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

May 3, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-May-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 3 May 2001 Jeudi 3 mai 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HORSE RIDING SAFETY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CAVALIERS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

HORSE RIDING SAFETY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CAVALIERS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

HORSE RIDING SAFETY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CAVALIERS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE IN TORONTO

ROAD SAFETY

ANNIVERSARY OF

POLISH CONSTITUTION

FISHERMEN'S MEMORIAL

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

LABOUR DISPUTE

BRICK STREET SCHOOL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EVENTS IN YORK REGION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

INCENTIVES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES STIMULANTS

AU LOGEMENT À PRIX ABORDABLE

RENT FREEZE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE GEL DES LOYERS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(AUGMENTATION DU

SALAIRE MINIMUM)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WELFARE REFORM

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

AIR QUALITY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WELFARE REFORM

ORAL QUESTIONS

(CONTINUED)

TUITION FEES

LABOUR AGENCY REFORM

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

PHARMACARE

MINIMUM WAGE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WELFARE REFORM

ECONOMIC POLICY

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

AIR QUALITY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

KARLA HOMOLKA

SALE OF SCHOOLS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

DIABETES TREATMENT

AIR QUALITY

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO STUDENT LOAN HARMONIZATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HARMONISATION

DES PRÊTS D'ÉTUDES DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 3 May 2001 Jeudi 3 mai 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HORSE RIDING SAFETY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CAVALIERS

Mrs Molinari moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 12,

An Act to increase the safety of equestrian riders / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des cavaliers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member for Thornhill has 10 minutes to make her presentation.

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I would ask for unanimous consent to display props on my desk.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No, there is not.

Mrs Molinari: I would like to ask the honourable members to picture in their minds a young girl, a beautiful, active, precocious 10-year-old. It

is early April. Her 10th birthday was only the week before. The little girl is all excited because the next morning she is going to go horseback riding at a trail ranch. She leaves a note on her

dresser to remind herself that she needs to wear old clothes. She is going riding and she wants to be prepared.

By the time the note is found she is already dead. She fell from her horse and her foot got stuck in the stirrup. As the horse continued to move, she struck her

head on a rock, which killed her.

Now imagine the girl's parents. They sent a very excited little girl off with her friends that day in April. Never did they think that a day of horseback riding

might end so tragically. Imagine those grief-stricken parents discovering that their daughter's death was not the first of its kind. Imagine them finding coroners' reports on the deaths of three

young people dating back as far as 1977, all of which stated that provincial legislation should be introduced to ensure safety equipment is worn by those riding horses. Imagine the parents

realizing that the tragic accident could have been avoided if their daughter had been made to wear a helmet and boots, and if her horse had been given tack fitted with detachable or hooded

stirrups.

Unfortunately, this scenario really happened. The little girl's name was Elizabeth Hader and, but for a helmet and boots, she might be alive today. It is in

Elizabeth's memory that I present this bill: in her memory and in the memory of countless other young people who have been critically injured or killed in horseback riding accidents in Ontario.

Elizabeth's parents, Paul and Laurie Hader of Aurora, are here today, as is Phyllis Morris, the former Aurora town councillor who drafted the original horseback

riding safety bylaw which inspired this bill. I would like to welcome them to the debate.

As I ask you to support Bill 12, I pose these questions: Would you let your child play hockey without proper equipment? Would you let your child ride a bicycle

on a busy street without a helmet? Would you let your child do anything dangerous without first being protected? Why should horseback riding be any different?

Horseback riding is a risk sport. It is a fun leisure activity involving beautiful, spirited animals but it is a risk sport. As a risk sport, certain minimum

safety standards must be put in place. As more and more Ontarians try horseback riding, the need for such safety standards becomes increasingly clear. Too many Ontarians, many of them children,

have died or have been injured in riding accidents. Their injuries might well have been prevented if they had been provided with a certified riding helmet and proper footwear. Equestrian accidents

occur not only through carelessness or lack of experience, but can happen to the most experienced riders. Horseback riding is an inherently risky sport. The dangers can never be completely

eliminated, but proper safety precautions can drastically reduce the chances of serious and possibly fatal injury.

The purpose of Bill 12 is to increase the safety of horseback riders under the age of 18 by requiring the operators of riding establishments to ensure that

proper safety equipment is used. Riding establishments would be required to provide proper helmet and footwear to riders if they do not have their own. The legislation allows for a reasonable

rental fee to be charged. If a young person does not wear a helmet, they will not ride. The bill also amends the Highway Traffic Act to increase the safety of riders who use Ontario's roadways.

Why does Ontario need to regulate the horse riding industry? Currently, without standard laws that insist on the wearing of helmets and boots or the provision of

hooded breakaway stirrups for those under 18, it is left entirely up to the individual commercial operators to determine what level of safety to offer the riders. In the case of the vast majority

of riding establishment operators, this is not a concern. For those few operators who put profit above protection, this legislation will ensure that the safety of the rider is always first.

The industry itself has asked for safety standards. The support of the Ontario Equestrian Federation and the Association of Riding Establishments of Ontario is

behind this bill. They themselves have been pushing for riding establishments to adopt minimum safety standards. Currently, however, the industry admits it is too fragmented to regulate itself and

there is no legislation in Ontario which presently deals with this issue.

I'd like to quote the Ontario Equestrian Federation and the Association of Riding Establishments. The OEF is an umbrella organization representing all equestrian

sport, with the exception of the racing industry in Ontario. The ARE promotes safety, animal welfare and education, and provides support to equine stable operators in Ontario. This is what they

have to say: "Ms Molinari's proposal that appropriate footwear and a riding helmet be worn by those under the age of 18 years while riding a horse is commendable. Any and all efforts to ensure the

safety of Ontario youth is a goal of the equine community; the support of the Legislative Assembly will help to ensure that the experience of riding a horse is a positive one for all."

When Phyllis Morris introduced her bylaw on equestrian safety in the town of Aurora, letters of support came pouring in. Each letter said the same thing, that

people were shocked at the senseless deaths of young riders, that definitive action was obviously called for and that there was no reason not to wear helmets and boots when riding. Such simple

pieces of equipment could save lives.

One letter read: "I was appalled to learn that children under the age of 18 are not required to wear a helmet when horseback riding. In addition, ranches are not

responsible to provide safety stirrups when horseback riding. These two issues have serious repercussions for our children. I ask that you establish regulations to protect our children. Unless

regulations are implemented, serious injury or death is inevitable. Please do something to change the regulations and protect life's greatest asset -- our children."

Another letter said: "A friend of mine named Elizabeth Hader died because she did not have a helmet on or the right stirrups on the horse. Please don't let

another friend of mine die."

A third letter read: "I have two children of my own. It is so hard for me to imagine going through what the parents of Elizabeth went through. God bless them.

Please let's prevent this from ever happening again."

The issue of equestrian safety has been one that has haunted Ontario for decades. In 1977, 22-year-old Wayne Delaney was thrown from his horse and killed while

riding at a ranch in west Toronto. One of the many recommendations of the coroner's jury was that "it be mandatory that operators of riding establishments do not permit horses to be ridden by

persons not wearing footwear which does not have heels of sufficient design as to prevent the slippage of a person's foot through a stirrup" and that "the operators of riding establishments

maintain a supply of riding helmets so that these will be available to all riders on request."

A mere two years later, 13-year-old Wade Sciscenti fell off a horse and died of massive brain damage. The coroner's jury wrote: "We the jury feel that since

helmets are required for motorcycling and skidooing it should be equally requested for horseback riding and therefore recommend that safety standards be set to have equestrian helmets approved by

CSA standards, and that the wearing of approved equestrian helmets be made compulsory for all riding schools, stables, and horseback riding."

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I will indicate from the beginning that I intend to support this piece of legislation. I extend to the

members of the family today my personal sympathy and, I know, the sympathy of all members of the Legislature. It is always extremely tragic when it is a youngster who passes away, that as a result

of an accident, a youngster's life is lost. It is devastating for the family. Whenever we can take action that would protect young people who are vulnerable, in terms of providing greater safety

for these youngsters, it is our role and responsibility to do so.

I know there is a philosophy out there among some people that government should be backing off, that government should have as little role as possible in the

personal lives of individuals. There are people who will oppose the intervention of government even in bringing about safety for the citizens it represents. I recall that when seat belt legislation

was first introduced, there were a number of people who resisted it and said it was not wise. Happily, many of those people changed their minds. But it is interesting that young people themselves

often have a more cautious view than adults and are more careful in terms of taking actions to protect themselves.

An example would be this: I can recall getting into a van to get a ride from someone. I was only going to go a block, and of course we should put our seat belts

on. Someone else was driving in this case and there were two children in the van, both of whom insisted that the van would not move until such time as I put my seat belt on. I wear my seat belt

99.99% of the time in my own vehicle. But it was refreshing and encouraging to see that here were children who were insisting that an adult in the car take the precaution -- usually it is the

opposite way -- even for one block. Of course, those children were right. They had been taught that both by their parents and in the school system.

Here is a situation where young people are involved in riding horses, equestrian riders. These youngsters are excited by the opportunity to ride a horse, to be

involved with horses. However, there is danger. As the member has mentioned in her initial remarks, horses aren't always rational. They are very large animals and an accident can happen. There is

no guarantee that we can completely remove the chance of that accident happening. Nevertheless, it is important that we take any action we can to protect the health and safety of the children. In

this case it relates to people under 18 years old. Just to show a comparable example, I was talking to an individual who said that today he no longer allows his children to ski without having a

helmet on. This individual talked about that from the point of view that it's very important; there have been accidents in skiing, so helmets were essential.

Children then insist that adults take the same action. We're seeing this with bicycles. Dianne Cunningham, who is the Minister of Colleges and Universities in

this province, brought forth legislation dealing with helmets for people who are riding bicycles. If you had said, when I was a youngster just a few years ago, that I should be wearing a helmet

while riding a bicycle, most people in those days would have laughed at it. You would have been called names; it would have been said that you weren't a tough person because you weren't prepared to

ride a bicycle without a helmet. Well, look around today: children are wearing helmets. Look around today: adults are wearing helmets.

We went through this process with motorcycles, where there were people who strongly resisted helmets, and today there are people in our society who, as a result

of accidents where they weren't wearing a helmet, have been incapacitated in many ways. So there's a general consensus now in our society that we take these steps. What is unfortunate for all of us

is that very often what prompts the action, in terms of legislative or regulatory action, is a tragic accident. The only satisfaction that parents of members of a family or friends would have is

that as a result of a tragedy that has happened to them personally, others may be spared that same experience.

So I certainly will be supporting this bill. There's an indication that riders under the age of 18 will be required -- there's a requirement on the operators of

riding establishments to ensure that riders use proper safety equipment, included properly fitted tack. The operators at establishments are also required to have proper safety equipment available

for hire at reasonable rates.

It goes on to say that the bill also amends the Highway Traffic Act, that it is an offence for any rider under the age of 18 years to be mounted on a horse on a

highway without the proper safety equipment. Parents and guardians of riders under the age of 16 years are also guilty of an offence if they authorize or knowingly permit riders to contravene that

restriction. It may not happen initially, but I think we'll find that people will become accustomed to the rules and regulations contained within this legislation and there wouldn't even be an

argument within a few years about whether or not this was sensible.

I happen to be a person who believes that government does have a role in intervening, particularly when it's the safety of children involved. That is why I think

you saw very strong support in the Legislative Assembly for Mrs Cunningham's bill that I mentioned, who herself had had an experience within her family that brought it even closer to her in terms

of the need for legislation.

I hope the Red Tape Commission does not review this and decide that it's not necessary. One of my concerns about the Red Tape Commission, headed by my former

adjacent colleague Frank Sheehan and I think Mr Bob Wood, the member for London West, is that they are to look at all potential regulations and legislation, all that exists at the present time. I

would hope that in their obsession with wanting to get the government out of everybody's lives, they would recognize the importance of this legislation and legislation of its kind, which is

designed, first of all, to protect children in our society.

I look in the public galleries today; there are children from various schools. They will not have an opportunity to live out their lives and enjoy all that life

has to offer them if indeed they are the victims of an unfortunate accident, if we as adults, as members of the Legislature, did not take the appropriate action to try to prevent this from

happening.

I should mention this; it is perhaps just a little bit off the topic. If you are talking about helmets, it would be nice if there were helmets that would also

protect our children from the bad air that we're experiencing today in the province of Ontario. I only put that out there because I know the member, as all members would be, would be concerned

about all things which impact children.

I can tell you that, as I see these children here, some are involved in horseback riding, some are riding bicycles, some are skiing and some are playing sports

of other kinds that may be contact sports. We want to ensure that all of these children have the proper equipment.

I go back even to adults, Mr Speaker. You are a hockey fan. You've had some good teams from down your way in Stratford, Ingersoll, Monkton and a number of places

such as those. You will recall that it was normal for youngsters and others to play hockey without helmets and without a face mask of any kind.

If you had said to junior hockey players a generation ago, "You're going to have to wear not only a helmet, but you're going to have to wear a mask of some kind

to protect your face and perhaps a guard for your throat and so on," there would have been a major negative reaction. Today it is accepted that those pieces of equipment, although they're sometimes

controversial, are necessary.

That's why I think this is a step forward. This is not a step backward. This is not an unnecessary intervention; this is what I consider to be a necessary

intervention.

I was concerned, as some members of this Legislature would be, that the responsibility of what I used to call the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

-- I think it's now called Consumer and Business Services -- for safety was taken away from them in such places as midways and circuses, where children are involved, or elevators, which are

important. I think that is a role for government and I hope that there's a supervision of this piece of legislation by the ministries of government and not by some privatized organization in the

province, because I think that would be a step backward.

I will be supporting this bill. I would be surprised if there isn't a good deal of support among members of this Legislature for a piece of legislation which is

designed to prevent tragedies, if possible -- we can never remove the risk -- and is designed to significantly reduce the risk of permanent injury or death, or even minor injury to those who are

involved in horseback riding and are under the age of adulthood, which we define as 18.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to rise today in support of the private member's bill put forth by my

colleague.

The bill has a twofold purpose. It's entitled the Horse Riding Safety Act, 2001. "The purpose of the bill is to increase the safety of horse riders under the age

of 18 years by requiring the operators of riding establishments to ensure that riders use proper safety equipment, including properly fitted tack. The operators of the establishments are also

required to have the proper safety equipment available for hire at reasonable rates."

The second part of the bill also amends the Highway Traffic Act. It is an offence for any rider under the age of 18 years to ride or be mounted on a horse on a

highway without the proper safety equipment. Parents and guardians of riders under the age of 16 years are also guilty of an offence if they authorize or knowingly permit riders to contravene that

restriction."

The purpose of the bill in terms of both aspects is to deal with the safety component for young riders. Being the father of a young rider myself, my

second-oldest daughter, Lauren, takes riding lessons. I can say for the establishment where she rides, which is out in the member from Simcoe North's riding, in Oro-Medonte, they required the

riders to purchase their own riding helmets and the equipment they needed. It's very important for a young rider of her age -- she's eight now -- to be wearing a properly fitted helmet and properly

fitted tack, because the horses are obviously a fair size and for a young person to drop to the ground may result in some serious injury to that person.

This is not a minor issue in terms of rider safety, and the focus is dealing with the riding establishments in Ontario.

When you look at the facts about the horse industry in this province -- and I want to share a couple of statistics. In a study undertaken in 1998, the total herd

in Ontario at that time was approximately 290,000. Twenty per cent of Ontario horses are used for tourism activities. There's no central registration for riding establishments. The Ontario

Equestrian Federation estimates there is a minimum of 1,500 riding establishments and possibly as many as 5,000. It's estimated that one million people participate in riding activities in Ontario

on a regular or semi-regular basis.

What this legislation is dealing with specifically is safety standards for riders. Many riding establishments already provide helmet and boots to riders, but the

legislation is necessary to ensure proper safety equipment is worn every time on every ride.

Other jurisdictions are also addressing this issue. In southern Ontario alone, 11 municipalities have adopted licensing bylaws in the last year to address this

issue. In the United States, the state of New York passed a law in early 2000 making it mandatory for people under 14 to wear helmets when riding horses. The city of Plantation in Florida has

adopted a bylaw on the issue, and in the countries of France, Australia and New Zealand there's also been concern about rider safety.

What we're dealing with here is a bill that is designed to deal with riding establishments. Obviously it's directed at our young people in terms of making sure

there are proper safety standards, proper safety equipment being available for those riders, and also dealing with the Highway Traffic Act to ensure that if you are going to ride a horse and you're

in that age group, you are properly fitted with the safety equipment.

I'm pleased to speak on this bill, and I will be supporting it.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Let me stand in my place and offer the member from Thornhill congratulations on bringing forward very progressive

legislation which protects children.

At the same time, let me offer to Paul and Laurie Hader my deepest sympathies. This is the two-year anniversary of your 10-year-old child Elizabeth's death.

Being a father, I just can't imagine how painful that must be. I don't think we can imagine it unless we live it. So know that our thoughts and our prayers are with you, not only now but in the

future. I'm sure this will provide some closure, what I would hope to be unanimous support would provide some closure to you because of your tragedy certainly, and it is a tragedy.

Let me tell you that this is not intrusive legislation. We in this House have a mandate to ensure that we do everything possible to protect the youth of this

province. The member from Thornhill talks about protecting them during recreational activities. I say that's a very good opportunity to show leadership in this province when it comes to protecting

kids.

Mr and Mrs Hader will know that I have introduced legislation in the past with regard to protecting children involved in prostitution. The bills are Bills 22, 23

and 24. I think they're equally important as well, and I would hope the government acts quickly on this legislation. We know the government introduced my legislation before we prorogued the House

and promised to introduce similar legislation in the new House but hasn't done so. Because you have experienced the tragedy of losing a child, you know how other parents who are losing children in

many different ways would benefit from this legislation.

This is good legislation because it sets a standard for owners of businesses to operate within. It sets a standard whereby children who want to involve

themselves in very wholesome, healthy, meaningful activities will be protected. Does it mean there will never be another fatality? No, it doesn't mean that. The world knows that. But it lessens the

likelihood of tragedies occurring in the future, and I see that as very good legislation.

The Minister of Labour and I were talking earlier. We both have children who ski. There are so many other things we can be doing to protect children in a

recreational setting, in a sporting setting, in a cultural setting. This stuff is going to cost money to do, but I say it's money well invested. I say it's a meaningful investment in the future of

Ontario, in what I believe to be its greatest resource: our children, who will be our leaders some day.

I would hope this legislation receives unanimous support when it is voted on today. There is need for committee work, as I think the member knows and as this

House knows. I know that the shortcomings of the legislation will be dealt with at committee, but know that I will be supporting it.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to Bill 12,

An Act to increase the safety of equestrian

riders. I'd like to welcome the Hader family here as well this morning. I'd like to congratulate my colleague, Mrs Molinari, the member for Thornhill, for bringing forth this legislation, which I

believe will protect the safety of youth in our province.

This bill is the end result of a number of untimely deaths of young Ontarians as a result of horseback riding accidents. A number of coroners' juries have made

recommendations that support the need for this legislation. An example of this would be an excerpt I'll read from the verdict of the coroner's jury serving on the inquest into the death of Wade

Sciscenti on January 18, 1980:

"We, the jury, feel that since helmets are required for motorcycling and skidooing, it should equally be requested for horseback riding and therefore

recommends:

"1. that safety standards be set to have equestrian helmets approved by CSA standards

"2. that the wearing of CSA approved equestrian helmets be compulsory for all riding schools, riding stables and horseback riding."

I'll also read an excerpt from the Ontario Equestrian Federation news release, a major stakeholder that supports Bill 12:

"The private member's bill known as the Horse Riding Safety Act, 2000, introduced by Tina Molinari (MPP Thornhill) in the Legislature today is endorsed by the

Ontario Equestrian Federation (OEF) and its member organization, the Association of Riding Establishments of Ontario (ARE). Following the repeal of the Riding Horse Establishment Act in 1996,

members of ARE have been working on safety standards for both equine and rider welfare. In response to the tragic death of a young York region resident in April 1999 and, again this past summer, of

a Durham region rider, the ARE with support from the OEF intensified its efforts to formulate minimum safety standards for the equestrian industry. Ms Molinari's proposal that appropriate footwear

and a riding helmet be worn by those under the age of 18 years while riding a horse is commendable. Any and all efforts to ensure the safety of Ontario youth is a goal of the equine community; the

support of the Legislative Assembly will help to assure that the experience of riding a horse is a positive one for all."

A

section of this act that I believe is extremely important is

section 4, which amends the Highway Traffic Act by making it an offence for any rider under the

age of 18 to be mounted on a horse on a highway without proper safety equipment. Before this bill is finally passed, I hope that will include township roads and county roads as well.

This is a very important issue in rural Ontario, where thousands of our residents own horses and often ride on the local roads. Often drivers of motorized

vehicles passing horseback riders do not respect the fact that the riders may be inexperienced and the horse sensitive to vehicles. Quite often they do not slow down and there is a lot of noise

from vehicles. I've seen a number of cases myself when driving the roads where the horse has reared and an accident has almost occurred. It is not uncommon for a horse to be disturbed, and a rider

can be thrown off, causing serious injury. The headgear in particular could avoid these serious injuries.

Many communities, such as Aurora, north Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville, have passed bylaws requiring horse riding establishments to provide safety

measures for persons ridings. As well, other jurisdictions, such as Australia, have similar requirements for their young horse riders.

Currently there are Association of Riding Establishments of Ontario requirements for riding establishments to provide safety equipment. But unfortunately, not

all places are part of this group and obey the requirements of this organization. That is why I feel this bill is so important.

Safety has been an important priority with this government. That is why I support this bill today, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I was delaying my comments on this bill. I was waiting for something from the legislative library to

come in, and unfortunately it's not here. So I will do the best I can.

I first of all want to say that we will be supporting this bill. We think it's an important step in the role we have as legislators in trying to find a way to

secure and make sure that all activities that children and others are involved in are safe.

You will know, Mr Speaker -- not that you were here in the Legislature at the time -- that one of your colleagues who was in the Legislature between 1990 and

1995, Dianne Cunningham, presented a similar bill in the Legislature at the time, having to do with bicycle safety. If you remember, the bill basically said that all children under the age of 18

should have the obligation of wearing a bicycle helmet when riding their bicycles on the streets of Ontario. At the time she presented that private member's bill, we were the government -- it was

the NDP government -- and we worked along with Mrs Cunningham to make sure that bill did get support not only here in private members' hour -- which I have no doubt Mrs Molinari's bill will get

here this morning -- but we put the weight of the government behind the bill to make sure it went through the committee process and, at the end, the bill would become law, and so it did. We as New

Democrats believed then that it was important that we find ways to make activities that children and other Ontarians are involved in safe activities to engage in.

After the bill passed, it was proclaimed into law, and it wasn't until 1995, upon the Tories coming to government, that there was actual weakening of the bill

Mrs Cunningham had put forward. If you remember the bill as I remember it -- this is what I was waiting for from the legislative library, and so I may stand somewhat corrected -- the bill had

called for anybody under the age of 18 who was engaged in the activity of riding a bike to wear a bicycle helmet on all roads across Ontario. There were some people in the Conservative caucus at

the time who were not comfortable with the bill. From the perspective they were coming from, they thought the bill went a little too far and was a little too strong. In the view of our government,

the NDP government at the time, it was a pretty good idea.

When the Tories got to power in 1995, they weakened the bill. I think what they did was lower the age at which a child had to wear a helmet, and I think there

were also limitations on where the helmets would be needed. In other words, would they be needed on country roads versus city streets? I think that's rather unfortunate.

I'm hoping that when this bill passes, we're able to refer the bill to committee and hopefully try to find a way to bring back those aspects of Mrs

Cunningham's bill that were watered down by the Conservative government, because I believe that what Mrs Cunningham did was a step in the right direction. Certainly she understands this issue very

well as a mother of a child who is brain-injured because of an accident and understands first-hand what happens; in this particular case, what happened to her son.

I know in my own constituency of Timmins-James Bay and my former constituency of Cochrane South, prior to the amalgamation of the ridings, there were a number

of young people who were involved in bicycle accidents who did get brain-injured and had to deal with the ramifications of that. Unfortunately, a number of them were killed as well. Would the

helmets have saved their lives? Would the helmets have prevented brain injury? I think in some cases the answer is a definite yes. So anything we can do here to find a way to not only allow this

bill to pass this morning but to go into committee in order not only to strengthen the provisions of this bill, but to take a look at how we're able to deal with Mrs Cunningham's bill -- I always

felt it was rather unfortunate that the Conservative government had weakened those aspects of the bill that were put forward by Mrs Cunningham that I think were well in keeping with what a

Legislative Assembly should be doing when it comes to bills.

The other thing I want to say is that I think we should make sure to put on the record and make clear for those who are participating in the debate this

morning, either here in the Legislature, in the galleries or back home, that I have no doubt this bill will pass this morning. If anybody votes against it, I would be highly, highly surprised. The

unfortunate

part is that when private members' bills are introduced here, far too often it is the government that refuses, in almost 99% of cases, to allow the bills to go past second reading. At

times a bill may even end up at a committee level, but there's maybe one bill per term of government that's put forward at private members' hour that basically goes all the way through, becoming an

actual law in the province of Ontario.

I think that's unfortunate, and I want to raise it in the context of this debate, because I think there is something about private members' hour. We, as a

Legislature, if we truly believe in democratic principles, should be looking at how we reform our Legislature to allow members like Mrs Molinari and others to bring forward bills that are important

to them as individuals, important to their communities, their constituencies, and to the province overall. It's a good, non-partisan way of being able to introduce legislation that is well-meaning

and legislation that could make a meaningful difference to the people of Ontario. So I raise in the context of this debate the need that we move forward on a parliamentary reform package that

allows us to be able to deal with how we find ways to make this Legislature work in the new millennium.

You know, Mr Speaker, as a member of this assembly and somebody who understands the rules of this assembly well as the deputy Deputy Speaker, this system of

ours was built some 300 years ago by the British at the mother of all Parliaments in England and really has not changed so much as far as how the rules work over those 300 years. I think 300 years

ago it made some sense to have a Legislature elected the way that we do today, but in a modern democracy in the new millennium, the year 2000, I think it's rather weird and I think somewhat

obnoxious a democracy that we have a system of government that says you can elect a majority government in this House with 42% of the popular vote, because that's what happened in the last

provincial election: Mike Harris got 42% of the popular vote and has more than 60% of the seats in the House, and therefore Mike Harris can do what he wants by virtue of that majority.

I will also argue that the Bob Rae government had 38% of the vote. We had 38% of the overall vote in the province of Ontario and we had 65% of the seats in the

House. I think that's wrong. It doesn't matter who the government is, what the party is; I believe that democracy should reflect and this Legislature should reflect what happens in a general

election. That to me would be true democracy.

I raise it in the context of this debate because I think it comes back to Mrs Molinari's bill and the problem we have in our current system of government

because of that quirk that the government, by majority in the House, even though they don't have a majority of the electorate in the election, are able to control everything that happens in the

House. So members such as -- and I wish I knew the member's riding; I don't have the list in front of me. I keep on mentioning you by name.

Mrs Molinari: Thornhill.

Mr Bisson: Thornhill; I'm sorry. I was doing that not because I was trying to be ornery or anything; I just didn't know the name of your

riding.

The member for Thornhill I think brings forward a bill that is reasoned, a bill that is based on some personal experience, a bill that has been certainly

something that she cares deeply about and a bill that all members of this assembly can support. I think that's good and I think that's right and I think we should move forward with that. However, I

am fearful in the context of our current political system that we have of "first past the post," because that's what you call the British parliamentary system, that unfortunately, because our

system is so antiquated, a very good bill will pass here this morning at second reading, and if it passes at third reading and goes on to become legislation, it will be one of but a few. It will be

one out of how many bills we pass in this House by way of private members' hour? I think that's wrong, because the member from Thornhill brings to this Legislature, as other members have done on

all sides and in all parties around this House, bills that are reasoned, bills that are thought through, bills that speak to a constituency, bills as in this case that would save lives or prevent

injury. But because of our parliamentary system, she has to have the full support of the government to allow that bill to go forward. She has to overcome the barrier of getting full support of the

Premier and the cabinet and the government, which they'll demonstrate this morning by way of a vote. But it stalls after that because, if it doesn't fall into the overall context of the political

message the government is trying to send, there is very little chance that the bill will become law. I think that's unfortunate.

I say again -- I listened to the throne speech earlier, when the government talked about needing to open up the House to a bit more democracy -- I would argue

they should go to the next step. They should work with me, as the critic responsible in our party for looking at the whole issue of democracy -- an opportunity to really look by way of a

non-partisan, all-party committee of this Legislature -- to take a look at the various forms of electoral reform, such as what we have in Germany, New Zealand and other places, so we can look at

how to develop a made-in-Ontario model that says we will have a general election the way we do now, that at the end of the day every citizen will have the right to elect his/her representative the

same way we do now, but if the vote for the party is 42%, as it was with Mike Harris, that number of seats in the House will only equal the 42%. That way, for Mike Harris to be able to move forward

with his agenda, he would have to work with both opposition parties to either amend and make changes to the legislation so it's acceptable to either Liberals or New Democrats, or not go forward

with the legislation at all, something that probably would be right.

I would say in a case like this, it would be a good example of how an individual member would have the ability to influence the overall legislative agenda of a

government of this Legislature, because the backbenchers of the Conservative government under such a system would have to be listened to a little bit more -- quite a bit more, I would argue -- than

they are now, because Mr Harris, to pass his legislation, would have to have the support of Mrs Molinari not only as a backbencher but as a member of this Legislature. There would need to be a

certain amount of trading off as far as making sure he gives support to the things that she wants.

I think this is a bill that's well worth supporting. It's something our caucus will definitely support. I hope that this bill will be referred to a standing

committee of the Legislature, where we have an opportunity to look at it and find ways of making sure it is strengthened and that it works for children, for the people across this province. But,

more important, I'm hoping that at that committee level we're able to bring back certain aspects of the bill that Mrs Dianne Cunningham, a Conservative member, brought to this House I believe in

1992 or 1993, which I think was a step in the right direction by way of trying to protect children on bicycles.

With that, I thank you for this opportunity to participate in the debate and look forward to seeing this bill go to committee. If we're all lucky, it will be

one of the very few bills, possibly, that make it all the way to legislation in the House. I'm not hopeful that it will happen, but let's hope it happens.

Mrs Molinari: I'd like to thank the member from St Catharines, the member from Sudbury, the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, the member

from Simcoe North and the member from Timmins-James Bay for their participation in the debate this morning. I'm pleased to hear there is so much support in the Legislature for this very important

and crucial bill.

I started off my opening comments talking about some of the coroners' comments in some of the deaths. I'd like to mention another death, that of 12-year-old

Jamie Shaw. The jury's recommendation at that time was that it be made mandatory that suitable protective headgear and footwear be made available to all riding establishments.

I'm pleased to get support from everyone here today for this bill. Bill 12 does not place unreasonable demands on business owners. What is unreasonable is that

the Ontario public be expected to continue to ride in unsafe circumstances. Over two decades have passed since this became an issue with public attention.

I want to quote from a magazine that's called The Horse: Your Guide to Equine Health Care. There's an interesting

article here which says that while statistics

show that horses can be hazardous to your health, there are ways to mitigate the risks. It talks about some of the consequences: "A survey, from Victoria, Australia, noted that for children, riding

was the third-highest recreational activity requiring hospital admission." It goes on to say, "Reported head injuries are less frequent but more serious ... yet head injuries cause two thirds of

deaths.... As examples of horse-related fatality rates, British Columbia, Canada, reported a rate of one in 10,000 riders."

There are a lot of statistics to show the necessity of a bill like this being passed. Also, in 1999, New York state passed a law requiring rental horse

providers and trainers to supply helmets to beginning riders and those less than 14 years of age.

I want to comment on some of the issues the member from Timmins-James Bay brought out about amendments to the bills and those amendments that were made to Mrs

Cunningham's bill. The amendments are made to bills when they go into a committee and you have hearings and consultations. At times, there are important things that need to be considered before the

bill is brought back for third reading. That's the process you go through in the consultation. I'm very optimistic that this bill will become law. I will be recommending that it go to a standing

committee, and that that committee have the opportunity to have hearings and to listen to those who have an intense interest in the issue and make the bill much better than what it is.

I've done several consultations throughout before drafting this bill and I must say that some of the establishments wanted this bill to be much stronger. It's

difficult to put a bill forward and have in it everything that is needed to make it safe. It's important that a bill is passed. I see this as an actual first step toward the safety of all

equestrian riders in the province of Ontario.

After further consultation with some equine lawyers, as well as the OEF and the ARE, there are three amendments that I will be proposing to Bill 12 when it

reaches committee. The first will be to strike from

section 2(1) the words "within the grounds of the establishment," and insert after "any horse provided by the rider" the following: "from the

stables of the establishment"; in paragraph 2 of subsection 2(1), the deletion of the words "and smooth"; and the final amendment will be in paragraph 3, with the deletion of the word "suitable." I

believe some of these amendments will make the bill better and will reflect some of the concerns that came to my attention after the bill had been drafted.

Bill 12 is clearly a much-needed piece of legislation. It is the opportunity for our elected members here in the House to show the parents of Elizabeth, Wayne,

Wade, Jamie and all the other victims of riding accidents that Ontario puts safety first, and the safety of all its citizens. I'm pleased to host the Haders, who are here today. I'm pleased to

assure them that I'm very optimistic that this bill will receive third reading, that this bill will become law, that it will go to committee and, I believe, with the support of all of the House

here today. Bills that don't reach, as the member mentioned -- there are difficulties when you don't have all-party agreement. This bill is a non-political bill. It's a safety bill. It's something

that is necessary in the province of Ontario. Having heard all the members and the support here today, I truly believe this bill will become law, so Elizabeth's parents can feel assured that these

accidents will never happen again.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Thornhill has two more minutes.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to bring to the attention of the House that our legislative pages unfortunately will

be leaving us today. This is their last day and they, I believe, have the dubious distinction of having had the shortest rotation in the Legislature. You would know that normally pages are here

from four to five weeks but, unfortunately, this group is down to three weeks. I'm coming to my point, Mr Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order. I think this afternoon there will be the proper proclamation of that.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

Mr Smitherman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act respecting an institution of democracy in the Legislative Assembly / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant la Loi

sur le Conseil exécutif concernant une institution démocratique de l'Assemblée législative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): On a point of order, Speaker: I would like to have an opportunity to make a couple of

submissions that this bill is out of order in that it contravenes not only the standing orders, but the traditions of this place. As we all know --

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Mr Tilson: How can you interrupt my point of order?

Mr Colle: You're interrupting his 10 minutes.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey.

Mr Tilson: I do wish to submit that this bill is out of order and should not be debated. The tradition of this place, which has been created

by various Speakers since the history of this place began, has been that there shouldn't be accusations by members that other members are absent from this place. In fact, this point was made by

Speaker Carr as late as April 23 last, when he said that the issue the member raises has to do with attendance by members of the executive at the daily oral question period.

The House has never imposed an obligation upon members to attend all meetings of the Legislature. Indeed, this assembly is constitutionally competent to carry

out its business with a quorum of 12 members. Additionally, the Speaker is not vested with the authority to compel the attendance of any member. As we all know, the many and varied duties of being

an elected member of this place often legitimately demand our attendance elsewhere.

Honourable members are assumed by their honourable colleagues to have valid and defensible and justifiable reasons for being absent from the House when it is

meeting. This is one of the principal reasons that it is prohibited by our traditions and practices to draw the attention of the House to the absence of another member.

What this bill is submitting is that not all members should be identified as being absent or present, but certain members of this place should be identified as

being present or absent. Clearly, what the member is trying to do is to change the rules of this place, to change the tradition of this place, by coming through the back door of private members'

hour, which is an hour.

I submit that it is most improper for the member to do that. In fact, if this bill is held as being in order, then there is nothing to prevent government

members, in their turn in private members' or any other members, to change the standing orders of this place during private members' hour, and I would submit that that is a most improper forum to

do that sort of thing.

So Mr Speaker, I would ask your ruling that this bill be deemed to be out of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Contrary to my better judgment, I would like to hear the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale on a point of order.

Mr Smitherman: Well, the use of the words "Contrary to my better judgment" leads me to believe that there may be some prejudice. I wonder, Mr

Speaker, whether I might offer contradictory evidence to the information submitted by the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. I may have the order wrong but I think I got the counties

right.

Earlier this week in the House, in answer to a question that I posed, the Premier in fact drew attention to the absences of a member. Frankly, the government

seeks to use what may be considered by some as a tradition of this House to broaden the protection against them being called to account for their absences.

But the bill does not speak specifically to the issue or to the absence of any one particular individual. It seeks simply to suggest that there ought to be an

established floor for attendance in this place for members of the cabinet, which would, of course, include the Premier.

Interjection.

Mr Smitherman: Other members, including the member who chooses to heckle me, the Minister of Labour, have, when they stood in opposition,

raised the issue of attendance in this place. What we have seen over the last two years in an effort to protect the government from being held accountable is an attempt to broaden the standing

orders to the point where the whole issue of accountability can't be raised in this House.

I would say, using the very broad

interpretation offered by the previous speaker, that the Premier was in fact out of order, but not so called by Speaker Carr;

I think a reflection of the fact that it is appropriate to have a debate with respect to accountability.

When the Premier, in responding to me, said, "I was wondering whether you, with all of your onerous responsibility in the Legislature, right in your own

riding, might commit to a little better attendance, it seems to me," was the Speaker proper in allowing the Premier to use a reference to my attendance in the Legislature? Did I stand on a point of

personal privilege or seek to use the standing orders when the Premier made an attempt to hold me accountable? I did not, because I view it as fair game to hold members accountable.

This bill, if we read the sections, does not raise an issue of the Premier's or any individual's particular attendance. It does suggest there ought to be a

standard of accountability for members of the cabinet --

The Acting Speaker: Order. When there are two of us standing, one of us is out of order and it's not me.

The Chair recognizes the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): For the record, I just want to put a couple of things with regard to this move by the Conservative

government to try to stifle what is, in my view and the view of our caucus, a motion that should be debated in the House.

Section 96(a): "Unless otherwise ordered, each Thursday during the session, the House will meet in the morning for the consideration of private members' public

business. On such a day ... there shall be not more than two items of private members' public business." So he's entitled. It's the second item coming forward.

If you go back and read

section (h), it talks about no adjournment of the debate.

Section 96(

h) says: "There shall be no adjournment of the debate on any item

of private members' public business."

I would submit what we have here is an attempt on the part of the government to stifle a motion that they're not in agreement with. That's purely what's

happening here. I think every member has a right, according to the standing orders, to introduce motions or bills in the House. Some motions or bills may or may not be acceptable to a government

party or to opposition parties, but nonetheless, it is the basic tenet of private members' hour to allow members to bring before the House an item they think is important as an individual member,

by way of bills or motions, and that needs to be debated.

Agree or not agree -- I'm almost finished --

The Acting Speaker: You are finished. I'll take two more. I'll hear from the member for Etobicoke Centre and the member for Sudbury.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I certainly will live by whatever ruling you make and I can understand the difficulty with respect

to the ruling, because it is a rather complicated and difficult ruling you'll have to make.

I would like just to go on the record to suggest, Mr Speaker, particularly to you and maybe the members of the opposition, that if we do allow a private

member's bill to in fact deal with the standing orders, then there can be no debate in future if the government chooses to change the standing orders by private members' hour -- in essence, bring

in a private member's motion that says the standing orders shall change, and if the government House leader chooses to have one day's debate or two days' debate or three days' debate on second

reading of any bill, that would be held in order. It can be done with one hour of debate in private members' hour. That can be done without the full-fledged debate of a government bill. I caution

the members opposite. If that's the road you choose to go down, be very, very careful.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The table has informed me that the challenge is in order, the point of order is in order, so I won't debate

that, but there is a fundamental principle here that I don't think we should lose account of on either side of the House and that's the issue of accountability.

You're presupposing what the member is going to say. This member may stand up and only speak about accountability, with no reference to anything except

accountability. To deny him that right is to deny him a right that I believe he has. I would suggest to you, Speaker, in your ruling understand that this bill as presented is about accountability.

As such, if in fact the government is saying that being held accountable is out of order, I would suggest that we are in very dire straits in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: I want to make clear to the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale that when I said that it was against my better judgment, I

meant that I do not entertain debate on points of order. I take a point of order from a member and I rule on it. I want to be very clear about that.

I want to address the point of order. In this place, of all places, we depend on our own perception of a democratic right. I realize that the member for

Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey has some concerns and has raised them legitimately. I think that in the long run and at the end of the day the democracy of this chamber in particular will be best

served if we hear the debate and we make our decision at the end of that time. That is my ruling.

Mr Smitherman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'd like to congratulate the member on his attempts to get into cabinet, which have been

feeble and have not served him well to this point.

I would say that this debate has been framed outside of this place. People know why there is an issue of accountability and why it is necessary for a private

member to be addressing this issue in this fashion today. It is not something that I chose to do lightly. It was because as a former staffer to a former Premier of Ontario who came to question

period 80% of the time, I've been struck that there has been unequal participation in that tradition over the course of history here.

I want to read what this act is about. It is very clear, it is very simple, and it is fundamentally about accountability. This is an amendment to the Executive

Council Act. It is amended by adding the following section:

"If, at the end of a session of the Legislature, a minister of the crown has failed to attend 60% of the oral question periods held during the session, $100

shall be deducted from the minister's salary for each occasion by which his or her attendance fell short of 60%."

That is something that has been construed by members of the --

Interjections.

Mr Smitherman: There is a sickness provision in there. It has been built on the basis of accountability and it takes advantage of what we know

to be true. What we know to be true is that there are some things that on an occasional basis, and perhaps up to 40% of the time, might otherwise call for members of the cabinet to be absent from

question period. It allows for that. It does not establish a ceiling which is so difficult to reach: 60%, meaning that 40% of the time it might be appropriate to be elsewhere. It deals with

provisions if a member of the cabinet was sick. It does not create an onerous test. It is not a bar that is all that difficult to get to.

Interjections.

Mr Smitherman: The Minister of Labour is here today heckling me, but it will be highlighted in the course of this debate that this is the same

kind of thing that he has historically called for. He forgets, now that he's on the other side, that he is there as a member of the cabinet and his job, his sole responsibility, is to try and seek

out to protect those who would attempt to run from the kind of accountability that this speaks to.

This is based on a personal experience. Two years ago I was a newly elected member. I came to this place and I was struck by the fact that -- I had previously

worked for a Premier as a legislative assistant. On those days when he wasn't able to make it to question period, every effort having being done to do so, he worked hard to be here. Yet we see that

there are different -- the Premier makes my case for me. He makes my case for me because he has an instinct for accountability. When push comes to shove, the Premier this week made my case for me

when he said, "I was wondering whether you," speaking of me, "with all of your onerous responsibility in the Legislature, right in your own riding, might commit to a little better attendance, it

seems to me." The Premier made my case for the basic tenet of accountability that is the heart of this bill, because we understand that we have that responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr Smitherman: Government members will heckle me on this point, Mr Speaker, but my record stands in sharp contrast to the one whom they are

here defending today, because I was here for a vast majority of those days.

I want to say that this "great man" defence has been used to explain away absences. We all recognize that different people in this chamber have a different

level of responsibility. Those on this side seek to be there and we seek to carry out those responsibilities that the Premier this week referred to as "onerous." We don't view them as such. We view

them as important responsibilities, and we seek every single day to be in that position. The people of Ontario will make that judgment, as they had. We recognize that you are the government, and

what comes with that is a set of responsibilities that we don't currently have.

But I wonder if we don't take that defence too far. The Premier, in answering a question earlier this week, said to me, "I also commit to travel the globe, to

seek out every job, every investment" -- he only had the one-arm pump -- "every opportunity, because ours is a growth agenda. I commit to continue to put the time into the job that the job

requires." We would all understand that as the Premier of this province he does have a set of responsibilities that we don't have. But I wonder why it is this Premier who, in contrast to past

Premiers, who all had the same set of responsibilities, falls so far short of the same mark that they met. I wonder why it is that the Prime Minister of Canada, who, we would argue, has more

responsibility to travel the globe, more responsibility to represent Canada, more responsibility to represent a broad country, a country so huge that it's not possible always to be one airline

flight away from question period, and yet this same Prime Minister, faced with the onslaught of questions in the House of Commons, has made it to 55% of the sessions in the Legislature. He doesn't

stand and use a defence which has feebly been offered by others to make excuses for their absences.

Earlier this morning there was a group from St Joseph's over on Wellesley Street, a group of high school students. These kids have heard a lot about codes of

conduct. There are certain expectations placed on them in their student lives to be in attendance on a regular basis in their classrooms so that they can learn. There is a student code of conduct.

I note that Jarvis Collegiate has an attendance and absences report for their Grade 9 students that says, "The school does not condone holidays beyond the regular break periods."

The reason that I realized I should push forward with this and that I should spend time working on this issue of accountability is because every working

Ontarian, every kid, every person with responsibilities, understands that a 60% threshold for attendance is appropriate. When the contrast is painted for them about the real numbers for certain of

our political representatives in Ontario, they're shocked. They're shocked and dismayed that all of the language that is heard from this government, all of the empty, useless, hollow rhetoric from

this government on accountability, is destroyed when these numbers are raised which paint such a stark contrast to the reality of the accountability that they talk about. These numbers destroy it

and show up those 11 references in the throne speech to accountability, demonstrate the extent to which these are just hollow words by a government which chooses to use the rhetoric but will not do

the walk.

That's what this is all about, and that's why I have decided that this is an issue that deserves attention and that I should push forward on it. This is just

one more element of the government's attempts over the course of their time here to diminish this place. That's what this is. This is one more element of a deliberate attempt to make this place

much less relevant and to make our democracy in Ontario much less relevant. The fundamental premise of accountability on the part of the head of the government and members of the cabinet is

diminished by a lack of respect for being in one's House.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Where were you on Friday, George?

Mr Smitherman: I think that would be out of order.

I think we have seen on the part of this government a commitment to shorter sessions, to an absence of legislative committees that travel and meet with

Ontarians. We have seen dramatic increases in the use of closure and time allocations. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, to members of this House and to Ontarians that you have a government in

Ontario which seeks to govern by fiat, which seeks to embody in its legislation all of the power to regulate through cabinet and to diminish the role of this place. The member for Brampton Centre

last week, in heckling in this House, said this is just an ivory tower; everything meaningful that happens here happens stemming from the cabinet, order-in-council appointments and regulations.

So I send a message to members of this Legislature and to Ontarians that if you want this place to matter over time, the principle of accountability which is

at the heart of this bill makes it necessary to be supported. I would urge all members to go back to their ridings and say that you voted in favour of a bill that expected members of the cabinet to

be in their place for the daily question period 60% of the time.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Mr Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, the member for

Kitchener Centre, and the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey.

When the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale tabled his private member's bill, I couldn't wait for the chance to speak on it. By putting forward this bill, it

has reinforced my opinion that the McGuinty Liberals just don't get it. I am here not only as an MPP, but also to champion the truth. It's time to set the record straight.

I strongly believe that we, as politicians, must be accountable to the voters and the taxpayers of this province. In the last election, the people of Ontario

had a clear choice: the strong leadership of Mike Harris and his government, or the untrustworthy flip-flops of the McGuinty Liberals, who will say anything to get themselves re-elected.

The Premier made a commitment in his throne speech to take his message directly to people across Ontario. In fact, he has visited communities all across this

province, including Ottawa, Hamilton and Sudbury, to find out what issues they are concerned about. Indeed, he shows a true respect for all voters and taxpayers in this province.

The Premier has made the commitment that he and his ministers will be here in the House and accountable for an appropriate amount of time, but he also

committed to travel and to seek out every job, every investment and every opportunity that would benefit Ontarians. The Mike Harris team has a genuinely pro-growth agenda for this province.

Mr Smitherman talks about accountability, but where was he during the second and third readings of Bill 13, the Back to School Act for Toronto and Windsor?

Perhaps the support staff strike was not an important issue for Mr Smitherman or his constituents --

The Acting Speaker: I would remind the member that we refer to other members by their riding.

Ms Mushinski: Or perhaps the member just doesn't care.

If the member wants to discuss accountability, why is it that he, as a backbench MPP with no out-of-riding responsibilities, missed 28% of recorded votes held

in the 37th session of Parliament, despite the fact that his riding office is only five blocks from Queen's Park? Even more disturbing, the member missed the vote on the third reading of

Christopher's Law, the introduction of the sex offender registry --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I realize there are a lot of things you want to get into in debate, but I would rather keep this at a level where

we aren't being very personal. By that, I mean referring to individual members and what you might perceive as their attention to this place. I'll not allow that.

Ms Mushinski: I would ask the member if the protection of children isn't important to him.

After they demanded -- and I repeat, demanded -- committee hearings on the Children and Family Services Amendment Act, 2000, the members of the Liberal caucus

blew off the hearings in Sault Ste Marie. Not even one Liberal showed up for that meeting. Shame on you and shame on your caucus for thinking you have the higher moral ground. Those who live in

glass houses should not throw stones.

Mr Smitherman, you have no right to throw stones. I have here a list --

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the member that I've asked that we refer to other members by their riding names.

Ms Mushinski: Sorry. Member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, you have no right to throw stones. I have here a list of the sessions the member has

missed in the 37th Parliament alone. In case you were wondering, you missed 42 sessions.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have repeatedly informed the House that you are not going to entertain discussion about

absenteeism in the House, and yet the member continues to speak about absenteeism. I believe she is in fact challenging the Chair, and I would ask you to rule to ensure she no longer does that.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: On two points of order, Mr Speaker: The first point of order is, it's fundamentally impossible to debate this bill that

talks about attendance in the House without speaking to the issue of attendance in the House. The second point of order is, the Liberals seem to be very touchy when we bring forward issues with

respect to attendance. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale spoke about the attendance of the Premier in this House.

The Acting Speaker: I'll take those because I was kind of interrupted -- I don't take two points of order from one member. But as I recall --

I'll call the first one A and the second one B -- neither is a point of order.

Mr Bisson: Would you take a third point of order, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Timmins-James Bay on a point of order.

Mr Bisson: As you well know, the standing orders preclude members from referring to somebody's absence in the House. I try for a third time to

bring her to order.

The Acting Speaker: That is a point of order. I'm ever so glad you brought that to my attention.

The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough Centre.

Ms Mushinski: I'll speak to my track record. My constituents are proud of the fact I did not miss third reading on the Taxpayer Protection

Act, the Safe Schools Act or the act to resolve the labour dispute between elementary teachers and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, something of course the Liberals voted against.

Yes, I'm sure that supporters are quite honoured that the Liberals are too important to attend sessions where their own caucus tried to pass motions on tuition

fees or the Adams mine crisis. My constituents don't have that honour. I believe they deserve an MPP who truly represents them.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'll be sharing my time with the member from St Catharines and my colleague from

Lennox-Frontenac-Addington. I think I missed one, but I apologize.

I won't refer to anybody's attendance record other than my own. When we look at the first session of the 37th Parliament, there were 166 votes taken within

this Legislature and I'm glad to say that I made 148 of them or 89.1%. The best record in the House -- I won't mention the individual, but he attended 160 of 166 votes. When you look at the leaders

of the three parties -- and I won't refer to any leader in particular -- one leader attended 50.6% of the votes, another leader attended 48.1% of the votes and one leader attended 37.3% of the

votes. That one individual was number 62 in the total ranking.

I had an opportunity to read a book by Graham White, The Ontario Legislature. In terms of members' attendance, media attention and the overall political

import, question period is arguably the most significant proceeding of the Ontario Legislature. I think that says it all right there, that it is of extreme importance to be here. I look too at some

research work that my colleague Richard Patten from Ottawa Centre has undertaken, looking at how democracy has been attacked in this province by this government: we look at the unprecedented

constant usage of time allocation to cut off debate; the frequent use of omnibus legislation; question period being made redundant by individuals not attending -- some individuals have the lowest

record in history of people who should be in attendance who, for whatever reason, choose not to show up; the number of committees has been cut and their input reduced; the rigging of sessional

dates. When we have our evening sessions we should be having question period. Let's have an extra question period. That's not happening. The politicization of previously non-partisan aspects of

House business; clauses and large bills which de facto eliminate the Legislature from the process, and it goes on and on. It's a very sad day to see how democracy has been attacked by this

government, and they speak of accountability.

I think it's important to look back. Let's read from the Hansard of 1994. It's interesting to hear what one member had to say. "It is rather alarming when you

calculate exactly the length of time that this government will be in session, being answerable to the people of the province of Ontario.... When this House is adjourned and we are not in our places

here, there is a belief out there in the broader public that the government isn't in fact answering or doing the things it should be doing or answering the concerns of the private sector or us or

the needs of the people ... This is the place where they must answer for their decision-making and come clean on issues and the latest issue that hits the newspapers and television stations....

`Why is it you don't sit? Why are you not meeting? Why are you not dealing with the government?' I have no really good answer other than to say, `These people don't want to be here.'"

Interjection: Who said that?

Mr Peters: You know who said that? The Minister of Labour. How can this government stand up and say today that they're accountable when seven

years ago, in this very Legislature, they condemned the government for not speaking and not having this Legislature sit?

I think it's important that we support this legislation. I would like to see it taken beyond just the members of the executive. I think it would be important

for our constituents to know the attendance record of all 103 members in this Legislature. As a municipal politician, when I arrived at a council meeting, the city clerk at that time would take

attendance. I think it's important for our constituents to know what our attendance is within this Legislature.

I understand that there are individuals who have a heavy workload of things they have to do and that there are times when they can't be in attendance in this

Legislature. But in a democratically elected Legislature as the one we sit in here today, I think it's incumbent on those who are the leaders of the government to be here and answerable and

accountable to the citizens of Ontario. This is the only opportunity the opposition has to keep the government accountable, to question the government on issues that are put forward.

In my remaining time I'd just like to talk about a couple of other issues that this government has shown a lack of accountability on. Why doesn't this

government call an inquiry into what happened in Ipperwash? There's no accountability. I'd love to see an inquiry called into what transpired at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, why this

government left a gentleman by the name of Roland Carey hanging out to dry. I just can't believe it. There should be an inquiry held.

You want to show accountability? Support this legislation.

Mr Bisson: I am in a bit of an odd position here. I understand where the frustration of the member comes from and I understand the member, as

did the now Minister of Labour, who was then the finance critic when we were in government, gets frustrated when the Premier often doesn't show up for question period, or certain ministers of the

crown, to be able to answer questions of critics. For example, recently there have been a couple of issues up in my constituency that I as the critic as well have been wanting to raise. I've had to

put those questions on the back burner for the better part of two weeks because the Premier was otherwise engaged, travelling around the province. I understand the frustration, because you go back

as a member and people in your constituency --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Would you please --

Ms Mushinski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems to me, if I recall correctly, that you were very quick to admonish both the Liberals

and the government members for referring specifically to the absence of ministers and the Premier, and I would ask you to rule in this case.

The Acting Speaker: That is a point of order. You're absolutely right, and I will try to use the same judgment here.

The Chair recognizes the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Bisson: Monsieur le Président, comme toujours, merci beaucoup. C'est un très grand plaisir d'être ici avec vous

aujourd'hui.

As I was saying, I understand the frustration of the member, because recently I've been in a situation, as you well know. There's a huge issue in northeastern

Ontario having to do with the ONTC and the ONR. People across northern Ontario, especially the northeast, are wanting to have questions asked of the Premier and other ministers about this

particular issue, and I've had to hold off asking questions because the Premier -- I can't say he wasn't here, because that wouldn't be parliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: There are other ministers, and I think I want to get past that. I think we all do.

Mr Bisson: OK, I do want to get past that, and if I'm just allowed a second, I'm about there. I'm just saying you have to hold back those

questions. So I understand the frustration of the member.

However, I have a bit of difficulty, and I'm going to listen to this debate very intently before deciding if I'm going to vote in favour or opposed. But I want

the member to know that generally I'm opposed to this type of legislation. I remember the Conservatives having brought legislation to this House where they wanted to take pay from members when

members had been thrown out of the House. I thought that was wrong because I felt at times government members and opposition members may get quite upset over an issue, emotions may take over and

they may get thrown out of the House. They're doing their jobs; they're speaking up on an issue that's important to them and their constituency. I didn't feel then that it was right for the

government members to introduce a bill that would allow a deduction off a member's pay for having been thrown out of the House.

As well, I'm not in favour generally of having to take attendance here in the Legislature. Listen, we're not doing ourselves a service here. Not every member

of the Legislature can be in the House at all times. Premiers, critics, ministers, opposition leaders and backbenchers all have responsibilities that sometimes take them away from the Legislature.

I do agree, however -- the standing orders don't allow me to say that the Premier hasn't been here very much, and I won't say that. I just want to say that it is real that members do have to get

away from here from time to time to deal with issues in their critic portfolios and their constituencies or within their cabinet areas. I wouldn't want us seen --

Ms Mushinski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I notice that three Liberals have just left the House and I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Would you check for a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Bisson: Does this mean to say that the member doesn't know how to count, Mr Speaker? Boy, I thought they were good at that. But anyway,

that's another story.

I generally am not in favour of legislation that basically is punitive, trying to give an impression that if a member is not in the House, somehow they are not

doing their job. It is true that members have to be away from here at times in order to deal with issues in their constituencies or within their cabinet responsibilities or their critic

responsibilities. So I don't want to leave that impression.

But I do understand the frustration, and I think that's why the member brings it forward. There are a whole bunch of issues that come into play here. I think

one of the big issues is that this current system of parliamentary democracy doesn't work. I spoke on this a little bit earlier today and you will hear me speak about it some more. We are in a

system that was designed over 300 years ago. We have an electoral system that's called "first past the post" that allows situations to happen such as have happened in this province for the last 100

years: a government gets elected with less than 50% of the vote but, because of the first-past-the-post system, they end up with better than 50% of the seats. For example, in Ontario Bob Rae in

1990 was elected with 38% of the vote but got 65% of the seats in the Legislature. Mike Harris got elected with 42% of the general vote. He got over 60% of the seats in the Legislature. I think

that's wrong. It doesn't reflect what democracy should be all about.

I would hope that as legislators at the beginning of this new millennium, we try to find a way to modernize our democracies so that we look at some of the

examples where parliamentary democracies have modernized themselves, such as what has happened in Germany, New Zealand and in many other jurisdictions where they've kept parts of the old system

intact, because people are used to the idea of electing their own representatives, but have looked at how you're able to create a proportional representation system that allows no government to

have more seats in the House than the percentage they got in a general election.

So the Germans say, "If you, Mike Harris, got 42% of the vote, you only get 42% of the seats in the House." I think that makes sense, because it means that if

this member has a bill he wants to bring forward, he would have an opportunity to do so in a much better way than currently is allowed under this system. We know what is going to happen this

morning. The government, by majority, is going to get up and vote against this bill, and this bill will be quashed.

I want to support your bill in the sense of trying to give you support in what you're trying to get at, which is accountability. But this system is not going

to allow this bill to go forward, and I think that's wrong. Under a PR system, if a member brings a bill forward, the government is not necessarily in control of everything that happens. In this

case, if we had had the election of 1999 -- the Tories with 42% of the vote and the New Democrats and Liberals with the remaining 58% -- we would have a certain say about what happens in this

Legislature. I don't think this member would be bringing this bill forward, because the system would be more accountable. To me, that's the root cause of the problem. The root cause is that we have

to change the system.

Our democratic system is over 300 years old, and we need to modernize it to make it reflect this new millennium. I think we have to stop looking at the past,

when it comes to this democratic system, and keep our eyes on the future. We have to look at how we can make this place work, so that when Ontarians look in, either by way of television or by

coming here to watch us in person, they're able to look at this Legislature and say, "Yes, this Legislature reflects me, and my views are being presented on the floor of the Legislature." As it

stands now, if you're not a Conservative -- and, I would argue, a very right-wing Conservative -- your views are not being represented by way of legislation in this House.

Many things are under attack that we hold near and dear to us, such as our public system of education and our public system of health care, where now they're

talking about privatizing hospitals. Because Harris got 42% of the vote in the last election and has over 60% of the seats in the House, he can darn well do what he pleases and there is nothing the

combined 58% of the opposition can do about it. Even though we got 58% of the vote between two opposition parties, we have no way of affecting the government in what they're trying to do. So I

would argue that we need to change the system. It's not bills like this that will fix our frustration; we need to change the system. The system itself is flawed, and we need to look at how to

modernize it.

I hope that if we were to bring this in to a committee, we would look at some other issues. For example, why should a Premier have the right to call an

election whenever he or she feels? Why don't we look at set terms and create some stability? Say, "If we're going to have a PR system, there are set terms, four years," and on the first of July or

the first of December, or whenever we want to make it, there will be an election every four years. Everybody can plan for it, everybody knows, it's a set rule. Basically that's the way it would

work.

Why don't we look at the way we finance campaigns? In the last general election, I think all members would agree, there were phenomenal amounts of money spent

by third parties trying to support the Conservatives and electing them in order to put forward their agenda.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Smart people.

Mr Bisson: Smart you, of course. You guys knew exactly what you were doing.

Hon Mr Stockwell: What about the unions?

Mr Bisson: That's my point; that's exactly where I'm going. I don't think it's right that we should allow the corporate world or the union

world to contribute money directly to campaigns, contribute money directly to parties, so that in the end they're able to exact their will on the political party. We all know that the Liberals and

Conservatives get a huge amount of money from Bay Street. It tells me, as a layman, that if you get elected, either as a Conservative or a Liberal, you are somewhat beholden to Bay Street.

Conversely, New Democrats, who are financed to a large extent by unions -- the reality is that most of our money comes from private individuals -- but as a single group --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: No, no, it is true. I invite anybody to come and take a look at what we fundraise. In our riding, our campaign was about $55,000,

of which about $45,000 came from private individuals -- about $10,000 came from unions, no question.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You too.

Mr Bisson: "You too," says Chris Stockwell. I won't even bite on that one.

But the point I make is, the Tories and the Liberals have the support of Bay Street, and when they form governments they tend to listen to Bay Street.

Conversely, when New Democrats get elected -- because, yes, we are a party of labour and we are supported by labour financially -- we tend to listen to labour to a certain degree. I don't think

that's the way we should allow democracy to work. I think we should take a look and should say, "Shall we change the way we finance campaigns so that neither business nor labour is allowed to

contribute and we have state-run elections?"

Some people across the way will say, "State-run elections? Why should the taxpayers pay for elections?" Who do you think is paying for them now? If I give $750

or $1,000 to a campaign in Ontario, I get 75% back by way of a tax credit. The taxpayer is already subsidizing political parties and individual candidates by way of tax credits on the campaign.

What I would argue is, let's look at trying to set up a system that basically says campaigns will be run by the parties and the candidates, but they will have

a set amount of money they can spend. Each candidate or party is apportioned, according to a certain formula, an amount of money they can spend as well as having the media report what's happening

in the election in a non-partisan way, so that at the end of the day voters are not looking at glitzy ads but at the issues.

I say to the member who raises this bill this morning that I generally support your frustration. I have the same frustration. But I would argue that to fix

this problem is not just to introduce this bill. I would argue that you have to change the entire political system. I would argue that you should be trying to work with us, the New Democrats, to

find a way to get an all-party committee so we can look at how we can reform the electoral system and how we can reform elections generally so there truly is some democracy in Ontario and we're not

in the situation where we find ourselves now.

In the few minutes I've got left, I want to make the point, because I think it is an important point to be made and, again, it speaks to the point of

democracy: I said earlier that the Tories got elected with 42% of the vote and some 60% of the seats in the House. In the last election 42% of the vote was for the Conservatives and they got over

60% of the --

Hon Mr Stockwell: It was 45.

Mr Bisson: Forty-five. I don't care if it was 49, Chris. The point is, it wasn't 50, right? Thirty-eight for us; it wasn't right either. If

you'd listen to the speech, you'd hear what I'm saying.

This morning I read in the paper that former mayor Crombie, who is now with the GTA, basically says the infrastructure of the cities around the GTA is starting

to fall apart because there isn't the kind of support by the provincial government to make sure our cities develop properly and continue to grow in a way that's sustainable. He worries about where

we are going and points the finger directly back at the government, saying, "You were wrong to download. You were wrong to do the things you did to municipalities."

It comes back to my point: both opposition parties, who made up 58% of the vote in the last election, and the same numbers in the previous election, would have

stopped this kind of downloading, because both the opposition parties don't believe that downloading is a solution to dealing with financial problems. All it does is transfer the problem on to a

lower level of government which has no ability to deal with it.

Yes, the provincial government looks good because they got rid of the deficit. But all they've done is shove these problems on to the municipal government. Now

you've got former mayor Crombie and others across this province saying that what you've done is created hell on wheels for municipalities and we're now starting to see the price. He goes on

further: "`We are watching the public school system being immeasurably hurt these days. It was the best system in North America but we can no longer rely and depend on it,' he said, adding that the

problem is the province. They are responsible, `because it controls education funding.'" Again, his argument is that they're going in the wrong direction when it comes to what they've done in

education.

My point is, under a PR system they would not have been able to do that without having the support of one of the two parties. I don't believe New Democrats,

for sure, and the Liberals would have supported the direction this government is going.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate on the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale's bill.

Having just listened to the member from Timmins-James Bay speak about accountability, you have to look back prior to the 1995 election when the NDP was in government. The year prior, they sat for

nine days, and he stands up and talks about accountability. That is totally laughable.

Let's talk about the next joke of the day, which is the bill before us. It's not about accountability. There is not one shred of evidence that this bill is

needed. The member doesn't come here today with clean hands. He wants this to apply just to the executive council. He doesn't want it to apply to him. He doesn't want to deal with his own

accountability. This is pure political puffery. This is childish.

Let's deal with what the bill is about. It says that if a minister of the crown doesn't attend 60% of the oral question period held during the session, $100 is

to be deducted from their salary for each occasion. Where did he get that figure from? That's got to be pure pie in the sky -- 60%. Where did that come from?

Then he goes on to say that you'll be deemed to be present if you're too ill to attend. What about the member's family? What about the spouse, and they're not

able to attend? What if there's an emergency in the riding? What if something is happening to that individual's family or in his riding, something he has to deal with? He's basically going to be

docked pay to deal with his own family emergency. That's a hell of a way to deal with things. I apologize for that comment, but being a family member, I can tell you that it is outrageous to dock

someone's pay for dealing with a family emergency, just outrageous.

He says if the minister is absent from the oral question period for more than 20 minutes, and where did he get that figure? That is total nonsense -- 20

minutes. I guess he gets that from the Smitherman rules of conduct.

Then he goes on to show how ridiculous this piece of legislation is. He says the record of attendance should be provided by the minister. We're talking about

self-policing here. Is he really serious about what he's trying to accomplish here? I don't think so.

Interjection: It's an honour system.

Mr Tascona: He calls it an honour system across the way.

The bottom line is that this bill is pure political puffery. There's no shred of evidence it's needed. It borders on childishness. The mean-spiritedness of it

is, if you have a family member who is sick or you have an emergency to deal with, you're not covered and you get docked pay.

This bill hasn't been thought through and it's obvious why. It's pure political puffery. The member doesn't even want to be held accountable himself. It's for

somebody else. Arguably, on its face, it's discriminatory, but we'll leave that for the public to decide.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I'm very pleased to stand today to speak to the bill of the member for Toronto

Centre-Rosedale. I'm going to bring my remarks to this House from my experience as a mother. My husband and I have four children. Certainly they understand that my role here is to defend the

democratic process. We've always tried to have our children understand the importance of what we do here, because they spend a lot of time without their mother with them.

Today we're talking about

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act respecting an institution of democracy in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I'm going to

keep my remarks to that bill. I'm not going to get into, "You were here and I wasn't," or, "I was here and you weren't," although I have to say to anyone who would like to consider my attendance

record, feel free to do so, feel free to comment on it, because I have a responsibility to account to the people I represent and to my family for my record here in this assembly.

The bill is very simple. For people who are watching the proceedings this morning, it's not very complicated. It simply indicates that members of the executive

council should be in attendance 60% of the time.

When we speak to our children about their responsibilities, whether it's at their place of work or at school, or when we talk about our responsibilities as

parents in our place of work or our other commitments, we stress the importance of commitment, that very regularly there are choices we can make about where we are at any particular time. We

should, I believe, be setting an example for the people we represent, the people in our families, that --

Interjection.

Mrs Dombrowsky: The Minister of Labour would like to interject. I find that interesting. He might learn something if he was quiet.

The example is that we should take our responsibilities very seriously and be here. Reference was made by the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford that if a

member of his family was ill, that would have an impact and he might even have to pay for that. That would be regrettable. I suggest the member might bring forward an amendment to this that would

enable consideration of that important fact. I also remind the members on the other side of the House that if that's an issue for which you don't think people who work should be penalized, that

when members of their family are sick, they should continue to be paid, then I think they should extend that to all segments of our society.

I worked in retail and I had scheduled hours and I had no union. When I was sick or my kids were sick, I took time off and I wasn't paid. I do agree. If family

members are sick, workers should not be penalized for that. I think it's a point well taken, but if that's the argument, then fine, let's consider it not just for the people in this House, but for

the broader public as well.

The bottom line is --

Hon Mr Stockwell: What a Liberal.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm so proud to be a Liberal, too. The bottom line is that this is about accountability. For me, it's about accountability.

It's not about pointing at anyone on that side of the House or anyone on this side of the House and saying, "You're making the mark," or, "You're not making the mark." It's all about saying that if

you are in a cabinet role in this Legislative Assembly, we believe it is reasonable to expect that you would be here in your role on behalf of the people of Ontario 60% of the time. That's all this

bill is about, and as to the idea of the penalty, that's our example from you. You're ready to penalize everybody if they don't keep the law. If people who are ordered back to work don't keep the

law, don't meet your expectation, you penalize them. If school boards don't follow your rules, you penalize them. So you need to look at the way you behave and the example you set and be prepared

to live by the same standards.

That's my only point. It's very easy for me, in my riding, to defend supporting a bill that only expects accountability in this Legislative Assembly, and

that's why I'm very happy to speak to it and support it today.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I'm a little surprised that the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale wants to go down this road.

Nevertheless, let me say that I've had experience outside of politics and I want to point out that when I was an executive working for a company, I used to get on an airplane on the first of March

and it felt like I didn't get off until the end of September. That was because my duties took me out of the office. A lot of people in the office felt that I was just away, slacking it, if you

will, and I remember a number of my neighbours used to say, "What do the Rockies look like?" Well, all I did was see them from the plane and they looked like a big rock pile.

I'd like to relate this to the Premier. The Premier has duties as the head of the province that are much more onerous than what I had as an executive of a

company. He has an obligation to visit as many citizens in Ontario as possible. He is not capable of meeting all those citizens only in a period of intersession, whether it be in the winter or the

summer. He has to get out and meet the citizens of the province.

Also he has to get around the world. It is an obligation, as the Premier of the province, to go around the world, ie China, as he did recently with the Prime

Minister, because that encourages investment in the province, encourages jobs in the province, and Lord knows, we've done very well with that, haven't we? We have created 840,000 net new jobs since

our government came to power. That's thanks in large part to the Premier.

The Premier has a very onerous responsibility of ensuring that people get off welfare. We have alleviated many of the citizens of Ontario from that chain, if

you will. Some 575,000 people are now off welfare. I think that is very well done.

The Premier must get around. He must.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's at a fundraiser in St Catharines tonight.

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, I think he does go to fundraisers, and I think so do you. I say to the member from St Catharines, you go to fundraisers

too. We all do.

The Premier works very hard to make sure that Ontario's working families get to keep more of their hard-earned money. We've had many --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I can't hear with the interruptions. I know that you're all going to want to be here a little later on. Please stay with

us.

Mr Wettlaufer: The Leader of the Opposition, of course, also gets to go to England and Ireland. Does that mean that when he's not in the

House, when he's away out there, he's not doing anything?

I'm a little bit surprised at the Liberals, because last week we had a vote on Bill 13, sending the students back to school in Toronto and in Windsor. I left

my riding in Kitchener Centre to come down here and look out for the interests of the students in Toronto and in Windsor. To my figuring here, based on the legislative seating here, there are nine

Liberals from Toronto in this Legislature, there are two from Windsor proper and four from the Windsor area in total. That's a total of 13 members. Of that 13, only four were here for the vote on

third reading. There were a lot of government members from all over Ontario who were here who had more interest in the students in the city of Toronto and the city of Windsor than your own members

did.

The member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale said, "I stand on principle and I'll vote in support of this legislation on the principle that kids can be back in the

classrooms sooner. That's the most important principle that is at stake, in my opinion." He wasn't even here for the vote on second and third reading.

The Acting Speaker: We will not get into the specifics, not while either one of us is in this House. I'd ask you to withdraw that and continue

if you want to.

Mr Wettlaufer: I will withdraw it, but it is a matter of public record in Hansard.

I do wonder sometimes how they respond to their constituents. I missed four or five weeks last spring due to an injury -- a rather stupid injury but

nevertheless it was a serious one -- and I wasn't here. I heard from my constituents the amount of time that I wasn't here. They saw it. How do you respond?

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bradley: This legislation allows me the chance to deal with the issue of accountability, which I think is important. I want to look at it

in the breadth of the system under which we operate. The accountability of a government, to a very large extent, comes in this Legislative Assembly. My objection is very strong when governments,

whatever governments they happen to be, do not adhere to the parliamentary calendar. My problem was that the House sat, I think -- Mr Speaker, you could help me if I'm wrong on this -- to December

20 of last year. It was not reconvened until April 19. The federal House was back in January. Can you imagine --

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: And it's in session five days a week.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I want to be able to hear and I'd like you to stay, and if those two things are not compatible, then I'll solve the

problem, believe me.

Mr Bradley: For a government to be accountable, I think it has to be accountable to the House. I was trying to imagine the absolute furor

there would have been in the news media in Ottawa had the federal Liberal government announced that it was not going to bring the House back until April 19, not having sat since December 20. I

suggest there would have been outrage, a furor. The National Post would have been running banner headlines seven days a week, or six days a week -- they may not publish on Sunday. Mike Duffy, Tom

Clark, the whole bunch of them would have been outraged by that happening. Here, nobody seems to mention it. Nobody in Ontario seemed to know this House wasn't sitting, because they could see the

federal House in session. I think it's extremely important for governments to be accountable and to have the House in session. If you can put forward an argument that the people will accept in this

House, and they see it on television or it's reported, then fine. I have no objection to that. But you must be accountable.

The last time I had a chance to ask a question of the Premier was December 20 of the year 2000. The next time I had a chance to ask a question of the Premier

-- and he gave it to somebody else; I don't like that part -- was May 1. So between December 20 and May 1, I did not have a chance, nor anybody else in this House, to ask the Premier a question. I

don't think that's good for our democratic process. It's not as though the Premier doesn't know how to handle himself in the House. He's been here 20 years. It's not as though he should be afraid

to be in the House or anything of that nature. It, to me, speaks of arrogance when whoever it happens to be who is accountable doesn't appear in the House to be accountable. That's an extremely

important component.

I see an erosion happening because, first of all, the government has changed the rules of this Legislature to suit itself. It is the majority; it changes the

rules to grease the skids for government legislation. That has happened at least twice in this government, and the most draconian of changes have taken place under this government. What it has done

is militate in favour of the Premier and the Premier's office essentially running the province -- and perhaps some cabinet ministers, but even they do not have the same power, for instance, as Guy

Giorno, who has the most power of all and is unelected.

You have been able to abuse public office through government advertising. I'm not going to use this as a prop, except to say this is the last one that came

out. It's called "On." It cost over $1 million for the people of Ontario. The Premier's photograph is in there. Everything is there to portray the government in the best possible light. To me, that

is an abuse of the democratic system, allowing money to play a greater role in politics. You increase the amount people can contribute, you increase the amount people can spend in a campaign, and

you exempt many expenditures. That gives the best break to the government in power or to those who have the most money to spend in the system. I think that is counterproductive to a good democratic

system.

In addition to that, you have simply ignored the press gallery. They have an opportunity, when the House is in session, to be able to scrum the ministers much

better than when the House is not in session.

So we have a concentration of power in the Premier's office. I think there must be much more accountability on the part of government.

Mr Tilson: This bill is about the Clerk taking attendance of members of the Executive Council. Some of the Liberal members, particularly the

member from Elgin-Middlesex-London, have suggested that that even be extended to all members of this place.

I'm answerable to the people in my riding. I'm not answerable to you. I'm answerable to the people who elected me, and those are the people to whom I'm going

to justify whether I'm here or not here.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale has two minutes to respond.

Mr Smitherman: To the member that just spoke, I say, right back at you. I think I've touched a nerve here.

I'd like to thank all of those great presentations. The member from Scarborough --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'd ask the member to keep his remarks within what I would consider parliamentary, and I don't consider that

parliamentary.

Mr Smitherman: The members from Elgin-Middlesex-London, Timmins-James Bay, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington,

Kitchener Centre and St Catharines: thank you. You've helped to make my point. Especially to the government members, I agree. I agree with much of what you've said, which is that we all ought to be

held to a higher level of accountability. I stand in answer to the member who spoke last and say that I agree. I'm making the same point. If we have done anything in the course of this hour this

morning, we have helped to highlight the fact that we all need to be held accountable, but you've missed a very important point. The point is that for that one hour a day called question period,

ministers of the crown, who are given more money and more responsibility, are asked to be here to be held to account for the responsibility that they have been granted on behalf of their province.

That is the essence of this bill.

The members opposite talk about holding all people accountable, they reference votes that I have missed, and I'm happy. I'm happy to have my constituents be

made more aware of that. I would make the point to the member who spoke that they have missed the entire point, which is that cabinet ministers have more responsibility and accordingly more is

asked of them. That one hour, that sacred one hour called question period, has been diminished as a result of the deliberate actions of this government.

Anyone who's been following this debate knows, Ontario's working families know and you all know, that when it comes to attending his duties at question period

the Premier of this province has a failing grade, and this bill seeks to improve that.

The Acting Speaker: That is out of order and I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Smitherman: Mr Speaker, no one else who made comments like that was out of order or was asked to withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale to withdraw that comment.

Mr Smitherman: Happily, sir.

The Acting Speaker: No, I just ask you to say, "I withdraw," or --

Mr Smitherman: Withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired.

HORSE RIDING SAFETY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CAVALIERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 3. Mrs Molinari has moved second reading. Is it the pleasure

of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This is the first item. We will deal with the voting of it after.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal now with ballot item number 4. Mr Smitherman has moved ballot item number 4. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll call in the members. I'd like to remind you this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1207 to 1212.

HORSE RIDING SAFETY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CAVALIERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mrs Molinari has moved second reading of Bill 12. All those in favour will please rise until recognized

by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 66; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered to the committee of the whole?

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I move that Bill 12 be sent to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? It is agreed.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Smitherman has moved second reading of Bill 21. All those in favour will please rise until recognized

by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Dunlop, Garfield

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 28; the nays are 39.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House resumes at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1220 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE IN TORONTO

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I want to talk about the devastating fire that occurred in my riding yesterday at Dufferin and Lawrence at

the new Liberty Walk townhouse project, where 180 new townhouses went up in flames. It was one of the worst fires in recent memory in Toronto. It's also a terrible shame and a terrible loss, not

only of $20 million and 180 homes, but also a tragic loss of people's hard work and hope.

These new townhouses were welcomed by the community. They were affordable and were an infill development that replaced fallow industrial land, exactly the type

of new housing my community and the city of Toronto needs. Not too ago I was there at the groundbreaking with great hope and celebration, and I was there yesterday in sadness watching the loss. It

was heartbreaking to see all this hard work, time and dreams go up in smoke. Fortunately, because of the great work of Toronto Fire Services under Chief Speed, there was no loss of life and

injuries were limited. I want to take this opportunity to thank the 160 members of the Toronto fire department who helped put out this massive fire at great personal risk. It takes a tragedy like

this to remind us all that we should not take for granted the importance of fire services and keeping our homes and workplaces safe.

It also reminds us of the tragic loss we had this week of a great friend of Toronto and of all of us who knew him in the old city of York, Captain Patrick

Carey. What a loss at such a young age. Let's not forget.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): In early January, Minister of Transportation David Turnbull announced the investment of $550,000 to assist

more than 100 community groups across our province in an effort to target aggressive and unsafe driving behaviour. The aggressive driving community support program provides funding to local,

regional and provincial road user safety groups in support of education and awareness campaigns that address aggressive driving at the community level.

Yesterday evening, I attended the official launch of the Oro-Medonte community policing committee's mobile radar board. A radar board is used in designated

areas across the township. It is set up on a daily basis by the OPP and is left for a specific time. As drivers approach the board, it records and displays the actual speed of the vehicle. The

board doesn't require the attendance of an officer. It is used to measure traffic volume, and it acts as a deterrent for those speeding on township and regional roads. The project cost to the

Oro-Medonte community policing committee was just over $10,000,