizens back then had a right at the local

level to go to that next level if they weren't satisfied with some policing action in their city. I have to tell you that I had some very interesting cases that we had to deal with as a complaints

committee. I had some very angry people come to see us and give us their side of the story, and we as a committee had to weigh and make a decision as to which direction and who we were going to

support in the individual cases.

I made it a point once we had reached a decision -- you write the decision and you send a formal letter to the complainant so that he or she clearly

understands what the decision of the committee is -- to go and visit the people who had complained after we had reached a resolution, because I wanted to ensure that both sides were satisfied with

the decision. I have to say that in all cases, that wasn't the case, and I saw some very angry people after that decision was made. I saw some very angry people who threatened to do very bad things

to police officers. Some of them would even threaten their families.

So I suggest to you as responsible members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that we are commissioned, commanded to do our utmost to ensure that our

police officers and those people involved in the system are protected to the satisfaction of all concerned.

That last phrase, "to the satisfaction of all concerned," is very, very important because I want to ensure that this bill gets to committee so that all the

stakeholders come together. If it is redefining what the board should consist of, so be it. If it is redefining what the terms of reference should be, so be it. If it means redefining the time

limitations, so be it. But allow the people of Ontario who are directly connected to our justice system the opportunity for input.

I implore the government to support Bill 27.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): It's certainly a privilege to speak to Bill 27, and I want to commend the member from Brant for coming up

with this issue and this initiative.

Let's be clear: this all started from what we've heard in the media about Ministry of Transportation officials pretty much everywhere, where someone has

obtained information that belongs to a police officer or a correction officer or someone in the justice system. That causes an enormous concern and one that we should attempt to minimize.

We heard from a former Solicitor General in this Legislature, the member from Hamilton, who said that obviously this can be dealt with in another way, and I

think it can be, from that perspective. This can be done by regulation. Is it going to cover everything? Probably not, because something that's in this act, and it's not defined very well, is

"others." What we see from organized crime now is that the "others" are becoming a pretty significant group.

Let me explain why. Not long ago, while travelling to a couple of communities in Ontario on the Crime Control Commission, I was hosting some public forums on

body-rub parlours. I went to Niagara, and a large community group made up of citizens, church groups, and residents came out for that forum. I went to London, my home community, and the industry of

body-rub people came out, along with organized crime and organized criminals belonging to local bike gangs.

Let's make it clear what they were there for: they were there for intimidation. They showed up with cameras to record people who attended the public forum, to

try to intimidate citizens from getting up to the microphone and speaking freely. When we talk about "others" in the justice system, what I saw that evening was an attempt to intimidate media who

attended with cameras to record the event. You saw the hands go up in front of the cameras and some confrontation between some organized criminals and the camera people in the media.

So that should not be a surprise. We saw what happened in Quebec with a member of the media who covers organized crime. And let there not be any mistake in

this Legislature that politicians will not be a target of anyone who attempts to silence organized crime. They will attend your forums; they will try to intimidate you. In my case it didn't work

because I've dealt with that for many years, so it's part of the process. I would just mention the fact that the London Police Service attended and many good friends were there, so I certainly had

nothing to be concerned about. But this is what we will face as legislators.

I believe that the concept of this bill certainly needs to be enacted. The Ontario Provincial Police Association, the OPPA, and others feel that organized

crime should not have access to their members' information in relation to Ministry of Transportation documents, and it should be extended to others in the justice system: correctional officers,

perhaps judges, and so on.

Like the member from Hamilton East said, this can be done through another means, through a simple regulation allowing that to happen. I hope that's done. Let

me make that clear: I hope that's done. Is that going to prevent others from being intimidated? No. Let's get used to it. These people are playing for keeps. They are playing for a large amount of

money.

My forum had to do with body-rub parlours. Make no mistake about it: the vast majority of them are controlled directly or indirectly by organized crime. We

start from the assumption that they're legitimate businesses, and I admit that. In its regular form it would be a legitimate business of people going in for a body rub, but they go way beyond that.

If you travel your communities, you will see that many of these locations are owned or controlled directly or indirectly by organized crime, and if you choose to get in the way they will make it

difficult for you to go about your business. So anything that we can do to deter organized crime, I will support.

The Deputy Speaker: Response, the member for Brant.

Mr Levac: Of course, I'd like to start off by thanking the members for London-Fanshawe, Simcoe North, and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, and in

particular the way in which I was responded to by the members from Hamilton West, Sudbury and Essex.

It's very important to point a couple of things out. The government on that side has been giving us information why not to do it. What I want to make perfectly

clear is that we should be saying, "Why not?" We should be doing it and then working together -- "How can we do this?" -- instead of poking holes in it using half paragraphs in letters, when the

other half says very clearly, "We want the action, we need the action and we implore you to take the action."

Some of that information was being used to say why they may or may not vote against it, but I'm saying and charging the government, we'd better act on it.

Forget that it's a private member's bill. Forget that I'm on it. If you want to take it, take it, but do something, because the police officers, the crown attorneys, the correctional officers, the

parole officers, the probation officers, the judges, the privacy commission personnel and their families are imploring you, "Do something about it." There is no excuse whatsoever on that side to

say, "We are already doing enough." It's not acceptable. We are never doing enough with this particular issue, because it is organized. We must send the message clearly that we too are

organized.

Some of the points made that we have stuff already here with which we can do it -- it's not being done. The privacy commission itself directly -- I spoke to

two officials plus the privacy commissioner herself -- said, "We support and endorse the concept." So quite clearly they're saying that it should be done by them, but they're saying, "We want you

to do it right here." So let's send it to committee for the sake of all the people I just listed. We have to act.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the debate on ballot item number 12.

IMPROVED SAFETY ON 400 SERIES

HIGHWAYS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE

DES ROUTES DE LA SÉRIE 400

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I will now put the question with regard to ballot item number 11.

Mr Mazzilli has moved second reading of Bill 50,

An Act to improve safety on 400 series highways. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Speaker, may I ask to direct it to the standing committee on justice and social policy?

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Mazzilli has asked that the bill be sent to the standing committee on justice and social policy. Is it agreed? Agreed.

So ordered.

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PERSONNEL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA VIE PRIVÉE DU PERSONNEL

DU SYSTÈME DE JUSTICE CRIMINELLE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 12.

Mr Levac has moved second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to protect the families of police officers and others involved in the criminal justice system. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I would like to move that it be sent to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Would all those in favour please rise and be counted? Opposed? A majority of members being in favour, the bill is

referred to the standing committee on general government.

This completes private members' public business. We will stand adjourned until 1:30.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to wear these purple ribbons in memory of

Theresa Vince, who was killed in the workplace.

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Last week I attended the fifth anniversary of the tragic death of Theresa Vince. Theresa was murdered in

Chatham within days of her retirement by the workplace supervisor who had sexually harassed her for years. Through expert testimony at the Vince inquest, we learned that Theresa was not the first

women to be killed after experiencing workplace harassment, nor even the second or third. In a 12-year period, three other women had been murdered in the same circumstances.

Sexual harassment is a crime and this government's tolerance toward it cannot continue. Today, with the family and friends of Theresa Vince in the gallery, I

will be introducing a private member's bill in Theresa's memory that we have consulted on for the past year. It is an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that will provide an

effective remedy to immediately stop sexual harassment in the workplace, remove dangerous behaviour and keep workers in their jobs.

I want to pay tribute to Marion Boyd, the former member for London Centre, who first took up the battle for Theresa and all women who experience harassment. On

behalf of the Chatham-Kent Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, which has worked vigorously for a safe environment for Ontario women, I am committed to carrying on this fight. I am honoured also that Geri

Sanson, a well-known Toronto human rights lawyer, was instrumental in the development of the drafting of this bill. I welcome Geri, along with Michelle Schryer, Joy Lang and members of Theresa's

family.

All women should have the right to full, equal and safe participation in the workplace. This is an issue that transcends all party lines. I urge the members

opposite to put an end to sexual harassment in the workplace by supporting my bill.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, the members of the gallery will understand that even clapping isn't allowed in here,

unfortunately. I know they were just trying to be polite, but unfortunately even the members of the gallery aren't allowed to clap. We appreciate your co-operation in that matter.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'm pleased to announce that the Halton-Peel region is ranked as one of the best places in

Canada to get health care.

The Maclean's survey this week found that of 54 regions in Canada, Halton-Peel is third and got the best score outside British Columbia.

I would like to quote from the Brampton Guardian, which said in an editorial yesterday about this ranking, "Part of the success must go to the Mike Harris

Tories. We know a large number of people ... aren't going to like hearing this, but when they first came to power six years ago, they promised to fix our health care system." The editorial went on

to note, "Maybe the amalgamations have worked."

Premier Harris has stood his ground and worked hard to address our health care challenges and the people of Brampton and Malton know this. Maybe Mr McGuinty

and the Liberals should help find solutions instead of spreading fear and panic among Ontario's working families.

On behalf of Brampton Centre MPP Joe Spina and Brampton West-Mississauga MPP Tony Clement, I would like to recognize the volunteers, nurses, doctors and

administrators whose hard work and dedication have enabled Halton-Peel to be ranked third in Canada in this survey.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Just recently we heard some very alarming comments from the MPP from Niagara that we have got to bring

into this House. These comments are unacceptable about home care services in the Niagara region.

What is happening in the Community Care Access Centre in Niagara? They are facing an over $9-million shortfall in being able to deliver quality services to the

people of Niagara. What does Mr Maves have to say about this? He says they should prioritize. He says they shouldn't be providing homemaking services like vacuuming and cleaning.

Where has the MPP for Niagara been? They have not been doing this service since 1997. Why? Because they don't have the funding to provide a very minimal level

of service for some people, mostly women, mostly elderly women, to allow them to live independently in their own homes. That's the kind of representation we need to change in the Niagara region.

When we hear comments like this, we've got to say, "Stop." We've got to say, "Prioritize and put the people of Niagara first."

It is telling on this government that you're prepared to look at elderly and frail people in your community and say, "You should be prioritized to the bottom

of the list." Ontario Liberals under Dalton McGuinty say no.

GOLDEN HORSESHOE MARATHON

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to recognize the third annual Golden Horseshoe Marathon. The marathon is intended to raise community

awareness of disability issues, promote a positive image of disability in the community and raise funds for the planned Rehabilitation Resource Centre in Hamilton.

The Golden Horseshoe Marathon 2001 began June 3 in Niagara Falls and will end today at Queen's Park, for a total distance of 210 kilometres, with these

outstanding athletes wheeling 42 kilometres per day for five days in a row. Citizenship Minister Cam Jackson and I, along with other supporters of the marathon, will be joining them and wheeling

along in chairs for the final two kilometres.

These inspiring athletes are Charlie Cetinski, Flamborough; Bruce Petrie, Burlington; Chuck Mealing, Fort Erie; Andrea Burkholder, Kitchener; Les McLaughlin,

Mississauga; and Pascal Ribreau, Toronto.

The Golden Horseshoe Marathon athletes are six individuals who have all experienced spinal cord injury. The Rehabilitation Resource Centre at the Hamilton

Health Sciences Corp that the athletes are helping to develop will provide a one-stop information and peer support service. The location promotes the best possible access for newly disabled people

as well as those involved in the lifelong learning required to manage disability through follow-up outpatient contact.

I ask that all members of the House join with me in congratulating these fine, outstanding athletes and thanking them for helping to make their community and

province a better place in which to live.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I rise on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus to recognize an important event that took place in

1880 and has been recognized as such: Portuguese National Day.

The Portuguese National Day is very unique and special in the pages of history. Why? Because most countries celebrate an independence war or they celebrate a

document or whatever. But Portuguese National Day is celebrated by Luso-Canadians today not because of a document but because they want to recognize an important writer and educator, Luis de

Camões, who died over 440 years ago but is still celebrated today because he is an intellectual giant who stepped across the centuries and stepped across the Atlantic so that we too in Canada

today can celebrate our poets and our writers and our educators, which this party forgets to do.

I say on this very special day that we recognize the great contribution Portuguese Canadians have made, not only to Canada but especially to the city of

Toronto. But today their focus is not on economic opportunity. Today the focus, especially of the children of Luso-Canadians, is on Luis de Camões.

So I say to all those Luso-Canadians who celebrate their special day and all the members of the Legislature in Portuguese:

Remarks in Portuguese.

POVERTY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to take just a brief moment this afternoon to report back to the Legislature, to the members present

and to the public out there that I've been travelling the province for the last six months, listening to people on the very disturbing issue of poverty, and I'm sad to say that my feeling or sense

that poverty is wider and deeper than ever is being confirmed.

I've been to nine communities: Sault Ste Marie, Wawa, Elliot Lake, North Bay, Kingston, Huntsville, Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton, and I'll be in Ottawa in a

couple of weeks.

Poverty has shown itself in many ways, but most importantly and most obviously by the level of homelessness we find, particularly in the city of Toronto. It's

interesting that because other communities are now offering homes for an affordable price in places like Elliot Lake, they are now inheriting the problem as well without the resources to support

the population that's coming to stay in those places. So we have a big problem, not only on our hands, but looming.

The other twist, the other obvious example of homelessness that I'm finding and hearing about as I cross the province, is the issue of families now abandoning

children, not because they want to or they feel good about it but because they feel in their heart that somebody else has to be able to look after their children better than they can, so they're

abandoning them.

So there is a problem out there and this government needs to be addressing it.

ORTHOPAEDIC FUNDRAISING

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'd like to make a few comments this afternoon about an organization in our community that works tirelessly

at this time of the year to bring awareness and to raise funds for orthopaedic equipment at the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital.

The Orillia-area team, the Hip Hip Hooray Team, a coast-to-coast organization, last week held two fundraising events. Mr John Feeney and his team of volunteers

hosted their fourth annual golf tournament at beautiful Bonaire Golf and Country Club in Coldwater. Almost 200 golfers participated in the event and raised approximately $15,000.

I should make it clear that many of those who participated and volunteered can now move around comfortably as a result of hip and knee replacement surgery. On

June 3, Ms Charlene Taylor and Dr Ron Taylor and their team of volunteers hosted their seventh annual barbecue, entertainment and walkathon to raise funds for the same project. The event was held

at the ODAS Park in Orillia. People of all ages attended the event in spite of some rainy weather. Again it was a success.

I would like to congratulate the Hip Hip Hooray Team of Orillia and area for a job well done again this year. I'd like to thank all the corporate sponsors and

citizens who participated in this very valuable fundraising event. The monies raised will allow citizens to live normal lives with mobility and good health and happiness. I'd also like to thank

them for including me in this event.

TOWN OF COBALT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I'm pleased to acknowledge that the "Town that silver built," Cobalt, has been declared Ontario's most

historic town by TVO's Studio 2. Cobalt, located adjacent to the towns of Haileybury and New Liskeard in the district of Timiskaming, is being hailed as the town that built the new Ontario economy.

In a unanimous decision, three leading Canadian historians chose Cobalt over 100 other entries from across the province.

Cobalt's illustrious mining heritage began with the discovery of silver in 1903, which sparked one of the largest booms in Canadian history. In its heyday,

there were more than 100 mines in operation in the Cobalt camp, and the town's population rose to more than 12,000 people.

This led to the opening up of northeastern Ontario and the establishment of the famed Kirkland Lake and Porcupine gold camps. It was these mining towns that

generated most of the wealth of the province at the beginning of the 20th century.

It is interesting to note that the New York Philharmonic orchestra would overnight in Toronto on its way up to play at the Cobalt Opera House in those

days.

Like many of the old mining towns, Cobalt is a shadow of its former self now. With a population today of 1,400, Cobalt draws on its historic past with

attractions such as the Heritage Silver Trail, a self-guided tour through the old mine sites, headframes and open cuts where silver was literally scooped out of the ground.

Tonight on Studio 2, a 10-minute feature documentary profile of Cobalt will air at 8 o'clock, hosted by local journalist Charlie Angus.

I would encourage everyone to visit Cobalt this summer and witness at first hand the fascinating history of northern Ontario.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise in the House today in commemoration of D-Day and our war veterans.

On June 6, 1944, D-Day began on the beaches of Normandy, France. This was one of the most complicated and largest assaults in military history, uniting the

British, Canadians and Americans in their plan to take back Europe. A total of 175,000 troops were used in the attack, and of those, 14,000 were Canadian. At the end of the assault, there were

1,074 Canadian casualties, of which 359 were fatal.

I would also like to recognize the work of Sam Doggart, a World War II veteran and resident in my riding of York North. While D-Day remembers our fallen

soldiers, Mr Doggart has initiated a flag and candlelighting ceremony to honour our soldiers who did survive the war and came back to Ontario to build our communities despite the tragedies they had

suffered.

The idea is to invite young people to participate in the ceremony, participation that Mr Doggart sees as essential in keeping our military history alive.

Usually Girl Guides and Boy Scouts place the flags on the graves while the cadets place lit candles on the graves of our war veterans buried in Ontario.

Since beginning the campaign in February 2000, there have been four ceremonies held in Ontario. This ceremony is popular in British Columbia, where 12,000

candles were lit in 31 different communities last year.

D-Day is remembered in history as the crucial turning point in World War II. We will never forget our living and fallen heroes who fought for freedom and peace

for future generations.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Wednesday, May 30, the member for Niagara Centre (Mr Kormos) rose on a point of order concerning Bill 57, An

Act to promote government efficiency and to improve services to taxpayers by amending or repealing certain acts. The member indicated that this 95-page omnibus bill amends over 50 statutes, repeals

several other statutes, and affects 15 different ministries. In an impressive and well-researched submission, the member requested that the Speaker rule the bill out of order because its contents

lacked a theme of relevancy. He also requested that, in the absence of a political solution to divide the bill, the Speaker should do so. I want to thank the member for his presentation. The

government House leader (Mrs Ecker) and the member for Windsor-St. Clair (Mr Duncan) also made submissions.

I have had an opportunity to review the bill in light of the parliamentary authorities and precedents on omnibus bills. With respect to his first request, that

is, that the bill be ruled out of order, the member indicated that we have reached the "point of no return" mentioned by Speaker Lamoureux of the Canadian House of Commons in his well-known January

26, 1971, ruling, and called on the Speaker "to bring democracy back to this Legislature."

The member conceded that some of the amendments in the bill were uncontroversial in that they were "benign and consistent with the theme of what is an

acceptable omnibus bill." However, he was of the view that other amendments, such as those to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, were substantive and contentious.

Let me begin my response by stating the relevant criteria for determining the orderliness of an omnibus bill. As the member himself noted, page 192 of the

sixth edition of Beauchesne contains the following citation:

"Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill.

They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the

long title of the bill."

To this, I would add that as noted in rulings by Speakers of this House on June 10, 1997, and again on December 13, 1999, "A theme of relevancy is not achieved

simply by virtue of what a bill's title says the bill does, or by the number of ministries a bill touches upon. A theme of relevancy is achieved when all the parts of the bill are linked in a

tangible way."

To my knowledge, no Speaker in this House or any other Canadian jurisdiction has ruled a bill out of order for its failure to meet the above-mentioned

criteria. Even so, I have no reservations in agreeing with the member for Niagara Centre and with many previous rulings in this House and other authorities that, in a proper case, it is

procedurally possible for a Speaker to rule a bill out of order on this ground. Nevertheless, after carefully reviewing Bill 57 in light of the criteria, I find that the bill does not cross the

line: its contents, including the amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, are tangibly linked under the umbrella of the bill's

long title.

In his second request, the member for Niagara Centre called on the Speaker to divide the bill on his own initiative in the absence of a political solution to

do so. (The member noted that a political solution had been found with respect to contentious omnibus bills in the 35th Parliament.) My response to this submission is that there is ample authority

for the proposition that it is for the House -- not the Speaker -- to divide a bill. In this regard, I refer to pages 617 to 619 of Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice,

and to rulings in our own House on March 24, 1994, October 31, 1994, December 5, 1995, and May 14, 1996. Therefore, I cannot accede to the member's request that the Speaker divide Bill 57.

In so ruling, I have taken very careful note of the member's submissions respecting standing order 1(b), which became part of our standing orders in 1997. This

being the first time that this so-called purpose clause has been referred to in the context of an omnibus bill, let me explain what it means and what it does not mean with respect to Bill 57.

Firstly, it speaks to the right of members to submit matters to the assembly, and to have them determined by a democratic vote; it does not prevent a procedurally acceptable omnibus bill from being

introduced, debated and voted on. Secondly, it speaks to the right of members to debate and vote on matters; therefore, if and when the government proceeds with Bill 57, there will be a debate and

a vote on it as prescribed by the standing orders. Thirdly, it speaks to the right of members to hold the government accountable; with respect to bills such as Bill 57, the standing orders flesh

out how members may do that. And finally, this purpose clause speaks to the right of members collectively to decide matters submitted to the assembly; this right will be exercised if and when Bill

57 comes to a vote.

Standing order 1(b), then, does not confer new substantive rights on members, but is rather a statement of purpose or principle that assists in the

interpretation of the other standing orders.

In closing, there is nothing out of order, but again I thank the member for Niagara Centre for his very impressive and well-researched submission.

The member on a point of order?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): No. Thank you kindly, Speaker.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

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

Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit for contributions to registered education savings plans / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la

Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu en vue de prévoir un crédit d'impôt pour les cotisations versées à un régime enregistré d'épargne-études.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

The Speaker: Mr Dunlop has moved the adoption of the report of the standing committee on general government respecting Bill 4,

An Act to amend

the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit for contributions to registered education savings plans, as amended.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are zero.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT

(SEXUAL HARASSMENT), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL)

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to Protect Workers from Sexual Harassment in the Workplace / Projet de loi 78, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail pour protéger les travailleurs contre le harcèlement sexuel dans le lieu de travail.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): In memory of Theresa Vince, who was brutally murdered by a workplace supervisor who had sexually harassed her

for years, the objective of this bill is to provide remedies for employees who experience such sexual harassment in the workplace. Almost a year of consultation between Geri Sanson, the

Chatham-Kent Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, the family of Theresa Vince and others has produced a good bill that will, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, require immediate investigation

of any allegations concerning workplace-related sexual harassment, allow inspectors investigating a sexual harassment complaint to make an immediate order to stop the dangerous circumstance,

provide the right for an individual to refuse work in certain circumstances after sexual harassment in the workplace has occurred, provide the right for an individual to be paid for workplace

absence due to sexual harassment and require employers to take steps to prevent further occurrences of workplace-related sexual harassment.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr):