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

October 17, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2002-Oct-17 vol. A (PDF)

L044A - Thu 17 Oct 2002 / Jeu 17 oct 2002

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 17 October 2002 Jeudi 17 octobre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L’ONTARIO

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CELLULAR PHONES), 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L’ONTARIO

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CELLULAR PHONES), 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

YORK REGION CRIME STOPPERS

GATEHOUSE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

DANI HARDER

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

PERSONS DAY

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

VISITORS

PROSPERITY 2002

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

KYOTO PROTOCOL

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AUTISM TREATMENT

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

EDUCATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LONG-TERM CARE

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

IMMIGRATION POLICY

HYDRO RATES

HEALTH CARE

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LONG-TERM CARE

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HIGHWAY 69

LONG-TERM CARE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HIGHWAY 69

SCHOOL CLOSURES

LONG-TERM CARE

HIGHWAY 69

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGAL AID SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES D’AIDE JURIDIQUE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L’ONTARIO

Mrs Marland moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 183,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act / Projet de loi 183, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l’Ontario.

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

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It feels strange to open a debate on a private member’s bill that is virtually the same as a bill I introduced some 13 years ago, in 1989. At the time, I was environment critic for our party. We had a Liberal government sitting on this side of the chamber and my friend the member for St Catharines was Minister of the Environment. My bill was unanimously supported by all three parties but died on the order paper.

Since then some things have changed very little: like a public worried about the safety of our drinking water and drinking more and more bottled water, believing it to be safer than tap water—an increase in consumption of 45% in the last three years alone; like federal regulations for bottled water that are outdated and inadequate; and like a complete absence of Ontario standards for bottled water.

Presently, the provincial government only controls the taking of water for the purposes of bottling under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

I want to state upfront that my bill is not intended as a criticism of the bottled water industry. To Health Canada’s knowledge, no water-borne disease outbreaks have ever been associated with drinking bottled water in Canada. Indeed the Canadian Bottled Water Association asks its members to comply with association standards and more rigorous testing than Health Canada requires, but only 85% of water producers belong to that association, and its standards are voluntary.

If there is one thing all the parties in this House surely can agree on following the Walkerton tragedy, it is that we cannot be too careful about monitoring water safety. Sadly, Walkerton has led even more people to assume that it is safer to drink bottled water than tap water. I have talked to young mothers who make baby formula with bottled water. When I tell them that tap water is much more strictly regulated for safety than bottled water, they are astonished.

But make no mistake, the consumption of bottled water will continue to increase. Not only safety concerns are driving demand up. For many people, it’s a dislike of the taste of treated tap water. Bottled water is also a convenience product in our fast-paced lives.

How do we correct the lack of provincial standards for bottled water? If passed, my private member’s bill will give the province the authority under the Ontario Water Resources Act to prescribe standards similar to those for tap water. It will create a new

section 34.1 that forbids selling or offering to sell, for human consumption, bottled water unless that water meets the standards that are prescribed by the regulations to the act. It will also create new clauses in subsection 75(1) to authorize regulations prescribing standards for bottled water, and for the manufacture, repair, service and sale of bottled water dispensers. In other words, it will put tap water and bottled water on a level playing field when it comes to regulating safety and quality.

I want to spend a few minutes demonstrating why the federal regulation of bottled water is inadequate compared to Ontario’s existing, much stricter provincial regulation of tap water.

Bottled water is regulated as a food product under division 12, “Pre-packaged Water and Ice,” of the federal Food and Drugs Act. But these regulations, developed in 1973 with minor amendments in the 1980s, are badly in need of updating.

Current federal regulations do not contain specific, detailed parameters for chemical and radiological contaminants in bottled water, other than setting limits on arsenic and lead, nor do they require analysis of ground sources, conditions resulting from natural runoff through aquifers, etc. Moreover, the federal regulations do not oblige manufacturers to observe the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality during the production of bottled water.

Federal inspections of bottled water focus on bacterial counts; however, there are several other important measures of water safety and quality. As well, federal regulations do not require labelling that clearly classifies the many types of bottled water, such as spring and mineral, being sold today. There are other ways bottled water labels can mislead. As Ed Oliviera, manager of water plant operations for the region of Peel, pointed out to me, a label showing the amount of lead present to be zero is meaningless. Lead, a heavy metal, needs to be measured in parts per trillion. Rounded off to zero, there could still be dangerous concentrations present.

In September 2002, the federal government released a white paper seeking input on proposed new regulations. A firm set of regulatory proposals is expected in 2003. But even if the federal government corrects these deficiencies, there remains a critical problem with the federal regulatory scheme. Quality control occurs through inspections by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Although regular, these checks are no match for the exhaustive testing required of municipal water supplies.

Just consider the testing done in my home region of Peel, as required under Ontario’s drinking water protection regulation. With the second largest water treatment system in Ontario, Peel performs more than 100,000 tests per year. They test for 104 chemical parameters; there are more than 26,000 of these tests per year. Bacterial tests, for example, for E coli and total coliform are done daily, for a total of 12,000 tests per year. Other tests—for example, turbidity, pH, temperature, chlorine, ammonia—are also performed several times a day.

Consumers deserve to know that bottled water is also subject to strict provincial standards. By adding the regulation of bottled water to Operation Clean Water, we would achieve that end.

What, you may ask, will be the cost to our government and to Ontario’s taxpayers of the rigorous testing this bill will require? As water is bottled by private companies, the cost will be borne by the industry itself. Companies belonging to the Canadian Bottled Water Association already do much more testing than the federal regulations require as part of the requirements for membership in the association.

In other words, Ontario regulations will simply create a legal requirement for what many companies already do on a voluntary basis. For these responsible businesses, additional costs should be minimal.

I wish to express my appreciation to all the members in this House who will be participating in this debate. As well, I would ask that the bill be referred to a standing committee for further deliberation, including discussions with consumers and the bottled water industry. Thank you for your consideration.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I’m very happy to have the opportunity this morning to speak to the bill that has been introduced by the member for Mississauga South. I am also very happy to say that it would be my intention to support this bill. When we consider the intent of the bill, it really is a very important one, to ensure that the water purchased in bottles in the province of Ontario is of the same quality as the water we get out of our tap.

I think there is a perception within the public that if bottles of water are purchased, somehow the water contained in bottles is safer than what one might get out of the tap. I think what the member for Mississauga South has so ably pointed out this morning is that in fact it’s not the case. I think it is critical that we bring this kind of legislation to the Legislature.

I’m also heartened to understand from the member that it would be her intention to have this bill go to committee to have stakeholder groups have an opportunity to come together and talk about how the bill is good and how we might improve it, how we might make it stronger. I would also suggest that it’s a pattern that other government bills should follow, and that other members of the government might follow the example of their member from Mississauga South. Regrettably, the record of this government in terms of which bills get sent to committee is not good.

It tends not to want legislation to take, in my opinion, that very important route that offers input from the public about the impact it will have. It also provides an opportunity for the public at large to comment, to strengthen the bill. As the member has indicated this morning that that would be her hope, I hope it would ultimately be the case at the end of this business session that we see the bill pass and go to committee for that kind of scrutiny and review.

I found it interesting as well that in the remarks of the member she pointed out that there has been a 45% increase in bottled water consumption in Ontario in the last three years. That is a significant increase. That is particularly interesting to me, of course, because, as many members of this Legislature would know, I have also introduced a private member’s bill relating to water. The member from Mississauga South made reference to the fact that bottled-water-taking is regulated by permits to take water in this province, and my private member’s bill was around that very issue.

When water is taken from water sources in Ontario, it is required that a permit to take water is issued. Permits to take water are issued by the Ministry of the Environment, and what I have come to understand is that when such permits are considered, there is an inconsistent practice in terms of the consideration of the community at large and the impact the water-taking permit might have on the community.

While the member’s bill deals with quality of water in the province, the bill that I introduced dealt with the quantity. I think that’s an important issue as well in the province. Many people are very proud of the many natural resources we enjoy in this province. However, there is now, very recently, a serious concern about our lack of regard for ensuring that there is some kind of regulation to ensure that the quantity of the fresh water we have in Ontario is somehow considered when permits to take water are issued.

The report from the Environmental Commissioner this year, recommendation 2, relates specifically to permits to take water. That recommendation very clearly indicates that the Ministry of the Environment should be more careful and should employ their own statement of environmental values when considering permits to take water. That was incorporated in my Bill 121, that when considering permits to take water, the director, who would have responsibility for issuing the permits, must consider the ministry’s statement of environmental values.

Heretofore there has been some concern within communities that that perhaps has not been happening. There have been cases in the province around permits to take water whereby permits for significant amounts of fresh water have been issued and neighbours are worried that their own water sources might be in jeopardy when such large amounts of water are taken from a water basin and put in bottles and shipped outside their community. This water in bottles does not necessarily remain in the watershed, but is exported out of the community and perhaps, in some cases, out of the province.

I was at estimates actually this week. When the minister was asked about permits to take water in the province of Ontario, at the present time there are 5,600 permits to take water. The total draw on our natural water sources is 569,977,693,094 litres.

It’s significant that water is being pulled out of water sources in the province and, I think, a very good reason why, when permits to take water are issued, there needs to be a more comprehensive process in place to ensure that truly an ecosystem approach has been taken and that we don’t have situations where water sources are ultimately or eventually going to be drained or it is going to have a negative impact on water sources or wells around a water source that would be used for bottling purposes.

With respect to the bill that we have before us today, the member has very appropriately and responsibly recognized that, given the fact that consumers in the province have the misconception that somehow water purchased in bottles is safer than water that might come from the tap, it is absolutely appropriate that we would implement legislation to address that and to correct the situation so that water in bottles is as safe as what we get out of the tap. For that reason I am very happy that I am going to be able to stand in my place today and support this bill that has been brought by the member for Mississauga South.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I first of all want to commend the member from Mississauga South for bringing this bill forward. I think it’s a bill that does meet some requirement to protect the public interest and should probably be supported. I’m here this morning listening. I listened to her. I listened to the Liberal member who just spoke as to why we need this further regulation. I’m trying to get straight in my head why it is that at this time in our history we have become so dependent on bottled water that we need to put in place these kinds of protections.

I don’t know about you, Speaker—you come from Algoma-Manitoulin—but up in our part of this province it wasn’t that long ago that we would laugh when people talked about drinking bottled water. It was a joke, with all the water that we had in Canada. We were surrounded by it everywhere and it was clean; you could go swimming and boating. The only bottled water we drank—I said this last night—was at the end of a day when we were tired and sweating and we had drunk the bottle of pop that we had brought along and it was empty, and we dipped it in the river or whatever and we drank it.

That was the bottled water that we drank. To think for a second that anybody would be paying for a bottle of water was unthought of, but here we are, 10 or 15 years later, and we are standing in our place in the Legislature debating regulation to protect people from possible contamination of water that would come to us in bottles.

We certainly, in this caucus, suggest that we should first of all be doing everything in our power to make sure that the water that comes from our tap, that we and our children walk up to every day and turn on, continues to be clean, safe and readily available and thought of as healthy for us, whether it’s to drink directly or to make coffee or tea with and that kind of thing.

We believe that water should be available safely and readily through the tap, and the fact that consumers are spending money on bottled water indicates that the public doesn’t trust that their drinking water is clean. That may be a message today that is being sent out there, or certainly it’s one that is out there and that we may be confirming: that the public doesn’t trust that their drinking water is clean. Certainly since Walkerton that’s more the case. I’ve heard more comment in my own community over the last year than I heard for the first 11 years of my time in this job about water and concern about water, and requesting testing and asking questions about testing.

The cutting of the staff in the Ministry of the Environment was a direct result of recommendations made by the Red Tape Commission that we talked a bit about last night. I don’t think anybody in this place understands where they get their power, who resources them and why it is that they weigh the influence they have on decisions made by this government, but it was a direct recommendation by the Red Tape Commission, in terms of some of the regulations and standards that existed where the environment and water was concerned, that gave us Walkerton.

So this government cut the staff and resources that would have prevented the deterioration of water systems in the province, and now we have across the province municipality after municipality desperately, in vain, trying to find the money they need to upgrade their systems because they can’t trust the water around them any more.

It happened because the government failed to enact its own statement of environmental values which states that it would take an ecosystem approach to watershed planning in the province. Ecosystem: I don’t know if the government understands that concept. It means everything is connected, that you can’t cut down too many trees, you can’t dump toxic waste, you can’t kill too many animals. You’ve got to keep a balance of things in place if you’re going to have a clean environment and, in this instance, if you’re going to have clean water; you’ve got to take an ecosystem approach.

The government has failed to act on that by putting in place the kinds of environmental rules and regulations that would make sure that was in fact the case.

In Canada, one of the biggest countries in the world, with all kinds of natural resources—I had a group here a couple of weeks ago from Ireland; we introduced them in the House. We flew them from Sault Ste Marie to Wawa, and they couldn’t get over the vastness of this country, the number of trees that were out there, the water, the lakes, the rivers that were there.

We told them that today in Canada—because it’s all interconnected—none of those waterways is completely safe, that we can no longer, paddling down the Montreal river, whichever one of the Montreal rivers you’re paddling down in this province, just dip a cup in the water and drink it and think it’s going to be absolutely safe and not think for just a split second that maybe there’s something in that water—because there are all kinds of things going on out there that affect the toxicity of that water.

My Irish friends were appalled that this was the case, that we allowed the deterioration of our environment to the point where now we even questioned the safety of the water out in those remote, far-flung portions of this jurisdiction that we govern over. But that’s the case and it’s unfortunate. Communities are having an awful time trying to come up with the money to purchase the technology that’s necessary to protect their citizens against the possibility of their water not being clean.

The Conservatives also have not solved the problems with, and they have not restored public confidence in, drinking water in Ontario since Walkerton. Over 40% of municipal water systems in this province are out of compliance with your supposedly tough new standards. Another 60 municipal water systems have gotten extensions on deadlines for meeting these standards.

We have communities up in my part of Ontario, in your riding, Mr Speaker, that have been on boil-water orders for over a year now—two years—with no end in sight to when they will be able to tell their citizens, “You no longer have to boil the water; you can simply turn the tap on and it’ll be as safe as anyplace else in the province.” This isn’t in southern Ontario, where you have a buildup of communities, of people living, of problems with waste disposal and traffic and cars and all kinds of industry; this is up in northern Ontario, on the edge of a couple of the biggest Great Lakes that we have going for us, where we have communities now issuing boil-water orders to their citizens.

This, five or 10 years ago, would have been unthought-of, unthinkable that that would be the case, that we would allow the deterioration of our system to a point where that’s what we’re calling for now.

There are 60 water systems to whom you’ve said, “Go ahead and stay out of compliance for another year or two until you can scrape together the money to fix your problem.” Imagine. You’ve looked at their system, deemed that it wasn’t safe, called on them to replace the systems they had in place, or to introduce systems they haven’t needed, and then you’ve said, “If you can’t afford it right now, just go ahead, don’t worry about compliance, and try to pull the money together,” so that you could get out from underneath your responsibility to provide some portion of that money to them.

It’s significant; we’re talking millions of dollars here. We’re talking communities of maybe 100 to 200 people needing to put in place water filtration systems that cost millions of dollars. We’re talking an assessment to those folks, if they had to pay for it themselves, of thousands of dollars—people who, in these small communities, are seasonal workers or, at best, working in industries that don’t pay substantial amounts of money, and they can’t afford to change their systems to be in compliance.

So you’ve said, “Well, don’t worry about it.” These 60 systems are waiting for money from your failed SuperBuild program and you haven’t provided it. Nothing; nothing has flowed from that program.

The Conservatives’ latest budget stated that they underspent on municipal infrastructure projects last year. In other words, you had the money targeted, dedicated to infrastructure for municipalities, particularly where the safety of their water is concerned, and you underspent. We’re wondering, where is that money?

It’s a bit like the northern Ontario heritage fund. We discovered that they underspent $300 million of that fund, and they came back to us to say, “Well, that money is dedicated. The projects have come in over the last seven years and we’ve set that money aside. Yes, it’s sitting in an account somewhere, but sooner or later it’s going to go to those projects or those communities that have applied.” Well, we say to you that those communities and those projects need that money now, particularly if they’re projects dealing with the cleanliness of water.

The Conservatives’ failure to provide the resources to municipalities that would allow them to bring their water systems into compliance is nothing short of dangerous. It makes your tough new rules almost meaningless, including this little piece of work that we’re doing here this morning.

The Conservatives are about to unveil the flagship of their response to the tragedy at Walkerton, a drinking water act. Even though this is built on the foundation of our colleague and New Democrat member Marilyn Churley’s Safe Drinking Water Act and has the benefit of the Walkerton Inquiry report recommendations, this bill will be weaker, we suggest, than Ms Churley’s bill that came through here last year—not to speak of the fact that we’ve been told about and been waiting for this Safe Drinking Water Act to come before us so that we could debate it, and it hasn’t arrived yet.

It will not accomplish any of the first 17 of Justice O’Connor’s recommendations, all of which have to do with the implementation of source protection and watershed planning in the province. O’Connor recommended a source-to-tap approach to protecting our drinking water. The first step in that is protecting the quantity and quality of drinking water as it naturally occurs in our environment. This government has done nothing to accomplish that.

The Environmental Commissioner, who has had a lot to say about water, identified a range of problems with the province’s postings to the Environmental Bill of Rights for permits to take water. They reviewed a sample of postings and found a whole list: 46% of the decision notices did not indicate the length of the permit; 49% of the decision notices had a different length than the actual permit. So you get the gist here, the trend. The government isn’t taking seriously its responsibility where water and safe drinking water is concerned.

Even though we will probably support the member’s bill here this morning, we suggest to her that she go back to her government, speak to the Minister of the Environment, Mr Stockwell, who is always out there talking to us about how wonderful the things the government is doing are, and tell him that they’re not moving quickly enough, that they’re underspending the budget that was dedicated by the Minister of Finance last year to deal with infrastructure and municipalities and their drinking water and that they should be doing something about that.

Because really, in Canada we shouldn’t be so dependent on bottled water that we have to now begin to look at the safety of that product. We should be able to count on the water that comes out of our tap.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It’s a pleasure and an honour to participate in this important debate this morning on Bill 183,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act, that has been brought forward this morning by my friend and colleague the member for Mississauga South.

I feel very privileged and honoured to participate in this debate this morning, as I said, not just because the bill is important but because I have the highest regard for this particular member of the Legislature. I feel privileged to serve with her because of her eloquence in the House and the way that she puts forward the issues that are of concern to her and her constituents. I recall serving with her in opposition, where I felt she was the very best questioner that we had in our caucus in those days, and the compassion that she brings to every issue that she is concerned about.

When she was recently serving as minister responsible for children, I saw her in many different circumstances where she was dealing with constituents and people who came to the House, and the compassion that she showed, in terms of how she listened to them and worked hard on their behalf, was something that I always admired; her sensitivity as well; her forthrightness in terms of how she deals with things, the no-nonsense approach—you certainly know where you stand with this member, and that helps in terms of the working relationship that we have; the honesty that she has and the trust that people have in her as a result; the stamina that she shows in terms of her work in the Legislature—17 years representing the constituents of Mississauga South, seven years on Mississauga council before that and four years on the school board.

In total, 28 years of service to the people of her area.

Even thinking back to those days, when we were trying as an opposition party to get our ideas out, our leader Mike Harris had an opportunity to go on television to talk about our agenda. We had a document called New Directions, which was one of the precursor documents to the Common Sense Revolution. We were so pleased and impressed when 13,000 people called our offices to request copies of this document. Of course, we were short-staffed. We only had 20 members, and as a result we had very few staff, but in those days all the members were chipping in to stuff the envelopes.

Margaret and I, I can recall, were here quite late one night stuffing envelopes with the New Directions document so the people could have a better appreciation and understanding of what we stood for as an opposition party. Those were the days—weren’t they, Margaret?—when I think back.

The principle of this bill, as the member has indicated to me, is that she is attempting to raise this issue in the Legislature, Bill 183, to ensure that the public is equally protected when they’re consuming drinking water, whether they’re drinking municipal drinking water, in other words tap water, or bottled water. I think that’s a very important principle that all of us as members would want to support.

We know as private members, when we’re here on Thursday mornings with private members’ bills, that when we’re debating the bill, we’re debating the principle of the bill. The bill, if it’s passed by this House at second reading, may very well be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature or may be referred to the committee of the whole. I’m hopeful that this bill will be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature, because at a standing committee there’s an opportunity for more discussion on the issue, and I think that’s what this member would want in regard to this issue.

I think it’s important that we as members allow private members’ bills to go to committee so that public hearings can take place and members can consider changes, amendments, perhaps, which perhaps will improve the bill. That to me is a very important aspect of our opportunities as members of provincial Parliament.

This purpose of this bill would provide that no one may sell for human consumption bottled water, or water from a water dispenser, other than a water dispenser that is connected to a water distribution system of a municipality in Ontario, unless the water meets the minimum standards prescribed by the regulations made under the act. The regulations can also regulate water dispensers. This bill is similar to the bill that was introduced by this member in 1989 when the Liberals were in power and the Conservative Party was in opposition. At that time, it was Bill 61 and it received all-party support in the Legislature but unfortunately died on the order paper.

As the member has pointed out in her presentation, currently the federal government regulates bottled water as a food product under what’s known as division 12, “Pre-packaged Water and Ice” of the federal Food and Drugs Act. But of course, we are aware that it is the provincial governments, under the Constitution, that have responsibility for the management of water as a resource. I know that this member is sponsoring the bill because she believes that Ontario’s management of water should include the regulation of bottled water quality and safety.

She pointed out in her speech that the consumption of bottled water has increased dramatically in recent years: in the last three years alone, I think, the consumption is up 45%. More and more people are drinking bottled water, and in most cases they believe that it is absolutely safe, and some cases the perception by the consumer is that it’s actually safer. As the member has pointed out, the federal regulations that apply for bottled water manufacturers are not as stringent as the regulations which affect municipalities in terms of tap water. I think it’s important that people know that.

It’s also important that people know that the federal regulations have not been revised for a considerable number of years. While the federal government may have a white paper in terms of looking into this issue, white papers sometimes don’t proceed very quickly. I think it’s very relevant and important that we are debating this issue in the House today.

There’s another issue I want to bring up. It concerns my constituency, with regard to regulation 459. This was the regulation that was brought into effect by the government after the tragedy in Walkerton. It’s the regulation on communal well operation and the water testing protocol that exists today.

There are a number of communities in my constituency that exist in rural parts of my riding that are on communal wells and that are affected by this regulation. Of course, all of us as members want to make sure the residents of Ontario are consuming safe drinking water. I certainly would concur with that, but I’m concerned about the cost of the testing. This has been brought to my attention by a number of communities in my constituency, people who live in Pine Meadows, for example, which is located in the old West Garafraxa township, now Centre Wellington.

Pine Meadows is a land-lease community; in other words, the people who live in the community own their houses but the land the houses are on is leased and there’s a developer, a property owner, who provides services for the people who live in the community.

Their water costs have gone up exorbitantly. I’ve raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Minister of the Environment. I think we need to review the whole regulation. We’ve got to find a way we can provide the safety and security of our drinking water in a more cost-effective way, and I’m hopeful the minister will review this issue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I would encourage all members of this House to support Bill 183.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wanted to make a point of being in the Legislature today to support the bill of my colleague from Mississauga South, who raised this issue some years ago.

All of us who are familiar with the field of water protection and water quality would recognize that many people are under the impression that because water comes in a bottle of some kind, somehow it is safer than that of a municipality; in other words, that coming out of the tap. It’s going to be difficult, in light of some of the experiences we’ve had with some municipal water supplies, to convince some people to consume water that comes from the tap. That’s most unfortunate. My personal choice is that, for the most part, I consume water that is from the municipal tap. I seldom purchase bottled water, but that is a choice people have.

If it’s a choice people have, then it seems to me those individuals should feel protected by legislation; in this case, legislation that would supersede federal legislation to ensure bottled water is at minimum as safe as water coming out of a municipal tap.

I know there are some people who say they don’t like the taste of municipal water because it’s, well, whatever it happens to be. I can recall that, as to Lake Erie, a little while ago the water in my own community—by the way, we receive our water from the Welland Canal, a wonderful thought before it is processed. There was a feeling the water was tasting very swampy at that time, and indeed it was. The regional municipality of Niagara took action to ensure that was no longer the case. It was expensive but it was worthwhile.

So people have that reason, or they’ll think there’s too much chlorine in the water for their choice, and will make the choice of drinking water from a bottle. I’m apprehensive that many people think that because it’s bottled water, it’s automatically better than municipal water. We know that with the regulations that are out there, that isn’t necessarily the case. It might be the case, but it isn’t necessarily the case. The member brings forward the bill because she believes it should be the case, that it should be equivalent to the quality of water that would be produced by a municipality. I think that’s fair.

I have a couple of other concerns about the whole bottling industry, and that is the amount of water being taken from our lakes, rivers and streams across the province. Some of the members, particularly in rural or semi-rural areas, recognize there is a genuine concern about the quantity of water being taken, for a variety of purposes, but some of those purposes are for bottled water works. I hope that in another piece of legislation we can deal with that. I know my colleague Mrs Dombrowsky had a bill before the House that dealt with the quantity of water that could be taken. Unfortunately, my recollection is that bill has never come to fruition.

One of the things I think we also look at in this hour devoted for private members’ public business is that so many bills, as the member has stated in her communication to us, die on the order paper. What that really means, for the public who watch, is that a bill is indeed passed by the Legislature, but the government of the day, whichever government it happens to be, chooses not to proceed with that piece of legislation. When the session is ended and there is prorogation, that bill is gone and has to be reintroduced and re-debated.

Certainly the tragedy of Walkerton where seven people died and where thousands were extremely ill as a result of drinking municipal water, that incident, that tragedy has increased public apprehension about water and has prompted the government, at long last, to reverse its trend away from less regulation in the field of production of drinking water in the province and toward more regulation.

One of the things the provincial Environmental Commissioner noted in his most recent report was that insufficient action was being taken to protect our water supplies; in other words, the raw water supply. I think we all recognize that while we have some sophisticated tools and technology and science to purify water, as we would say, to at least take the contaminants that would cause us immediate problems out of that water, one of the basic steps that must be taken is that there must be protection of that raw water supply—the streams, lakes and rivers around the province.

There is the issue, as well, of private labs that do the testing and the supervision of those labs. We want to ensure the provincial government is doing the appropriate job in setting out the rules and regulations, and then inspecting to ensure those rules and regulations are followed. Unfortunately, from time to time it happens that is not the case. There are some laboratories that have given a bad name, unfortunately, to all laboratories. One I can think of is Fine Analysis Laboratories in Hamilton, which has been involved in some legal action against it. Therefore, people started to be apprehensive about all these laboratories.

I do intend to support this legislation. I hope it does not die on the order paper, if it receives unanimous support in this House.

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): It gives me great pleasure today to speak to Bill 183,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

I must commend the member from Mississauga South, Margaret Marland, whose work on behalf of her constituents is well known here at Queen’s Park. She’s a tireless worker. Her bringing this bill forward has shown her commitment to a safety factor for individuals in the province of Ontario.

I think of my riding of Nipissing: we’re surrounded by lots of fresh water; we have Trout Lake, which the city takes its water directly out of, right now just through a UV system. Of course, Lake Nipissing should be the sixth Great Lake in Ontario.

But having said that, with water obviously we have a responsibility to assure the people of Ontario that it’s safe to drink. Here’s a case where bottled water is becoming so popular these days. Although the bottlers of this water do a tremendous job—and by all means it is not a slight against them, in whatever way people want to push. I think they do a great job, and there haven’t been any problems.

Having said that, obviously we need to consult with these bottlers. We have to assure the citizens of Ontario that should they unscrew the cap on that bottle, what they’re drinking is safe. From what I understand, these bottlers have done a great job and there haven’t been any problems. If anything, they’re probably very responsible business people, very responsible manufacturers. But it’s still important that there be some type of regulation, so that when I undo that cap I know the water is safe to drink. I think what this bill speaks to is the fact there haven’t been any problems, but how do we reassure the citizens of Ontario?

I think they would probably agree with this bill as well, when we sit down to talk to them, because they want to be able to be proud of their product. They want to be able to stand up and say, “Yes, if you unscrew that cap on that bottle, you’re drinking very safe water.” If anything, I believe their sales will increase, because the confidence of their customers is in knowing the government has taken the necessary steps to put in place those safety margins. I think that’s crucial.

I know that any time you’re in business, you want to reassure your consumers that whatever product you’re giving them is safe. There have to be standards you go through. From what I understand, they have standards and they’ve been doing a great job. But if we’re importing bottled water from the United States, is there the same process that Canadian business people go through? Are there the same standards? Are we maybe exposing the people of Ontario to unsafe drinking water that might be imported into the country?

I think we have to look at all the different avenues. From what I understand, this is going to be referred to committee to consult with manufacturers, with consumers and with all parties in the Legislature. I think it’s key that we look at that and study it further and make all the right recommendations, so that when we bring this bill forward again, there is protection for all.

This government has helped business and has created so many jobs. I think it’s important that we keep doing that. I believe we want to create economic development and jobs for the people of Ontario. By the same token, there has to be protection for the consumer. I think there’s a good balance there. I believe we can find a great balance there, so that all of a sudden their product will see increased sales because the consumer will have confidence in that water. I really believe that’s key.

There are going to be discussions, pros and cons, on this act, and so there should be. We should be able to weigh what might hurt these manufacturers. That’s important. We don’t want to cause them additional grief. We want those jobs. We want business to survive in this province. We want consumers to buy their product because that’s going to create additional employment for us.

What the member from Mississauga South is proposing here is saying, “What they’re doing is wonderful, but let’s take that extra step, let’s make sure that our consumers, the people of Ontario, have the safest drinking water, regardless if it’s out of a tap or in a bottle.” I couldn’t agree with her more that safe drinking water should be non-negotiable. I think we should all as members stand up and say, “Yes, we will provide safe drinking water, in bottle or tap, to the people of Ontario.”

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mrs Marland: I thank my colleagues in the House the members for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, Sault Ste Marie, Waterloo-Wellington, Nipissing and Timmins-James Bay. I very much appreciate the fact that the member for St Catharines, Jim Bradley, who is a former Minister of the Environment himself—I may add that I’ve always said about Jim since I was his environment critic, and I worked very hard at question period asking him questions, that I always found he was one of the best environment ministers we’ve had in terms of responding to questions and to other people who were representing the interests of people in this province.

I simply would say in closing that the CBC News in May of this year, through an Environment Canada statistic, reported that less than 3% of municipally treated waters are used for drinking, and therefore more and more bottled water is being consumed instead. We have a huge obligation on behalf of the people of this province to at least give the bottled water they drink the same provincially regulated standards as the tap water they also drink.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item 61. I will place the question to decide this matter at 12 noon.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CELLULAR PHONES), 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

Mr O’Toole moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway / Projet de loi 49, Loi modifiant le Code de la route pour interdire l’utilisation de téléphones et d’autres équipements pendant la conduite sur une voie publique.

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

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): I apologize for being late. We just finished doing a press conference on this important issue, Bill 49,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway.

Each of us has witnessed what I would describe as driver distraction on our roadways. Some would call it multi-tasking. I commute from my riding each day and the drive is anywhere from an hour and a half to two hours, each way. I see everything from many coffees to reading the newspaper, reading a book, putting on makeup, combing hair, drying hair and shaving. It became more and more apparent to me that, as to driver distraction, one of the main contributors is the emerging and escalating use of cellphones while driving. So it’s the issue of driver distraction and driver attentiveness.

Whether it’s all the issues I mentioned or quarrelling with the children or with someone else in the car, or being distracted, it’s just not acceptable.

I’ve worked with Mark Stone, who’s a constable with the Durham Regional Police. He’s in attendance this morning. I first introduced the bill in 1999. When I did, I spoke in the House on first reading, and have been watching it very closely ever since. Of course the House was prorogued in 1999 and I reintroduced the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to help reduce the number of accidents on Ontario’s roads by banning the use of hand-held cellphones while driving. Bill 49 would also mandate the collection of data when investigating an accident site to see and determine if technology was a cause of the accident or affected the accident. This is similar to the current practice for accident investigations when the question is, was the use of alcohol involved in the accident? Was the failure to wear a seat belt a factor for the accident investigation? It requires the collection of data on accident investigation scenes.

If passed, Bill 49 would provide law enforcement officers with a more effective tool, I would put to you, to help ensure the safety of Ontario’s motorists.

Bill 49 will also help to educate and draw drivers’ attention to the problem, and make them think twice before taking their hands off the wheel to dial their cellphone, in fact to hold their cellphone.

What I’m recommending here is about the use of hand-held, voice-activated phones. I’ve spoken with the Canadian automobile manufacturers’ association, I’ve spoken with the Canadian wireless association, and they are looking at making it more convenient and more user-friendly.

I want to put to you that a complete ban, in my view, is not the right move at this time. I could probably make the case that having a cellphone in the automobile is a safety cushion. It’s a piece of contact with the outside world. My young daughter Marnie was coming home from university in the wintertime, and late at night, around 10:30 at night, she phoned. She had a cellphone. She wasn’t on a 400-series highway. She was alone and she had a flat tire and had slid a little off the road. Her phone was a lifeline to the outside world.

So an outright ban is impractical. In an emergency situation, if you’re going to be late for a meeting, a quick call would say, “I’m going to be late. Please understand.” Also there is reporting an impaired driver, reporting an accident scene. There are many applications where a cellphone could be a contributor to making our roads safer and our people feel safer.

If passed, my bill would result in a fine. Today the tool the police have to effectively enforce this issue of driver distraction would be a careless driving charge, which would be a fine of over $300, probably a court appearance, six demerit points, probably an impact on your insurance bill, and at the end of the day, if there’s an accident, a careless driving charge can and probably should be laid.

What I’m giving here is a tool which would allow the police to intervene with someone who is perhaps operating the motor vehicle in an inappropriate manner, to notify them that the use of a cellphone was the cause and to give them a ticket. That ticket would be a reminder. I put to you on the reminder that they would have to possibly go and take a little course to refresh their driver attentiveness.

Using other devices such as fax machines, pagers and other kinds of converging and emerging technology in the automobile is also part of this bill. Cellphones operated in a hands-free mode would be exempt. Emergency personnel would be exempt: police, fire and ambulance. The use of cellphones to report an emergency, an accident, an unlawful act or road conditions would also be exempt.

I can tell you that there have been many cases. Recently I attended the inquest that was held in September in Durham which had to deal with the most prominent case of record recently, where a 31-year-old man and his two-year-old daughter were tragically killed when their vehicle was struck by a train. From the investigation it would appear that the father had just finished holding the cellphone to his daughter’s ear to say goodbye to her mother. At the time of the accident he had taken the phone back, but there was about 28 seconds between the sounding of the horn, the gates going down, and when the crash occurred. So driver distraction was demonstrated to be a cause of the accident.

“Legislation should be considered to prohibit the operator of a motor vehicle from using a cellphone while engaging in the operation of a motor vehicle.”

Number 2, the jury also recommended, and this is very important, that a task force be established to undertake further research about the risks of driver distraction.

I’m encouraged by speaking with our Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Norm Sterling, as well as our Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, that indeed with the support of the members in the opposition and third party this bill will pass. My preference would be to send it to the standing committee on general government for further public consultation on the broader issue of driver distraction.

I don’t want to disregard the research that has been done in the past, but I also want to establish the point that the study by Dr Donald Redelmeier done in 1997—he’s a researcher with the University of Toronto—found that a driver using a cellphone while driving was four times more likely to be involved in a collision. I’m saying that many disputed his statistics. This bill requires the collection of statistics and data as we go forward and technology becomes more and more invasive to see if there is indeed a correlation between driver distraction, driver attentiveness and road safety.

In my final remarks, many other jurisdictions, 22 countries in fact, have adopted some prohibitive use of cellphones, most recently the state of New York. I’ve been in touch with the legislator in New York, and that legislator has told me that my bill pretty well mirrors the bill in New York state, which has prohibited the use of hand-held cellphones, much like my bill. They are now collecting the data. They do see a heightened awareness in the state of New York.

I want to put on the record that Kevin McAlpine, who is the chief of police for Durham region, has also more recently sent me a supportive comment to my bill, as has Craig Bromell from the Toronto Police Association. Frank Murphy, the executive director of the Head Injury Association of Durham Region, has also commented on it. As well, Udo Rauk, who is on the traffic safety committee of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, has said, “Congratulations on your effort to focus on driver distraction and to identify preventative measures for safety and security.”

I believe it’s clear. The public have spoken. I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, faxes, personal letters and personal testimonies, and about 95%, if not more, say it’s the right thing at the right time, it’s a good first step. I look forward to the members of the opposition and third party to comment, and indeed the people of Ontario to comment, as the Minister of Transportation and the Solicitor General have led me to believe that we can go forward with this bill and make our roads safer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I certainly applaud the member for bringing this bill forward, because I think it does enhance the debate around road safety, and we need that. The only thing is, I think his solution doesn’t really solve what needs to be solved out there. For instance, there’s all kinds of conflicting information.

A University of North Carolina study done in the year 2000 showed that cellphone use was only a 1.5% factor in all distracted driver accidents. I wonder what distracted the drivers in the other 98.5%. I’ll tell you what distracted the drivers: drinking coffee, eating doughnuts, talking, fooling around with the car radio, with the sophisticated stereo system. Those are all causes of accidents which are not dealt with and have to be dealt with, because it’s all part of distraction.

The Automobile Association of America reported in its own study that accidents were more likely to be caused by a driver changing a radio station, adjusting the air conditioning or eating or drinking than by using a cellphone. So there’s competing and contradictory evidence in terms of what causes all these accidents.

Even the former Minister of Transportation, Mr Brad Clark, of Mr O’Toole’s party, said that he disagrees with banning cellphones because drivers can be fined up to $325 and lose six demerit points in Ontario for careless driving, and courts can suspend a driver’s licence. But as we know, these careless driving fines and cases are very rare in this province. There are not enough. They should be enforcing the careless driving laws.

The Canada Safety Council disagrees with banning cellphones. Council president Emile Thérien, whom I know personally, said there is no empirical evidence linking cellphone use to accidents. He says, “Cellphones are a distraction. But so is coffee, screaming children, adults quarrelling.” He says most studies are long on anecdotes but short on facts. He says cellphones are a distraction, but so is the coffee etc. Instead, Thérien says, and I agree, that there should be greater and stricter enforcement of existing careless driving laws, and that would save more lives than a cellphone ban.

As we know, in this province very little is done in terms of educating people about being more careful, not being distracted, by our Ministry of Transportation. They’ve spent very little time and money and resources educating people about being more careful.

The other interesting thing is, how can you stop people stuck in gridlock on the 401, who are driving five miles an hour for an hour, from answering a phone call from their wife or business associate? How can you tell that salesperson, who’s losing hour after hour—and this is not just one day. Day after day there’s gridlock all over southern Ontario. People are stuck in traffic. Are you going to tell them, “You can’t pick up that phone”? I want to see that enforced. You can’t enforce that, because in many ways those same drivers are going to be so angry.

They’re going to tell you that this is a government that basically has done nothing about gridlock and makes them sit in traffic all day, and then if they want to go to the 407, they have to pay a king’s ransom to use it, and now they’re going to tell them you can’t use a cellphone as they’re trying to make their sales calls, trying to get through the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe? You’re going to have road rage, because these same drivers that you’re going to say can’t use a cellphone are going to say, “We as drivers in Ontario pay Queen’s Park $3 billion a year in licence fees and provincial gas tax.

You’re doing nothing about gridlock, and now you’re going to tell us that you’re going to make the roads safer by telling me I can’t conduct my business or phone my wife or phone my daughter while I’m stuck in traffic” on the 401 or the 400—you name it. Whether it’s Oshawa or Whitby, there is total gridlock. We have taken over from LA as the gridlock capital of North America.

So maybe we should look at doing more public education about being careful in your car. We should be doing more public education about using public transit when we can. This government has ignored those things completely. Now it comes along—I think this member has the right goal and intention, to make our roads safer, and I applaud him for that, but let’s look at the root causes of a lot of this careless driving, road rage that exists in this province. It’s really abhorrent, considering we’re one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in North America, that we can’t basically move from A to B, and now we’ve got a government that’s going to come along and tell us, “You can’t use that phone.”

There are 10 million people who have phones in this country and there have been fewer accidents since the cellphones came into being. There used to be one million cellphone users and now there are 10 million, but the rate of accidents has declined. So how does this make sense, that you’ve got to equate cellphone use with more accidents?

Sure, they’re a problem because people are careless, but they are also careless as they’re going to Tim Hortons and they’re shoving doughnuts and bagels in their face and drinking coffee and putting on the stereo and doing who knows what in their car. Stick to driving, keep your eyes on the road, get rid of the gridlock, and maybe things would be better.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I’m pleased to be able to participate in this debate this morning. My friend Mr O’Toole brings forward this bill that wants to see the banning of cellphone use in motor vehicles across the province. At the risk of being written up by my friend Mr Brennan, who’s up there, I want to tell a little story about one of the conversations I had about this bill. One of our researchers called me the other day and said, “Gilles, I just want to hear you out on what you have to say about this particular bill.

I’m preparing the briefing note.” Lo and behold, I got the phone call on my cellphone as I was driving my truck to the airport—I thought it was kind of ironic—at which point I did pull over, I must say. I always pull my car over and don’t drive when using a cellphone.

I want to take this from a bit of a personal perspective because I agree with the bill.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: When I fly my plane, there’s no darn way I’m picking up that cellphone. Somebody actually did that on landing one time. I couldn’t believe it. Anyway, that’s another story.

I just wanted to say from a personal perspective what I think of this, and then from a policy perspective. I admit I was a frequent abuser of utilizing cellphones while driving. I thought, like most people, that you’re invincible, you can do no wrong, that “I’m such a great driver and I multi-task. It’s not an issue. I can multi-task. I can drive my car, carry on a conversation etc.”

I just want to recount one story that really sort of sobered me up real quick in not wanting to do that. I was stopped at a stop sign and was looking at the traffic—gee, my cellphone’s going off. Isn’t that the funniest thing? Let me get rid of that. It’s OK: it’s just a buzz. You don’t have to worry about it. Anyway, the story is that I’m stopped at the stop sign, and as I’m looking for traffic and deciding if I’m going to proceed across a stop sign, my cellphone rings. I pick up my phone and answer, “Hi. How’s it going?” In the period it took to answer that phone and leave, I almost ran over a pedestrian.

The person had to slap the hood of my truck to let me know that I was about to run into them.

That really woke me up, because I never saw that person. That person was probably just behind a car rounding the corner, and in the time it took me to pick up my cellphone and open it up, I just lost sight of that person because all my attention was focused not on the physical picking up of the telephone—and this is what I wanted to speak to a little bit earlier—but on trying to concentrate on the conversation. I lost attention to what I was doing, which was driving my vehicle.

As a habitual user of cellphones in the past, I just want to say that I support this bill. It’s not just a question of physically hanging on to the phone. It’s the fact of carrying on the conversation. What happens is that your attention, even with a speakerphone, basically goes to the conversation you’re having with somebody and takes you away from your primary task, which is driving the car. Now what I do is, if my cellphone rings, half of the time I just let it go into the voicemail, but if I feel I have to answer it, I just pull over.

I find that’s the easiest thing, because it’s just so easy to get into an accident. Let alone what I would do to myself, the danger is what I can do to others.

So I support Mr O’Toole’s bill. However, I want to say a couple of things about why I think this bill needs to go to committee. Mr O’Toole is putting exemptions into this legislation that I’m not quite clear about, whether it’s the right thing to do. We’re saying that emergency workers should have the ability to utilize their cellphones. I kind of thought that’s why we had radio communication and all that stuff set up in emergency vehicles. I imagine there are instances where they may need to use a cellphone if their radio is not working, but I’m really a little bit muddled on that one.

I think you need to take a look at the issue of if it’s proper for people to actually pick these things up or to be carrying on those kinds of conversations on cellphones and if there is a potential for people to abuse their ability to use that in emergency vehicles. I think most of the dispatching we do is through the radio anyway, and I wonder why you bring that particular aspect to the bill.

The other thing is that regarding this whole idea of saying, “Well, it’s OK to have the speakerphones and to be able to carry on a conversation in your car on a speakerphone,” I don’t do it myself. I refuse to put one of those things in. I’ve tried them before. I put one into my truck for a little test drive. I find they’re just as distracting as the actual cellphone. The darned phone goes off, you’re driving along, you’ve got to press the button on your phone in order to be able to activate the mike, so I’ve got to physically take my eyes from the windshield to get down there to activate the phone.

Then all of a sudden you’re having a conversation with somebody, and it’s not like you’ve got a passenger in the car. If I have a passenger in my car and we’re driving and there’s something happening with the traffic flow, normally the passenger stops talking and allows me to do what I have to do to navigate my way through, because they see what I’m trying to do.

I just ask people to think about this for a second. I think people talking in a car and people talking on a cellphone are two different kinds of conversation. If we’re talking to passengers in the car, it’s just, “Hang on a second,” and you do what you have to do as a driver, and the person knows you’re doing that. When I’m having a conversation with somebody on a cellphone and if I happen to be driving and using one of these speakerphones, I’m not at all convinced that it’s any safer than using the actual phone, because the person who is talking to me doesn’t know exactly what I’m doing.

You might be driving, you may be on a hands-free system or doing whatever, but it detracts from your attention to be able to do the safe thing, which is to drive.

I want to support this bill. We’re going to vote in favour of it. But I really want this bill to go to committee, and I think the committee has to take a look at this issue and has to bring some of the experts before the committee in order to get a better read on if we should be looking at an all-out ban or if we should be talking about a partial ban such as what Mr O’Toole puts forward.

This is certainly better than nothing, so I support it on that basis, but I think we still need to take a look as legislators at the logic of doing what Mr O’Toole suggests, which is a partial ban. I think we need to take a look at that a little bit more.

That brings me to the other point, which is about how we make legislation and how we develop legislation in this assembly. It has always bugged me, because the government, as opposition members and private members do, when we bring legislative initiatives to the floor, often it’s to react to an issue out there, which is a good thing. Nobody argues that members bringing forward issues and trying to resolve them by way of bills is a bad thing, but often they’re not as well thought through as they need to be, because we don’t utilize the committee process properly.

There used to be a time in this Legislature when, if you wanted to pass any kind of a bill, the bill had to have some time in committee. The committee process was a very important one, because it said, “OK, a member or government has an initiative by way of a bill. Here’s what they’re trying to do, and they’ve tried to draft it as best they can according to what they think the issues are,” but we would refer the bills off to committee.

We would actually take the time to listen to what people had to say on the bill, and then we spent some real time in clause-by-clause to amend the bill so that we could strengthen the bill and make sure the bill actually worked.

One of the things I find has been a big disservice to the legislative process here in Ontario—especially over the last number of years, under the Tory regime for sure and I would argue to a certain extent under other regimes before, including our own—is that we’re not utilizing the committee process properly. We know what’s going to happen to this bill. There are two issues. One is that most private members’ bills never see the light of day at the end of the day anyway; they never get to third reading. But the bigger thing is that we are not using the committee process properly.

I’m just saying to all members of this assembly that we really need to look at the issue of how committees are structured in this Legislature and how we make the committee process work so that we actually do our jobs better when it comes to developing legislation that actually works. I implore members; we really need to, at some point, try to work that out. I don’t believe it’s going to happen in this Parliament. It’s not in the interests of majority governments, with all respect to Mr O’Toole, of the cabinet to try to democratize the process.

I don’t believe that cabinets like to do that when they’re in a majority position. But there will be a minority government next election, if you look at the polls, in all likelihood. In a minority Parliament, I can tell you, as New Democrats, we’re going to be coming to the Legislature—

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: The Liberals laugh again about how they’re doing in the polls. Listen to the Liberals. They’re just so interested. They ran in 1990. They were going to be the government again. They got defeated by Bob Rae. Then they ran again in 1995. They were going to defeat Bob Rae the second time around, and the Tories got elected. You guys can’t hold your lead, so don’t talk to me and preach to me about where you are in the polls, because we all know elections are decided within about a 30-day process.

Where parties are in the polls has some relevance prior to an election, but the decision is made—you only have to look at Mike Harris in 1995, a third-place party and in third place in the polls ended up becoming the number one party. David Peterson in 1990 was 65% in the polls. We were third and we ended up first. So don’t go there.

All I’m saying is that the only time we’re going to get an opportunity to really deal with the legislative process is by way of a minority Parliament. I’m suggesting that if there’s a majority Parliament next time around, it’s probably not going to get dealt with, because it’s not going to be to the advantage of the governing party to deal with this issue. That’s why I believe a minority Parliament would not be a bad thing next time around, because it will allow us to deal with a number of issues around how this Legislature has to function better.

Anyway, I want to get back to Mr O’Toole’s bill quickly. The research that Mr O’Toole did in preparation for his bill talked about some of the stats having to do with the number of accidents that are caused by cellphones and how, in his view, one of the major culprits in causing accidents is cellphones. I would just say, go back and look at the numbers. Do you know the number one thing that causes accidents and mishaps on highways? Kids fighting in the back seat. Go back and take a look at all distractions to a driver. Kids in the back seat is a big one. When it comes to causing accidents, it’s one of the culprits.

I say to Mr O’Toole that I support the bill. But I want the bill to go to committee because I think we need to take a look at how this bill could be made even better than it is today, so we really get to the root issue, which is, do we allow the use of cellphones, yes or no? I think that’s really what the question is. I don’t think it’s a question of saying, “We allow speakerphones, but we don’t allow a person to pick up the phone.” I don’t believe the act of picking up the cellphone and talking to somebody is what distracts the driver. I believe it’s the conversation that distracts the driver.

Doing that by way of a speakerphone or doing that by holding up a cellphone to your ear while driving I think is a bit of a moot point.

We need to make a policy decision. Do we think that cellphones are a problem, aye or nay? If we think cellphones are a problem while driving, then we have to make the decision policy-wise, do we ban them or do we allow them? I really think that’s what it comes down to.

I’m saying that this is a good first step. We will support it because we think it at least starts the debate. I want to give Mr O’Toole some credit.

I also note that other members in the federal House have done a similar thing. I know that Mr Blaikie, who is one of the leadership hopefuls in the NDP race, has a bill before Parliament right now. He has also dealt with this and other provinces are trying to do the same. So this is a relatively new policy phenomenon that governments are having to turn their attention to. I think this is maybe a good process by which we do it.

In the couple of minutes I’ve got left, I want to come back to process. It really is a sad reflection on democracy that this private members’ hour we have every Thursday morning is not as good as it could be. It’s an excellent forum for members to bring forward initiatives, but there are a couple of issues that I want to note. One is, the number of times that members are allowed to bring bills into the House is basically once per Parliament, and that’s hardly enough, in my view. I think you need to have a better process to allow members to bring bills before the House for debate.

To do that, I think you have to balance off the need for the government to do its business and the need for the members to do their business as well, when it comes to different policy issues and debates we have to have about issues that are important to Ontarians that members want brought forward.

The second thing is—and I’m going to say again to Mr O’Toole that we’re going to stand in this House today and vote in favour of this legislation—if it gets to committee, boy, that will be something, because it will be one of the few private members’ bills that actually does. There are maybe four or five private members’ bills per year that make it to an actual committee. When it comes to getting to third reading, if it got there it would be one of the only ones that does, because far too often governments don’t allow a private member’s bill to happen. A good indication of that was what happened last spring with Marilyn Churley’s bill.

Marilyn Churley had her clean drinking water act. The government, under Ernie Eves, had said inside his throne speech that he was going to support Marilyn Churley’s bill in regard to clean water, but at one point the politics got such that the government said, “Hey, we’re going to change her bill so much that we won’t allow her to vote for it at third reading.” And then it got caught up in this whole thing where the government didn’t want the bill to go forward. So her bill got the deep-six, and here we are now having to deal with a government bill.

I’m just saying that there’s a problem with a process that doesn’t allow a private member’s bill to really make it all the way through to the legislative process it needs to get through to deal with issues. One of the items I think we need to talk about, as members—and I know the Legislative Assembly committee could deal with this if they wanted to, but the government won’t allow it, and I certainly have raised it at House leaders’ meetings every Thursday, but the government House leader is not going to allow it—is that we really need to enhance the role of private members.

We really need to enhance the role of backbench Tory members, or any government member, and opposition members because we’re here to represent our constituents. We want to raise issues by way of debate and bills and motions in this House, and we need a greater ability to do that. The second thing is, we need to know that if we do that, it actually gets somewhere.

In closing, I just say to Mr O’Toole, congratulations. I know you’ve done a lot of work on this bill. Our New Democratic caucus will support this initiative, but we’re saying it must get to committee. There are a number of issues we need to deal with and the quicker we do that, the better it will be for other people when it comes to the danger these cellphones may or may not cause.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I’m certainly pleased to speak in favour of Bill 49, introduced by my colleague John O’Toole, MPP for Durham. The most profound impact of Bill 49 is the role it will have to help educate drivers in Ontario. We know there is an enforcement component of this legislation.

In my previous work against drinking and driving, I think we all fully realized the value of programs like the RIDE program. It’s a program that couples not only enforcement but also education. When you can inculcate a program of education and information, that is the icing on the cake to try and achieve some of the desired goals we have with this particular legislation.

I can also relate as an MPP who travels daily to Toronto. I have offices in Simcoe and Caledonia, and we have a farm and I’m constantly in the vehicle doing business. I’m fully aware, as we all are, of the trials and tribulations of literally living in one’s car. Hand-held cellphones and driving certainly do not mix.

Try adding a radio and a pop or a coffee and a box of soda biscuits, breakfast, lunch—many of us have dinner in our vehicles—and it really gives new meaning to that old expression, “driven to distraction.” In fact, it was the difficulty and the distraction of on-the-road calling that drove me to incorporate my phone as a hands-free device. I merely screwed a cradle to the floor of my vehicle and immediately noticed the improvement in the sense that I can now talk on the phone and have both hands on the wheel.

Documentation on the dangers of these kinds of distractions is widespread. We heard this morning what has become a well-known case of a fellow and his two-year-old daughter who were killed at a railway crossing in Pickering. The father apparently had been holding his cellphone up to his daughter’s ear at the time of the accident. Four Canadians from Quebec were killed in Maryland when a driver was talking on her cellphone, lost control, went over a guardrail and landed on top of the vehicle the four were in, killing all four people.

Hopefully, a better informed and educated public, combined with a modicum of enforcement, can eliminate tragedies like these.

As I mentioned, support is widespread. Last March, Douglas Beirness, who is with the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, was quoted as stating, “Cellphones are becoming synonymous with distracted driving.” When you talk about driver distraction, people say, “Cellphones.” A poll done by Leger Marketing in September 2001 indicated that four out of five Canadians believe it should be illegal to talk on cellphones while driving unless a hands-free device is used.

Ontario is not the first jurisdiction to consider a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving. Twenty-two countries have restricted the use of these phones, including Australia, Japan, Israel, Brazil, Portugal and Singapore. Legislation almost identical to Bill 49 came into effect in New York state in March of this year. It’s obviously too early to have data on the effectiveness of this legislation; however, the outlook is very positive.

Private members’ legislation has been put forward in Alberta and Nova Scotia. Legislation has been introduced in Newfoundland, and the provincial government hopes to have it passed into law this coming fall. I’d like to quote Walter Noel, Minister of Government Services and Lands for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who had this to say about this type of legislation: “Hand-held cellphone use while driving is a dangerous practice which can be effectively prohibited to help prevent accidents, save lives, reduce injuries and control insurance rates.”

Both support and documented need for this legislation is widespread, and I for one encourage my fellow members in this Legislature to support Bill 49. Let’s make the roads safer for all of us.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I’ll say at the outset that I’m going to be voting against this piece of legislation, because although there’s a widespread public view and some statistical evidence that cellphones are a challenge with respect to road safety, no conclusive evidence has been presented that cellphones are the number one challenge we have with respect to road safety. I think we have a responsibility as legislators to involve ourselves in activities that have the effect not just of addressing populist held beliefs, but actually meaningfully getting at the source of the problem.

I found it interesting to hear a couple of members speak this morning. Mr O’Toole said in his remarks that a quick call to tell someone you’re going to be late for a meeting constituted an emergency and therefore did not run up against the law in this case. I wondered whether exemption cards would be offered to Ontarians who, when a police officer pulled them over and wrote them up, could say, “I’m applying my O’Toole exemption. I’ve just called to let somebody know I was going to be late for a meeting.

That constitutes an emergency and therefore I didn’t break any rule.” I hate to make too fine a point of it, but I think that highlights the extent to which this law, as proposed, is wholly unworkable.

Then we have the member from the north, from Timmins-James Bay—the far, far north—speak and say, “I support this legislation because it gets us going in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough,” and he looks forward to an opportunity at committee to amend this legislation, presumably, to be an outright ban on cellphones, which is far away, as I can understand it, from the intent of this legislation.

If this does get to committee and I have an opportunity to speak, I intend to move an amendment. It will be the veal parmigiana sandwich amendment. I will make this amendment because in my experience behind the wheel, which is reasonably pronounced—as the son of a trucker, I get out and about Ontario from time to time. I saw some guy eating a veal parmigiana sandwich with peppers and all, and that experience leads me to believe there are more serious impacts on road safety and distraction behind the wheel than cellphones.

I think it helps to underscore the challenge with respect to legislation that is designed to address people’s fears, but in practical terms is very difficult to define appropriately and to enforce.

The Ontario Trucking Association estimates that the cost of gridlock in the GTA is $2 billion for trucks that are having difficulty getting their commodity to market. I think we can start to add an additional toll if we restrict the capacity of people, a lot of them Mr O’Toole’s constituents and other residents of the 905, who spend way too much of their time behind the wheel in an unproductive fashion because the roads do not move any longer.

Mr Bisson said this is certainly better than nothing. I’m not so sure. I’m not so sure that a well-intentioned piece of legislation that has a very, very difficult time being enforced is in fact good legislation, a good use of our time and a good use of our efforts.

We heard from the previous speaker that 22 other jurisdictions have taken legislation with some sort of ban. Well, let’s take a wait-and-see approach, and let’s see what those bans produce in terms of actual, proven, statistical evidence that bans and limitations are effective. I think we have a long way to go to be able to deal with that in a meaningful way.

So I would repeat what I said at the beginning, that I’ll be voting against this legislation.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It’s my pleasure to rise today to support Mr O’Toole, the hard-working member for Durham, and his Bill 49,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway.

Certainly Mr O’Toole has been working hard on this issue. He has had it before the House on another occasion, and he was busy this morning talking to the press about it. I believe part of what happens on private members’ morning is raising awareness on an issue. I think that’s what is happening this morning, and hopefully this bill will get passed and will go to committee.

At committee, as the member for Durham has stated, we would then get into public consultations where there would be lots of time allowed for comment and discussion on the use of cellphones and also on other distractions that affect safety on our highways. Really, that’s what this bill is all about: improving safety on our highways.

I do believe it’s time to look at restrictions to do with the use of cellphones on the highways of Ontario. If it saves the life of one innocent person who might get run down at a stoplight while someone is distracted punching numbers into a cellphone, or prevents injury to a cyclist on a city street—a friend of ours from the riding was just involved in a serious cycling accident here in Toronto; I don’t know whether cellphones had anything to do with it. But if we can do anything to prevent innocent people from being injured, I think we should be looking at it. That’s what this bill is going to be doing.

It’s going to be bringing this important discussion into the committee and letting consultation occur so that we can figure out what makes the most sense.

I think what is being proposed is a rational first step, and that is that cellphones be allowed in a hands-free mode. The member for Timmins-James Bay was recounting an incident to do with being in stop-and-go traffic, and what if you get a phone call then? I think the new technologies coming along allow you to answer the phone without having to punch any numbers into the phone.

Actually, I personally have had the experience where I’ve been rammed in stop-and-go traffic, so all someone has to do is look down at their cellphone, try to punch some numbers in, and in that moment of distraction if the traffic stops in front of them, they end up running into the car in front of them. I think the hands-free aspect allows you to answer the phone without having to take two hands off the wheel.

We do need to be aware and we need to raise awareness among drivers of all distractions that affect their driving. When we’re driving, we should be thinking about driving and we should have two hands on the wheel; we shouldn’t be fiddling with the radio or eating or perhaps even drinking coffee. We need to be very conscious of the fact that when you’re driving, you should be thinking about driving and being safe on the roads.

I spend an awful lot of time on the road and I have used a cellphone significantly, so I’ve had personal experience, learning the hard way from trying to punch numbers in and finding out when you look back up that you’ve switched lanes. I’m very aware that you need to be safe on the road. I’m aware that when you spend a lot of time on the road you do, at times, need to use a cellphone. Certainly last week I was back and forth to the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka three times.

Each trip is roughly five hours, so that was 15 hours last week I spent on the road getting back to important events happening in the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. So I think it makes sense for us to look at the hands-free use of cellphones.

Mr O’Toole is trying to get more information so that we can make rational decisions. But there certainly have been lots of studies done to this point which show that there are increased accidents that go along with the use of cellphones, and the purpose of Bill 49 is to help reduce the number of accidents on Ontario roads by banning the use of hand-held cellphones while driving to eliminate one of the most dangerous driver distractions and keep drivers’ attention on the road.

There was a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 that stated that cellphone users are four times more likely to be in a collision than non-users. This is roughly the same accident rate as drivers who are legally impaired. So that’s an interesting comparison: the same as drinking and driving.

A February 2002 University of Montreal’s Transportation Safety Laboratory study concluded that cellphone users have a 38% greater chance of having an accident than non-users. These are pretty startling statistics.

In 2001 the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated at least 600 traffic deaths a year in the United States result from cellphone use. The center also reports that the risk of being killed by a driver talking on a cellphone is one in 1.5 million. That doesn’t seem like the greatest odds, but you compare that to a one in 17.6 million chance of being killed by a drunk driver. So the odds of being killed by a cellphone user are actually higher than the odds of being killed by a drunk driver.

The Canada Safety Council statistics indicate that 85% of all collisions are a result of driver error, which includes driver distraction. As I mentioned, that’s not just cellphone use. We need to all be aware of other distractions in the car.

The Transport Research Laboratory in the United Kingdom found that drivers who use a cellphone are about 30% more impaired than drivers whose blood alcohol level is slightly above the legal limit. So once again, comparing it with drinking and driving, as a society, we’re very aware that we shouldn’t be drinking and driving and that that increases the risk of driving into innocent people—pedestrians, motorists, cyclists—so we need to raise awareness about the use of the cellphone.

A University of Utah study demonstrated that drivers involved in distracting activities—using a phone or adjusting the radio—missed twice as many traffic signals and took 10% longer to react than other drivers. I think that’s a perfect illustration. You look down to answer the phone or pick it up and you go right through a red light. That’s where innocent pedestrians or cyclists get seriously injured.

So I think this bill is certainly very timely. That’s probably why Mr O’Toole just about missed his time here this morning, because he was busy with a lot of press who are interested in this important bill.

Certainly in Ontario we have some of the safest roads in North America; as a matter of fact, we have the safest roads in Canada. I think that’s because we’ve been spending so much money on the roads in Ontario, putting a lot of emphasis on improving the road infrastructure. I know particularly in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, there’s been record investment in Highway 11, Highway 69. In fact, last week I was up to open another 14 kilometres of Highway 11 that’s just been four-laned from Melissa to Emsdale. We’re continuing to work very quickly toward four-laning Highway 69.

You see the amount of work and money being spent on making the highways safer, particularly in northern Ontario. Of course, I’m PA to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

We continue to spend record amounts of money in northern Ontario. I think it’s roughly $250 million a year. We’ve been working non-stop on Highway 69. You just have to come to my riding and see. I sometimes wonder what Mr Bartolucci is talking about, because we’ve been working non-stop, full speed, doing great work on Highway 69 in the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, making continued improvements to the safety of the highway. There’s been a lot of investment in highways.

This is another important way of making our highways safer in the province of Ontario. I think it’s important to raise public awareness and important that this go to committee and we get comment from interested groups and look at the latest studies and come up with legislation that’s going to be good for improving safety on the highways and streets for the people of Ontario.

I look forward to when this goes to the general government committee.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise to speak for a few minutes on this issue. First of all, I certainly understand the intent of the member for Durham in bringing this forward. I know it’s something he has been on top of for a while. I certainly don’t question the motivation behind it, but I certainly question the validity or the purpose of this type of legislation being in place. Traffic accident fatalities are a dangerous and serious problem that we deal with in this province every day. But I think that to simply say, “Well, if we get rid of hand-held cellphones, we’ll solve the problem,” is a very simplistic, band-aid solution to something that’s really much more complicated.

My colleague across the floor pointed out a whole bunch of studies that say accidents are caused by people on phones and so on. I’ve seen a number of studies that show that cellphones are a very small percentage of actual distractions that cause accidents. When you look at this, you say, “OK, we’ll ban cellphones.” That’s great; that takes care of one little part of this. What are we doing about drive-throughs? Think about the distraction of eating. You go through McDonald’s or Wendy’s and pick up a hamburger or a drink and put it in your car. The expectation is—

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: I say to my colleague the minister, Mr Flaherty, that I do enjoy Tim Hortons coffee, and I’m sorry for not mentioning that.

The reality is, you pick up this hamburger, you pick up this drink and you’re in the car. The expectation is that you’re going to be eating this while you’re driving. So you’ve got a hamburger in your hand, the thing starts dripping all over you, and you’ve got one hand on the wheel at this point. Now you’re trying to make sure that whatever is dripping on you from the hamburger is not going all over your clothes, and you’ve got potentially a much greater danger and situation than you would have chatting on a cellphone.

This is a serious issue, and I take it as that. But there are other distractions. We’ve all seen people reading newspapers, looking at maps in front of them, putting on makeup and shaving while they’re driving. Those are all serious issues. What I think we need to do is simply increase the penalties for distractions that would tend to cause accidents. There is a law in place already that deals with that. I think there have to be stiffer penalties for that, and there has to be greater enforcement, greater vigilance and greater public education in dealing with that. Cellphone use is a very small percentage of the type of distractions we talk about that cause accidents.

If you look at the number of cellphones on the market today in Canada—I think since 1994 we’ve gone from about one million to well over 10 million today. The number of traffic accidents has actually decreased in this country by about 10%. You can’t make a correlation between more use of cellphones and more accidents.

I say to my colleague that what I think we need to do is make a greater effort through driver training, through public education, through the schools, through the Ministry of Education, to ensure that people understand the dangers of driving while being distracted, while not paying attention.

You have someone right next to you and you’re talking to that individual, or that individual is sitting in the back seat. To me, again, if you’re not paying attention and concentrating, that is a greater distraction than talking on a cellphone. Are we now going to say we’re going to ban drive-throughs, we’re going to ban people from having coffee in the car? Are we going to ban passengers from the car because they might distract you?

Let’s put this into perspective. It’s a serious problem. Drivers not concentrating is a serious problem. But I think it’s a very simplistic, hot-button topic of the day to suggest that if we simply ban hand-held cellphones, we’re going to eliminate a big chunk of problems in this province. More enforcement, greater penalties, more police effort and more education is the answer.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just want to be on the record to say that I’m betwixt and between on this bill. I don’t know what is the actual biggest distraction out there where driving and safety is concerned.

I agree with the member from Hamilton that we need a wider discussion on this. So I’m going to be seconding the amendment, the veal parmesan sandwich amendment, put forward by the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, hoping that this will go to committee so we can talk about that.

The Acting Speaker: That concludes the time for debate. Response?

Mr O’Toole: In the brief time I have left, I would like to thank the Liberal and NDP opposition members who commented this morning. I really believe that the debate we’ve had this morning is important in trying to bring some conclusion.

I think the member from Eglinton-Lawrence stated pretty much the same thing as the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale: that he saw the importance of the issue, but he thought there were other more important distractions. The member from Hamilton East said pretty much the same thing; he doesn’t think it goes far enough. I think it is a good first step.

I was very impressed with the NDP member from Timmins-James Bay. He did go to some extent and also brought it into his own experience; I think that’s worth sharing.

For the members present this morning, I want to take a moment and thank those people I’ve worked with to make this bill as strong as it is and encourage them to keep up the fight to help to move this debate forward. That would include Constable Mark Stone, who’s in the gallery here this morning—he was the investigating officer in the case of the Richard Schewe and his daughter Mikaela’s inquest that was just recently held in Durham—and also Staff Sergeant Tom Whiteway, who is here this morning from the Durham Regional Police. Durham Regional Police, having the inquest, did bring it to focus. We have a supportive quote from Police Chief Kevin McAlpine.

I’ve certainly had a lot of support from my staff: Peter Kearns, who has done a tremendous amount of work—I want to thank you, Peter—as well as Martha Black, a legislative intern, who has been drawn into making this issue as important, well developed and researched as it is.

I’ve also spoken with chiefs of police, the OPP, the association’s Bruce Millar and Brian Adkins, and also Maurice Pillion, the deputy commissioner for the OPP. They generally believe that it’s a good first step.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debating ballot item number 62.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L’ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 61.

Mrs Marland has moved second reading of Bill 183,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

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

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Marland has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy. Agreed? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CELLULAR PHONES), 2002 LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Now we will deal with ballot item number 62.

Mr O’Toole has moved second reading of Bill 49,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway.

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

All in favour will say “aye.”

All opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The motion is carried.

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): I thank the members of the House who supported the bill. It’s my intention to refer it to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Mr O’Toole has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

All matters before the Legislature this morning having been dealt with, we will adjourn until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Welcome back.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Thank you, I think.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Let me bring the House up to date on the government’s record since the tragic death on August 7 of Kelly Henderson and her twin sons, Jordin and Corbin.

While the Premier of this province has ignored the pleas of a grieving father and grandfather; the government has ignored the suggestions of a grieving brother and uncle when it comes to increased signage past Killarney; has ignored the requests for a meeting with the Crash 69 committee; had ignored my requests for additional signage along the Highway 69 corridor between Sudbury and Parry Sound; has ignored the call from 26,000 residents of my community who want the four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound to begin immediately; has ignored the resolution that has been passed by many northern municipalities, chambers of commerce, labour organizations, service clubs and education boards with regard to the four-laning of this highway—in fact, in reality the Premier and his government have been callous in their ignorance of the problems that are associated with Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound.

Today, I want to tell the government and I want to reinforce the facts that, one, the Crash 69 committee is not going away; my community’s demand that you begin four-laning immediately is not going away; and your unforgiving lack of compassion toward this family is an indication of what you feel about residents in northeastern Ontario.

YORK REGION CRIME STOPPERS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): York region Crime Stoppers program has been so successful in its first year of operation that it won four first-place awards at an international Crime Stoppers conference.

At the 23rd Crime Stoppers International Training Conference in Ottawa, the York region program received the following awards: the television award for one of its Crime of the Week shows; first place for the recovery of drugs; first place for the recovery of stolen goods; and the most improved for stolen goods recovered.

In the category of stolen goods recovered, the York region program netted $1.1 million worth of recovered goods in 200l, compared to $119,000 the previous year.

Prior to July 2001, York region was part of the Toronto and region Crime Stoppers organization. Calls to the TIP line went directly to Toronto. Currently the call-in number remains the same, but York region calls are immediately rerouted to the York Regional Police.

The great success of the program can be attributed to increased advertising and the televising of Crime of the Week segments during such shows as Cops and America’s Most Wanted.

Congratulations to Detective Constable Kim Killby and the York Regional Police for achieving such a great and successful program.

GATEHOUSE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit a very special place called the Gatehouse, located on Lakeshore Boulevard in Etobicoke.

The Gatehouse is a privately funded and operated facility that provides a safe haven for children who are victims of child abuse. The Gatehouse provides a safe place for children to disclose abuse experiences and a mentor support system for adult survivors of historical child abuse. Families, police officers and children’s service workers are able to bring children to the Gatehouse for evidential interviews. This provides a comfortable environment for children, who should not be interviewed in locations that make them feel that they’ve done something wrong, like a police station or even in the principal’s office.

The wonderful workers at Gatehouse focus on the children and they have worked very hard to provide a service that is needed throughout Ontario to assist children and families who deal with the horror of child abuse. To date, this facility has helped over 1,300 people whose lives have been affected by child abuse, and sadly, their numbers continue to grow.

The Gatehouse is a best-practice site for supporting victims of child abuse. I would encourage this government to use it as a model for many more that are sadly and sorely needed across the province.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): I’m pleased to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the legislative page program, and also to mention a family in my riding who have had four children, each of whom has served as legislative pages. It is our policy not to use the last name of pages. However, I would like to point out that Philip, who is currently serving in this House, has been preceded by his two brothers and sister. Philip’s older brother, Seth, was here about six years ago, followed by his sister, Ava, and his younger brother, Jared. They are all from my riding of Durham, and have indeed all served with distinction in this Legislature—like myself, I hope.

It is my privilege to meet and work with young people like Philip, Seth, Ava and Jared. I might say I’ve had 10 pages since I was first elected in 1995. Naturally, I am especially proud of all Durham riding students who have been selected. However, I think it is noteworthy that four members of one family have been chosen over the past six years. It speaks loudly to the family’s commitment to education and participation.

I’d like to point out to this House that other pages have had the opportunity to be present for major events and decisions that most Ontarians only see, hear or read about in the media. They leave Queen’s Park with a clearer understanding and appreciation of the political process and our parliamentary traditions, some of which you’d like to forget.

I’d also like to mention that this program is open to all grade 7 and 8 students who maintain a level 4 scholastic achievement and who are actively involved in a variety of extracurricular activities, both in school and the community. While MPPs have no jurisdiction in selecting pages, I am sure MPP constituency offices would be pleased to supply—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry. It’s well over your time; I need to cut you off.

DANI HARDER

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I rise in sadness in tribute to a constituent of mine, Dani Harder, who passed away last Friday at the age of 28. Although confined to a wheelchair by her severe cerebral palsy and restricted by an inability to speak without the use of her computer, Dani led a most remarkable life and inspired those around her.

Dani taught at Frontier College. She loved the theatre and even acted in a play with Don Harron. Despite her disabilities, she attended university and even participated in last year’s Toronto International Marathon. Even more inspiring was her determination to live the life that she wanted and deserved: independently in our community.

Until the day she died, Dani and her family refused attempt after attempt to discharge her to a long-term-care facility or to an inappropriate community placement. It appalls me that of all of the roadblocks in her life, the biggest one came from the Harris-Eves government. Having no policy to deal with people of Dani’s age and needs, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care resisted all attempts to give her what she wanted, all in the name of dollars.

The minister should take note: this case isn’t closed. Dani’s indomitable spirit will live on, and the fight for appropriate and properly funded housing options will continue. Dani’s struggle against this government highlights the need for public policy that has real respect for the wishes of the people it touches. Dani’s strength will continue to motivate me and others who were touched by her. Dani, her parents, Karen and Roger, and her brothers, Mathew and Lucas, deserve that from us. I know that we’re going to continue this fight in tribute to this remarkable, inspirational young woman.

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): This morning, almost 500 educational assistants were forced from the classroom by this government. You can’t hide this time behind duly elected trustees, because you fired them. The only people at the bargaining table is this government through your appointed supervisor. Therefore, you have direct responsibility for the almost 1,000 children with special needs who aren’t in the classroom this morning because their educational assistants aren’t there.

Lest you think it’s just us criticizing you, let me tell you what’s going on in our community. Robert Peters, who’s chair of our board’s special education advisory committee, said this: “You’ve just taken Timothy’s ability to read right away from him. Educational assistants play a crucial and vital role.” His son Timothy is blind.

Judy Colantino has two children with special needs. One is a 17-year-old daughter named Katie, and she’s a quadriplegic. And she has a son, and he has Down’s syndrome. You know what she says? “I feel very strongly about supporting them. They are watching out for the most vulnerable people in the system.” It’s time this government took responsibility for your share of taking care of vulnerable people in our community. You’ve got to do something. This is not acceptable.

PERSONS DAY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Today we are honouring a milestone in the history of Canadian women. Today is Persons Day. It was only 73 years ago, on October 18, 1929, that the British Privy Council decided women were persons under Canadian law.

We owe that landmark ruling to five outstanding women, women who took their fight all the way to the Privy Council in England, the highest court in Canada back then. Those Famous Five, as they were called, won that fight: Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Nellie McClung. These names changed the lives of women of their generation and of all future generations. Thanks to the legacy of the Famous Five, we can point to a stunning record of women’s contributions to this province.

Persons Day is a focal day in October, which is Women’s History Month. Every year, this month is designated to celebrate the contributions of women past and present who have shaped Canada in so many ways. In business, in the community, in the arts, in politics and in sports, women have established new pathways, and they continue to pierce the glass ceiling.

Mr Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to honour Ontario’s many remarkable women.

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): It’s with some sorrow that I report to the House on what’s been happening in here—or not happening—over the first few weeks of this session.

In the Peterson minority government, less than 1% of bills were passed with time allocation; in the Peterson majority, 2%, and in the Rae government, 11%. In the first Harris government, 30% were thus passed. In the second Harris government, from 1999-2002, we’re up to 55.2%.

But do you know who holds the record as of today? Ernie Eves. We’re up to 75% time allocation. And do you know what’s amazing? They are time-allocating bills that all three of the political parties support. They can’t even get these minuscule bills passed that the third party supports, the official opposition supports, and presumably they support.

It’s not like we have a lot of items on our agenda. They’ve introduced nothing. Where’s the safe drinking water legislation? Where are the guidelines for cabinet ministers’ expenditures? Where is an agenda that shows a government in charge?

That agenda rests with Dalton McGuinty. That’s where the real leadership is coming from in this House today. That’s what is going to save this province from a government that’s tired, old, stale and undemocratic. It’s time for a change. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party are that change.

VISITORS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I’d like to introduce the grade 8 class from Centennial Public School in Georgetown, Ontario. Megan McCrae, one of our pages here these past few weeks, is normally a member of this class, and this class came down today and surprised Megan during the parade on the grand staircase. Megan was very surprised.

I’d like to welcome them to this building and thank their teacher, Madam White, for bringing them down.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a brief point of order, Mr Speaker: The area I represent is proud to have an outstanding young page, Kyle Gulab. His mother and father are here with us, if I might introduce them. Rosanne and Phillip Gulab, welcome.

PROSPERITY 2002

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): We can introduce everybody else and then there’s no problem.

Recently I attended a significant event in my riding of Peterborough: Prosperity 2002, the Business to Business Marketplace exhibition. This exhibition was organized and hosted by the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce. The Marketplace is designed to offer area businesses the opportunity to reduce the costs of goods and services they purchase by buying locally. At the same time, these businesses had the opportunity of showcasing and marketing products and services under one roof.

There were over 80 business exhibitors that participated in Prosperity 2002. This was a great kick-off to Small Business Month, which recognizes that small business is the backbone of the Ontario economy.

Over the last year there has been a significant increase in the number of new businesses that have located in my riding of Peterborough. These businesses have created new job opportunities as well as renewed confidence in the well-being of our community.

I would like to commend the general manager of the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, Mr Doug Armstrong, as well as all his team, for the excellent job they did in organizing this showcase event, and we must not forget all the businesses that participated in this unique opportunity to demonstrate their individual products and services.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I seek your direction and assistance with a matter. Earlier today we were informed that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities was unable to be in the Legislature today for question period. We have since learned that her absence today is due to the fact she is doing media interviews in her office here while question period is on. It makes it difficult for us to pose questions. We believe the double cohort issue is extremely important and wonder if there is any redress in the standing orders, to you, to help compel ministers to attend question period rather than do media interviews in their office?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Unfortunately, some people would wish there were but there is not. The Speaker has no control over who is here and who is not.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, on behalf of the members of the Legislature and myself, I would like to thank our pages for their help over the past few weeks. It has been a pleasure to get to know this great group of pages, but unfortunately it is their last day. I would like to wish each and every one of them success in their future endeavours. I’m sure all members would like to join us in thanking all our great pages. To the parents who are here and those who are watching, you can be very proud of your sons and daughters. They are a fine group of young people.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I beg leave to present a report by the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

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

Bill 148,

An Act to provide for declarations of death in certain circumstances and to amend the Emergency Plans Act / Projet de loi 148, Loi prévoyant la déclaration de décès dans certaines circonstances et modifiant la

Loi sur les mesures d’urgence.

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

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Deputy Premier. I have in my hands a copy of the confidential study done for the Ministry of Education on the double cohort. You’ve been sitting on this report since August and now we know why. It says very clearly that you and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities have failed our children. We now know that you have purposely low-balled your estimates of the number of kids graduating this year. Minister Cunningham said only 60% would go on to university. Now we know that number is more like 75% or even higher.

Deputy Premier, parents are worried their kids won’t get into school. Our children are terrified that your mismanagement and incompetence will ruin their lives. You’ve had this report since August. You have known about the problem but publicly denied there is a problem. Why did you and Minister Cunningham try to keep this information from Ontario’s parents and children?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would be most pleased to respond to the member opposite. I think one thing we need to do is set the record straight. Despite the allegations that have been made, I have not yet seen the report. It’s also important to know that this is a report our government commissioned. I can tell you that we have not received a final version of the report. We look forward to receiving it. I have also asked the ministry to put on the Web site the 230-plus pages of the text as soon as possible. I understand there are appendices also, and once they have been received they will also be put on the Web site.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Deputy Premier, this is the executive

summary. You received the report in August. It’s very clear. It says you aren’t funding enough spaces for our kids. We are short 5,000 to 7,000 spaces for our children next year. This is a report, by the way, that you commissioned. These are students who in any other year would have been accepted to university, but because of your government’s incompetence and mismanagement won’t get in.

This isn’t news to you. We have been warning you about this problem for years. Now we learn your own experts have been warning you, but instead of acting, you and Minister Cunningham tried to hide the evidence. Playing games of hide-and-seek while our children’s future is at risk is reckless and unacceptable. These children have been punched around by your government for four years. What is your explanation for why you and Minister Cunningham have failed to plan for this crisis?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I’m really quite surprised and quite shocked at the accusations that have been made by the member opposite. If the member opposite has a copy of the final report, I would certainly appreciate receiving it. I would just emphasize that I have not yet seen the report, but I have asked the ministry staff.

If we take a look at the double cohort, my colleague at the Ministry of Education and Training has said time and time again that we have made provisions and we have made a commitment to ensure that every willing and qualified student in Ontario is going to be able to attend a college or a university. We have spent over $2.2 billion to expand our colleges and universities. We have created new space for over 79,000 students. I can assure you there is space for all the students.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Part of this report shows that students don’t trust what you say. I say to you that both you and Minister Dianne Cunningham should be ashamed of yourselves. This is a problem you both created and failed to fix. You