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

May 1, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 1 May 2003 Jeudi 1 er mai 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(NO CONVEYING OF PASSENGERS FOR

COMPENSATION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(AUCUN TRANSPORT DE PASSAGERS MOYENNANT RÉMUNÉRATION)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(NO CONVEYING OF PASSENGERS

FOR COMPENSATION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(AUCUN TRANSPORT DE PASSAGERS

MOYENNANT RÉMUNÉRATION)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

VISITOR

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSTITUTION DAY

TRANSPORTATION

SARS

PENSION REFORM

QUEEN'S GOLDEN JUBILEE MEDAL

SCARBOROUGH GRACE HOSPITAL

FRANK DREA

CHINESE COMMUNITY

UNITED ACHIEVERS CLUB

REPORTS, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GENOCIDE MEMORIAL

WEEK ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA SEMAINE COMMÉMORATIVE

DES GÉNOCIDES

AMERICA DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'AMÉRIQUE

AUDIT STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA VÉRIFICATION

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

(GREAT LAKES

POWER EXCEPTION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION

DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO

(EXCEPTION VISANT

LA GREAT LAKES POWER)

GREATER JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR UNE OBLIGATION ACCRUE

DE RENDRE COMPTE

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES NOMINATIONS

À LA MAGISTRATURE

REDEEMER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ACT, 2003

AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE MOIS

DE SENSIBILISATION À L'AUTISME

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

AND FIREFIGHTER

RECOGNITION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE PRÉVENTION DES INCENDIES

ET LA RECONNAISSANCE DES POMPIERS

DEMOCRACY IN ONTARIO

DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE LA DÉMOCRATIE EN ONTARIO

PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO

THE FACTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR L'ACCÈS DU PUBLIC AUX FAITS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

FROM SEXUALLY EXPLICIT

GOODS AND SERVICES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS CONTRE LES BIENS

ET SERVICES SEXUELLEMENT EXPLICITES

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'OBSERVATION

DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO BUDGET

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Thursday 1 May 2003 Jeudi 1 er mai 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(NO CONVEYING OF PASSENGERS FOR

COMPENSATION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(AUCUN TRANSPORT DE PASSAGERS MOYENNANT RÉMUNÉRATION)

Mr Gill moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to restrict the conveyance of passengers for compensation / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant le Code de la route

pour restreindre le transport de passagers moyennant rémunération.

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

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is my pleasure this morning, as the fourth session of this Parliament starts, to present

the first bill. It's an honour for me and I do want to thank my colleagues who have given up their time to make sure that I'm able to present this bill. I'm delighted to have an opportunity to

present this bill before this esteemed chamber.

Yesterday's speech from the throne laid the foundation for a continuation of the sound economic and job-friendly policy of Premier Mike Harris. This bill is a

continuation of the common sense traditions of Premier Mike Harris and Premier Ernie Eves

Before I commence with the details of this bill, I would like to acknowledge the work of the members of this chamber in passing my private member's bill in 2001.

I know you were a part of the meeting that day, Mr Speaker, proclaiming the month of May as South Asian Heritage Month. I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support in recognizing the

contribution of South Asians in Ontario. This is an auspicious day, because today is May 1. I want to thank all the members, because they unanimously passed this bill. I'm looking forward to

similar agreement on this bill as well.

The bill before the House this morning is about protecting Ontarians. It is very important for me to point out to my constituents and supporters that my

presentation today could not have been possible without the support of my colleague from the PC caucus, the very honourable member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Mr Bill Murdoch. Thank you, Bill, for

offering me your ballot item so that I could bring this bill forward today.

Mr Speaker, before I get into the details of this bill I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleagues from this side of the House,

the hard-working MPP for Niagara Falls, Bart Maves, and the equally dedicated member for the proud riding Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Joe Tascona. I'm sure many of the members would be very happy to

share my time, and I'm sure the opposition will be very happy to speak on this bill, because I know they all agree on how important this bill is.

This type of legislation is long overdue. When I was elected to this parliament on June 3, 1999, members of the taxi and limo association -- many of them are my

family members or friends -- came to me and said, "We've been having this problem for the last 15 or 20 years." They've gone to the federal government, to the provincial government and to the

municipal government and they've gone to the police services board, and nobody has done anything. I certainly took the lead, and I talked to the ministers and members at every level -- I talked to

the federal members as well -- and I found out that it was a typical case of, "It's not my problem."

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): Passing the buck.

Mr Gill: Passing the buck, as Mr Sampson is saying. Nobody was willing to take on this task. People in my constituency and people who are

affected by this problem on a day-in-and-day-out basis felt that not enough was being done. They certainly were looking forward to their member doing something for them. I was hoping this was going

to be a government bill, but since it was not to happen, I was very happy to lead the charge and make this a private member's bill. I've had discussions with the opposition, with the third party

and with federal members, and they all agree that they must pass this bill, and must pass it expediently.

I know the member opposite for St Catharines is saying it's this government. It's not this government. This problem has been going on for the last 15 to 20

years.

I'm pleased this morning that my esteemed, honourable friend the member from Owen Sound, Mr Bill Murdoch, has given me the opportunity to take his time. As you

know I've already had my time in terms of other bills, so he gave me his time to speak on this bill and bring this forward.

I'm happy to say that some of the people affected by this problem are in the members' gallery today, as well as in the visitors' gallery, and I want to welcome

them.

This bill, an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, makes it a provincial offence to convey passengers anywhere in Ontario in a motor vehicle for compensation or

to pick up passengers anywhere in Ontario for the purpose of conveying them somewhere in a motor vehicle for compensation unless the driver of the motor vehicle and its owner or lessee are licensed

under a municipal bylaw passed under a

section of the Municipal Act to convey passengers for compensation and the licences are displayed in or on the motor vehicle. The new offence does not apply

to public vehicles operated under an operating licence issued under the Public Vehicles Act.

Mr Sampson: That's important.

Mr Gill: That's right; it's an important bill. Thank you, Mr Sampson.

If a person who is convicted of the new offence fails to pay the fine imposed on conviction,

section 46 of the Highway Traffic Act provides that a direction may

be made under

section 69 of the Provincial Offences Act suspending the driver's licence of the person and directing that no driver's licence be issued to the person until the fine is paid. As you

will agree, Mr Speaker, it's a very important bill, so we want to have heavy penalties.

In addition, if a person who is convicted of the new offence fails to pay the fine imposed on conviction, a direction may be made under

section 69 of the

Provincial Offences Act, refusing validation of the person's vehicle permit or issuance of a vehicle permit to the person until the fine is paid. The refusal to validate applies only to the permit

for the vehicle involved in the commission of the offence by virtue of

section 7.12 of the Highway Traffic Act and subsection 69(4) of the Provincial Offences Act.

Whenever a member introduces a private member's bill, many people seek to know what purpose it will serve. I'm sure that similar questions will come up today

from the opposition. They should have brought this bill as well, since this affects everybody.

They wonder what the public good is. Is it a continuation of some old law, or will it make a difference? Well, let me be clear to those listening in the gallery

and those watching at home: this bill is about safety; this bill is about security; this bill is about the enforcement of the law and the protection of the law-abiding citizens and visitors to our

great province.

This bill makes scooping illegal. It prohibits unlicensed and uninsured taxi drivers from picking up passengers at airports or bus shelters in Ontario. In

addition, this bill will end price gouging by the illegal taxi drivers, who are only too anxious to rip off innocent passengers and visitors when they are visiting our fine province.

In terms of the SARS situation, which we have so eloquently handled -- we had a standing ovation for Minister of Health Mr Tony Clement after he came back from

Geneva, after opening up this province to visitors. It is even more important, in light of the SARS situation today, that we open up this province, that we have a great province to showcase to

visitors to keep the economy going.

My bill is unique in Ontario. It gives teeth to the laws of our province. It takes leadership where the federal Liberals have been abandoning the people of

Ontario.

Mr Sampson: Again?

Mr Gill: Again -- over and over and over.

It also addresses an important demand from a list of stakeholders who have the best interests of Ontarians at heart. This includes stakeholders like the Peel

Regional Police -- they agree with this bill, and I have their endorsements -- the Greater Toronto Airport Authority; the Commissionaires Great Lakes; the Airport Taxicab Association; the

municipality of Toronto; the municipality of St Catharines; the town of Wainfleet; the municipality of Niagara Falls; and the municipality of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr Speaker, as you will agree and the members on the opposite side will agree, this is a great bill. I'm very happy that this is being discussed as the first

item of the fourth session of this Parliament, and I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this bill as the first in this session.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am very anxious that we support our legitimate, licensed limousine and taxi owners and operators.

They have a right to expect that when they go through all the process to become duly, legally entitled to run that business, they are not subject to people operating illegally, taking business that

legitimately be theirs and essentially operating illegally.

I'm going to support this bill. I would say to the people in the audience that this is a government that's been elected for eight years. We are days, maybe a few

weeks, away from an election, and the government has not brought forward legislation to deal with it. It is a private member's bill that I'm going to support. I hope the government has endorsed the

bill and put their stamp of approval on the bill. In my opinion, if the government felt it was so important -- and I think it's important -- it should have been introduced as government legislation

years ago. But here we have it today. As I say, I'm going to support the bill. I hope it will work. I hope that it doesn't penalize people who may be in car pools, who may be sharing gas money with

people who drive them to and from work or school. I hope it's designed in a way that solves the legitimate problem of our legitimate business operators who have gone through all of the insurance,

all of the licensing, all of the process to operate business legally. I hope this bill solves their problem, because that's what I want. So I am going to support the bill.

The industry should recognize that we saw this bill this morning. With something this crucial, this important, frankly I would have expected the government to

have dealt with it long ago, and in a more comprehensive fashion. But I'm going to support the bill.

I think one of the challenges we have here in the Legislature is that, as our enforcement agencies have less and less resources, we have to find ways to continue

to uphold the laws using new approaches.

I'll give you an example. I always was hesitant about red light cameras because I felt they ran the risk of intrusion into private matters. But our police

services simply do not have the resources to deal with red light runners on a regular basis. They have other, higher priorities. So I've come to support red light cameras.

I supported a piece of legislation in here from Mr Kells recently dealing with people who put up illegal signs on lawns and whatnot because we don't have the

human resources to enforce it, and we do need to strengthen our laws.

Similarly, in this matter, as I said when I began my remarks, the people who are here in our gallery today and all of the people they represent have a right to

expect that if they're going to follow the law and if they're going to do all that's required -- licensing, making sure their transportation vehicles are safe, paying the very substantial insurance

that I know they pay, the cost of licences, all of those things -- they shouldn't be subject to somebody at an airport or elsewhere taking business from them, perhaps at a lower rate, because

they're not paying the charges that these people face.

So I hope this piece of legislation solves the problem. I would feel far better if, rather than it being a private member's bill, the government had seen fit to

put the priority on this that it should have and had included in government legislation something that had the stamp of approval from the ministry, that had been out for consultation with the

public, and that we were confident would solve the legitimate problems, and solve them in a way that was legally enforceable.

As I say, I'm going to be voting in favour of this, and I hope it works. I think it's unfortunate it was not done in a different way.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): We're back. We were gone for 138 days, and we're back. Finally the Legislature's here. I know that people

back home missed having us here. They wondered where their legislators were since Christmastime. They tuned into the parliamentary channel quite often, looked and said, "Where is the Legislature?

Where is everybody?" I think most people are happy to see us back here. I just want to say to the government that I'm glad you finally got the courage to call the Legislature back so that there is

some public scrutiny on public business. I look forward to, hopefully, your calling an election this spring so we can hold you up to a little bit more public scrutiny when it comes to your

policies.

But we're here today to debate this particular bill,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. I just want to say upfront that we, as the New Democratic caucus of

Ontario, support the bill. We think it's obviously something that makes some sense. But I find it a little bit passing strange that a Conservative backbencher in a Conservative government that has

a mantra of having said, "We are the government of anti-government, and we are the government that wants to do away with regulation," is here trying to regulate yet another industry. I find the

conversion that we've seen of the faith of the Tory caucus from 1995 to today somewhat interesting, and I think most Ontarians find it somewhat confusing, because most people understand, back in

1995 -- remember Mike Harris, the guy that used to be the leader of the Tory caucus; Mike Harris, the former Premier, who won an election in 1995, who came out of third place with his Common Sense

Revolution and really had a hard edge to him? He said, "We are the government that's going there to fix government and dismantle government in many ways." He talked about how regulation was a bad

thing and really had a big mantra about doing away with this interventionist approach of the Legislature when it comes to business and that we have to allow private sector individuals to find their

own way in this economy. After all, you can't have business being bothered by pesky legislators, their pesky legislation and their pesky regulations. I find it somewhat interesting that we see

these government backbench Tories coming into the House and saying, "We've got to regulate yet another industry." I think that's sort of like -- well, I can't use the word because it would be

unparliamentary, but certainly I can say it's passing strange.

I say to the member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale that maybe that explains what his political history was. We know originally he was a Liberal and didn't

get the nomination. He ran for the Tories and finally got the nomination. Maybe he's going back to his old roots. I don't know. But finally somebody has come to their senses over there in the Tory

caucus and recognized that there is a role for government and that government, yes, is about laws and regulation, not about onerous laws and onerous regulation but making sure that there are rules

about how we conduct ourselves in our society when it comes to many of the activities that we do within a civilized society. This particular member says he understands that having unregulated taxis

going out there and scooping fares from the licensed cab industry is a problem. It's a problem not only for the livelihood of honest, hard-working cab drivers in the province of Ontario but also

could potentially be a safety problem when it comes to the unknowing public who may get scooped as a fare by one of these particular cab drivers.

I'm one who travels to Queen's Park. I take the TTC called Air Canada every week. My good friend Mr Bartolucci and other people out there such as Ms Martel and

others who live away from Toronto fly into Terminal 1 at Pearson on a weekly basis when the House is sitting. You see it all the time, right? You walk through the airport terminal and you see these

scoopers standing there, willing to pick up fares and basically usher them away somewhere in the city of Toronto. I have always resisted because, first of all, I say to myself, "Is this person

insured?" If something should happen and there's an accident, there's a large possibility that that scooper could be uninsured. If that was the case and an accident was happening, I'm really

putting my future in that person's hands. I may have no recourse if there should be an accident or a fatality, namely mine. I wouldn't want that to happen, but what would my family do in regard to

being able to go back when it comes to liability? At least we know that if we take one of the airport cabs in the city of Timmins, the city of Toronto or anywhere else, or we flag down a cab

somewhere in the province of Ontario, if it has a bona fide cab licence in it, we know they're licensed and insured. That is an important thing for the consumer to know.

I find it interesting that at Terminal 1, however, scooping is allowed to happen. I've just got to say something on this for a couple of seconds. I often go to

the commissionaires at the airport and say, "There are three scoopers inside, trying to steal the fares from these cabs out front which you haven't called." Do you ever notice that with members who

come into Terminal 1 on a frequent basis, what you end up having -- and my good friend M. Lalonde would know this coming from Ottawa into Terminal 2; you probably have the same thing -- you'll go

to get a cab, and the concierges, the security people, haven't called the cab into the queue so that you can come out the terminal and jump in right away? You'll say to yourself that there's a

pound full of cabs, hundreds of them waiting for fares, waiting to get out there and service the public and make a few dollars for themselves and they haven't been called to the queue. Yet I see

three scoopers at the airport, standing there, willing to take me and usher me away to the parking lot to get into their car. I have to ask myself the question, "Are the commissionaires in on

it?"

We know in the city of Toronto, for example, it is a long-standing practice that doormen at large hotels like the Royal York have their preferred cab drivers.

They basically call them and give them the better fares, and there's a little bit of payola that goes on within that arrangement.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No.

Mr Bisson: Oh, we all know it happens. I've been told that some door people at the poshest hotels in Toronto can make $200 to $300 a day by

referring business to a certain cab driver. I wonder if that practice happens with scoopers at the Toronto airport. I've raised it with the commissionaires and they assure me, of course, that it

doesn't happen. I've also raised it with the RCMP when I'm there and they say, "Oh, don't worry, that doesn't happen." But I still ask myself the question, "Why are there no cabs in the queue at

the airport when scoopers are available?"

I support the member's bill on the basis that it will hopefully deter people from trying to scoop fares from legitimate cab companies and give some enforcement

provisions to municipalities that choose to do something about it.

This is the other part: the enforcement. The unfortunate part about where we find ourselves with this bill, if it's passed, is who is going to be prepared to

enforce it. Some municipalities don't take this issue very seriously and, even though they have enforcement provisions in this legislation, may not choose to enforce this particular provision. I

hope that's not the case, because it is certainly an issue.

The other thing I want to come back to is this whole notion of where the member is going with regard to regulation. I've got to say again that it's very passing

strange to have a Conservative member come to this House and introduce yet more regulation. You had a government under Mike Harris that said, "You know, I believe in less government; I believe in

less red tape, less intervention in people's lives," and here you've got basically Tory backbenchers coming in and trying to regulate everything under the sun. So I think it's interesting. You have

to ask the question, "Why is it that there's been this transition? Why is it that all of a sudden Tories have been coming forward in the last number of years, taking a different view?"

It's probably for a couple of reasons. I think one is because some of them have started to understand that there is a role for government, that we do need laws

and regulations to regulate many aspects of our lives and it is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a necessary thing. But I think it also shows a change, a shift in direction on the part of the Ernie

Eves government. I think under Mike Harris this type of bill was less likely to happen. Under Ernie Eves it's more likely to happen because Mr Eves is really trying to give distance between himself

and the Mike Harris government, and I think --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: God, help; he's not just a Liberal. There are enough of you guys around as it is. We wouldn't want to have more. My, that would be a

scary idea.

The point is -- clearly, when you look at the throne speech from yesterday and you look at initiatives such as this, you say to yourself that here's a government

that figures, finally, that they're in trouble in the polls and are going to have a difficult time trying to seek a third mandate, whenever they do go out to seek that particular mandate, and

they're trying to paint themselves in a different image. It's rather interesting, because it seems that no matter what they try, the public ain't buying it. I think it's a little bit like a bad

marriage. When people just don't love each other and people just don't get along, they can try to stay together as long as they will, but at the end of the day it ain't going to work. I think

that's where the public is at when it comes to this government. It doesn't matter what they try at this point; yesterday in the throne speech there were a couple of items that I think were positive

things, such as the increase in disability pensions, and free tuition for people trying to practise nursing in underserviced communities. There were a couple of good things in that throne speech,

marked with a number of bad things, I would say. But it doesn't matter what this government does, because I think people have made up their minds and that's about all.

L'autre affaire qui est intéressante, c'est qu'on se trouve ici aujourd'hui dans la première journée de débat dans l'Assemblée

après le discours du trône. Ça fait 138 jours que l'Assemblée n'a pas siégé et j'ai ici devant moi le Feuilleton et

Avis de motions du gouvernement. Ce qui est

vraiment intéressant, c'est ce qu'il n'y a pas dans ce feuilleton. C'est un gouvernement qui dit, « Écoute. » M. Eves était très clair depuis qu'il

était parti en vacances au mois de décembre : « On va prendre une petite pause, on va aller s'organiser, on va essayer de trouver une nouvelle direction pour notre

gouvernement. On va essayer de se réorganiser, de repenser, de changer de direction jusqu'à un certain point, et quand on reviendra au mois d'avril, on aura un grand plan pour la province

de l'Ontario. Vous allez voir que nous, les Conservateurs, on a le boulot et on va être capable de s'organiser avec de bonnes initiatives pour la province. » C'était le discours

de M. Eves. Intéressant.

Regardez ce qu'on a ici : l'avis des motions du gouvernement. Il y a un projet de loi, qui était passé hier par consentement unanime, par mon

collègue M. Kormos sur la question du SRAS. Il n'y a pas d'autre projet de loi du gouvernement, aucun projet de loi du gouvernement sur le feuilleton. On a des avis qu'on va avoir des

débats sur le discours du trône, sur la question du budget qui n'a pas eu lieu, que le gouvernement a fait chez Magna International. Mais il n'y a rien comme projet de

loi sur le

feuilleton. Je me dis, intéressant qu'un gouvernement qui nous dit au mois de décembre, au mois de janvier, de février, de mars, d'avril, quand on n'était pas ici à

l'Assemblée, qu'ils étaient préparés à retourner au travail à la fin du mois d'avril et qu'ils avaient un gros agenda pour l'Ontario et qu'ils avaient de nouvelles

solutions pratiques à proposer à la population qu'on s'organise, ne dit rien sur le feuilleton.

I know my colleague Mr Christopherson would want to say a few words on this particular bill. I'm looking for a nod.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Sure.

Mr Bisson: He does, and at this point, now that he is here, I will cede the floor to my good colleague Mr Christopherson.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to join in the debate in support of the member Raminder Gill, from Mississauga.

I know that this is also supported by the other members from Mississauga, with respect to ensuring that the licensing requirements are respected with people who do business in the airport area and

also in the transit terminals.

The bill has been brought forth by the member. The process -- it's obviously private members', so he's got a right to bring the bill forth -- the process is it

is going to be debated here in the Legislature; it will be voted on in the Legislature. The member at that particular point in time, in terms of the normal process, would ask that this be put to a

standing committee for fuller discussion with respect to public input. That's the process that is envisioned. I am not disappointed, like the member from Scarborough-Agincourt, with respect to this

process. This is why we have private members'. This an issue that is important to Raminder Gill and what he thinks is important for his area.

I was looking at an

article that was in the paper with respect to the MPP vowing action on taxi scoopers. That is the title of the

article and that is what we

are dealing with today. It is a bill that is targeting individuals who are not doing business in a licensed capacity. The amendment to the Highway Traffic Act would make it an offence to transport

passengers for compensation without being licensed in the municipality. If you are going to do business in a municipality, you should be licensed like any other business operator. You shouldn't be

able to have an unfair advantage where other people who are doing business are licensed. They're paying their dues with respect to being able to do that business. If you want to be in that

business, you should also be paying the licence fees to make it a level playing field.

Currently taxi operators, known as scoopers, face a maximum $70 trespassing fine for snatching fares from licensed vehicles that pay up to $4,800 a year to work

the lucrative airport beat -- that's the Pearson International. The scoopers often overcharge and double fares. According to this

article in the Toronto Star dated August 21, 2001.

The proposal --

Interjection.

Mr Tascona: The Toronto Star does get it factually correct at times. Obviously with Mr Gill's bill, they are certainly being factual.

Under the proposed bill, if fines go unpaid, authorities would be able to suspend the driver's licence until they are paid, and repeat offenders could have their

taxi permits suspended. To date, the proposed amendment has the support of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, taxi and limousine drivers' associations and several Peel-area MPPs. I notice

Minister DeFaria has entered the chamber and I know that he's very supportive of this piece of legislation.

I would say that there are avenues and areas of the bill that are bringing stiffer penalties. For example, offences and penalties: it has on first conviction a

fine of not less than $305 and not more than $500, and on each subsequent conviction a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $5,000.

The intent here is to put individuals on notice that they need to be licensed. That's all we're talking about here: be licensed, respect the rights of the

owner of the premises with respect to who is going to pick up passengers and drop off passengers. If they're going to do that for compensation, then obviously they should be licensed and respect

the laws of the municipality.

I think the member has worked very hard on this bill. He should be commended for the hard work that he's done, a lot of work to get stakeholder support, which

is to be commended. So obviously the public is aware of this and he is aware of their concerns in putting together the bill.

I'm very pleased to have spoken on the bill and I support it.

Mr Bradley: I'm simply pleased that the Ontario Legislature is back in session. The people at home were turning on the channel looking for the

Ontario Legislature. They saw that the federal House was in session since January. When I explained to people in St Catharines and Niagara that the Ontario Legislature had not sat since December

12, 2002, and that the first question period would be May 1, 2003, they were astounded and appalled at the thumbing of the nose at democracy by the Ernie Eves government. I'm sure they are pleased

that the Legislative Assembly is back in session now so that legislation of this kind can come forward.

I thought perhaps there would be a bill banning government advertising. I know you can't use props but I thought I would just hold this up. Every day there is

a pamphlet showing up at the house which is clearly partisan; you turn on your television set and there are partisan ads being paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario; you turn on your radio and there

are partisan ads; you open the newspaper and there are partisan ads -- all paid for by the grateful taxpayers and extolling the virtues of the Conservative government.

I think that Ernie Eves -- and he has the money -- should, on behalf of the Conservative Party, sign a cheque paying for all these ads that are clearly

partisan, that are clearly in violation of even the weak Management Board guidelines that we have here. I know that this is very concerning to many people in this province and I thought the bill

might be on that, but it's not.

I want to say to the member that I happen to agree with this bill. I think it has to go to committee because, as some people have mentioned, there's a problem

if you have a carpool and people are sharing in the costs of the carpool.

We want to ensure, first of all, that we have qualified drivers who have a good driving record; second, that there is proper insurance; third, that the

vehicles are in proper, safe condition -- I think those are very important -- and that those who are in the taxi business or the limousine business meet all of the qualifications, stipulations,

regulations and legislation that is imposed upon those who are a legitimate business. Sure you can give a ride for a much lower price if you're prepared to not meet all those obligations, but the

legitimate businesses out there have to meet those obligations. That's why I think it's important that this legislation, in a modified form perhaps, pass the Legislature at third reading.

I'm glad I heard in the speech from the throne that now the votes on private members' bills are going to be free votes. For all my years in the Legislature I

thought they were all free votes. I found out that the government, through the whip on the government side, was making government members vote in a certain way. Now I see in the speech from the

throne that's not going to be the case, and that there will be twice as many opportunities to present these bills, which means of course twice as many opportunities for the government to deep-six

these bills, to make sure they get nowhere if they don't want the bill to proceed.

This bill is one that I am certainly prepared to support. I think that for the safety of passengers out there, it's important. For fairness to those who are

under regulations and legislation and policy obligations, the bill should pass. I'm glad to see that the member who presents the bill, Mr Gill, who once ran for the federal Liberal nomination in

his riding and was not successful in that case, has finally been able to get this issue before the House, because his government certainly wouldn't bring it before the House.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's indeed my pleasure, as usual, to support my colleague Mr Gill. He is always working to recognize important

issues to his constituents and, in a broader sense, to the people of Ontario. It's his reasonableness and fair-mindedness that I've always strongly supported.

I would say that I was first impressed with Mr Gill when he quite respectfully asked me to speak on South Asian Heritage Day. Now he's giving me a note that he

actually doesn't want me to speak on this. But I do support it and I'm just going to be on the record as supporting it. Thank you, Mr Gill. I think Mr Galt wanted to speak, but he isn't here.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I stand in support of this legislation and compliment my friend from

Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for bringing it forward.

I don't often get the chance in this place to talk about the fact that I'm the son of a truck driver. I take a lot of taxis -- fewer airline limousines than

taxis -- but in my downtown riding I take advantage of taxis, and I'm of the opinion that taxi drivers and truck drivers are among the hardest-working people I know. Many of the people who have

joined today to show their support for this legislation are among those workers in our society who, in order to eke out a living, are asked to work a lot of hours. So I support this

legislation.

The issue of scooping is a practice that I've seen occur too many times. When I'm at Pearson, usually to pick friends up at the airport and the like, I go out

of my way to instigate a debate with those people I see doing it. I think it's a repugnant tactic that needs to be cracked down upon, and that's why I'll be supporting this legislation.

It doesn't only occur, as many people will know, at Pearson. Union Station is in my riding, and Union Station is another place where these kinds of devils work

to scoop off the legitimate fares that would otherwise go to people who are paying pretty extensive licensing fees and pretty extensive insurance fees as well to operate their small businesses on

wheels in our fair cities and jurisdictions. It's for these reasons that I'm inclined to offer support for this legislation.

At the same time, I think it would be appropriate to point out that legislation like this has been passed before but not brought forward to the point where the

government saw it move forward as a piece of legislation. I would say to members who are here to offer support to Mr Gill that they might want to press him just a little bit harder to get his

government not only to allow him the prominent position of having this bill debated as the first bill after we returned from our rather extensive Christmas holiday, but that they might actually

move forward with it and give delivery to their good symbolism associated with the first order of business.

I think for people who have had a chance to take a look at the bill as it's currently worded, there are some challenges with it, some challenges, as an

example, that might limit the ability of people trying to arrange car pools to receive some compensation for the expense associated with being the primary vehicle operator. I don't think it was the

intention to scoop up people in that kind of circumstance. I think of a place like York University. We know it's a university that's highly dependent upon 905-area students, and parking on site at

York University is brutal. Public transit access, although minorly enhanced by GO Transit in recent years, is still very poor. We need to be able to encourage solutions like car pooling to make it

more accessible. This bill does provide some constraint around that. It's the kind of thing we can deal with in committee -- members working together in good faith -- but the bill as currently

written does pose some difficulties that way.

The last point I would want to put on record is that I do think we have an issue with respect to licence holders versus operators. I'm a little more familiar

with the circumstance as it relates to taxis in the city of Toronto than I am with the circumstance related to airport limousines. One of the great frustrations I've seen is that over time in our

city of Toronto, we've done a much better job of enriching the licence owner than we have the person who puts in more hours than we care to imagine behind the wheels of vehicles providing

services.

I'm one of those who is always going to be on the side of supporting the right and the capacity of people who are behind the wheel to make a better living,

because truck drivers and taxi drivers, people who, as I said at the beginning, are amongst my heroes and the hardest working --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to take a couple of minutes, literally, to comment on Bill 2, tabled by my friend from

Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. Like my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, I also will be supporting this bill. I think it's an important measure.

I spent some time when I was on Hamilton city council as chair of the Hamilton licensing committee, and regulating the taxicab industry is an important part of

what a municipal licensing committee does. I want to say to anybody who thinks that unless you're in the industry, you understand it, you're kidding yourself. It's a very complex industry with many

different factors that can affect, quite frankly, the ability of a community to provide transportation infrastructure, as well as for people to earn a decent living, and it's tough work.

The reason we need to do this, in my opinion, is -- the first thing is to identify: does something need to be regulated? Is it in the public interest? Is there

a safety issue? If you determine that, yes, it's in the best interest of the public or the participants of an industry to be regulated, then the next step is to make sure that there's adequate

enforcement, for the simple reason that if you don't, then you get into the situation where -- and members of this House will know -- there is construction taking place in Ontario that's

practically regulating itself. Unless we're in there forcing them to follow the rules -- and often, yes, those rules mean you've got to spend a few bucks. But unless we're in there enforcing those

rules, what it means is those who break the law and don't follow the rules make more money because they don't have these expenses and they're able to undercut legitimate members of that particular

aspect of our economy. This is the same thing. If we have determined as a society in Ontario that we want to give municipalities the power to regulate, then we need to make sure there's enough

provincial teeth in the enforcement that violating the rules doesn't just become a licence to do business: pay the fine and call it a cost of doing business. It's got to be tough enough to deter.

It's also got to be broad enough to make sure that everybody is involved, so that no one is taking advantage of the system and, quite frankly, ripping off legitimate participants in the taxicab

industry.

So I'm very pleased that the honourable member has brought this forward, and I will be equally pleased to lend my support and vote to his Bill 2.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): Thanks very much for the opportunity to respond to one of the earlier bills brought before the

House and to compliment Mr Gill, the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, for looking out for his constituents and being aware of the issue in his riding. Certainly only a very small number

of us get to have big airports in their riding. As a matter of fact, after the next boundary change, I'll have an airport every bit as big, being that the one in Trenton, or now Quinte West, will

actually become a part of my riding. As a matter of fact, I'm very enthused to be able to welcome the member from Prince Edward-Hastings, Ernie Parsons, into my riding with these new boundary

changes as one of my constituents. I certainly look forward to that.

Getting around to speaking specifically on the bill that the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale has brought in, I see this as an issue of safety. I

also see it as an issue of being attractive to visitors to our country, particularly when it comes to tourism.

I've travelled in many other countries where the culture is very different, and as I have been picking up my bags, there has been somebody at my elbow who for

X number of pesos or lire or whatever the money happened to be in that country would take you to the hotel, and meanwhile the official ones are outside. They are there to "scoop," to take advantage

of someone new in their country, where you don't really understand the rules and regulations, you don't really know what the cost is, you have no idea of how far it is from the airport to the

city.

As a matter of fact, I landed in one country and it turned out that we landed on an island and we had to go by ferry. When I asked about a taxi, they just sort

of laughed. I looked out the door and could see, obviously, what the problem was. It was actually a fair distance on a ferry.

So it's this kind of thing, when you land in a foreign country and you may be taken advantage of because people are there trying to scoop up, trying to make a

buck on the side, so to speak.

There is also the safety issue. These people who may be giving this so-called cut-rate fare, who are trying to get a fare from you, may not have proper

insurance. If anything should happen, of course, you as an occupant, as a visitor to this country or even returning home and not quite understanding what's going on, might not have a fair amount of

coverage.

We might talk about price gouging going on here. I'm sure many of the members in this House have been on a trip someplace and have been offered a side trip

which is so much, and then you start finding out that they have things to add on. There are tolls on bridges or there's so much for gas or so much because the car is a different vintage or so much

because it's an extra few minutes over what was originally negotiated. They have these add-ons, and you feel that you're really caught. I can see that happening in this situation, that they make an

agreement at the airport, so much to go downtown, but then they say, "Well, downtown started over here and you're going to have to pay the extra to get all the way." I see that kind of thing as an

issue, as a problem. With the present industry, the rate is set and you know where you're at, that when you get into that licensed vehicle it's going to be X number of dollars. You may disagree

with the amount. It may be more than you think it's really worth or really should be charged, but you know exactly where you are at when the rate has been set.

I see it combined here, having some assurance and insurance for the person who's at the airport, whether they be a Canadian or a visitor to our country, and I

think it's important that we provide that.

The current tourism industry is having a real struggle. First the Americans weren't too happy with Canadians because our federal government wouldn't stand

behind our American friends; some 40 other countries would, but not so our federal government. They've stood behind us in thick and thin and have been very, very supportive of us, particularly on

the security of our nation. Then, after we sort of get the Americans upset with us and get a lot of contracts cancelled -- and a lot of people who were wanting to come to my area on vacation this

summer have cancelled for that reason -- we have the SARS outbreak and the difficulties with that. That's affecting tourism. And it's not only affecting tourists coming here and people who might be

using these vehicles. For example, Trinity College in my riding has just been told by people in Switzerland not to come over because of SARS here in Ontario. I think that's extremely unfortunate,

and I believe our medical officer of health will be able to get that sorted out.

These are some of the things our tourism industry is struggling with right now, and they don't need to have this problem at the airport that has been brought

to our attention by the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

Often when you arrive in a country, the very first exposure you have to that culture, to that society and to those people is your ride from the airport. If

that's a bad message, if that's a bad image, you're left with a very bad taste in your mouth as to everything about that country. You only have one opportunity for a first impression. You do not

have a second opportunity to make a good first impression, and this is the individual, the person who's driving that vehicle that may be unsafe, or it may be a situation of price gouging that is

occurring.

So I certainly support the member in bringing forward this particular bill, because with the position we're in with tourism right now I think anything we can

do to promote and enhance the image of the province of Ontario, and in particular Toronto because of the SARS incident -- it's well under control, and my compliments to Dr Colin D'Cunha and to Dr

James Young. They are two people who are exhausted, who have worked extremely hard over the last two months. Because of them and with their leadership, working with the Honourable Tony Clement, our

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, this SARS incident has come under control, no thanks to our federal government, which has taken some two months to get around to photocopying a form that

people could fill out prior to getting on an airplane coming to this country. You would have thought the least they could do would have been to photocopy a few sheets of paper and have proper

screening of people coming to this country. But no, they sat back and waited. I find that extremely unfortunate. Maybe in June they'll get these machines, heat-imaging systems that can screen

people as they get off airplanes to see if they're running a temperature. I think that's unfortunate.

Also, the federal government should have been in Geneva this week, should have been over there getting the World Health Organization to lift the sanction on

Ontario, on Canada. But they were missing. The light was out; they just weren't at home. Who had to go? We had to send the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, to do a

job that the federal government should have been doing.

This is all about tourism. It's all about people being properly looked after when they arrive in our country, when they're on our doorstep, and giving a very

positive, upbeat message to them. As long as this kind of situation that our member has brought before us is going on, we're not going to enhance the image of tourism. So I really compliment the

member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for bringing this forward, for recognizing the difficulties that he is having at the airport in his riding and supporting the people from his

community.

The Acting Speaker: In response, the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

Mr Gill: I do want to thank all the members who spoke so eloquently, especially members from my caucus, in support of this bill. Everybody has

recognized that it's an important bill. It's long overdue. In fact, as I mentioned in my

preamble, ever since I came on the scene on June 3, 1999, people in my constituency who are affected by this

problem of scoopers have come to me and said they've talked to every other level of government, including the provincial governments before, the NDP and the Liberal, and the federal government for

the last umpteen years. By umpteen, I mean at least 10 to 15 years. They came to me and I said, "You know, if the government is not willing to do it, then as a private member I'm going to bring it

forward. I'm going to make sure that the voices of the people who are my friends, who are my family, who are the great, hard workers of this province" -- these are the people, along with many of us

and many other people, who are making this province the best place in the world to live, work and raise our families, which is Ontario.

I'm very, very pleased that today is the South Asian Heritage Month. Many members opposite, even right now while they should be here debating this bill, are

out there, not even recognizing that I brought forward the South Asian Heritage Month, talking about how wonderful the South Asian community is, and that is true. But I hope they give some credit

to me, because I brought forward that bill.

I'm very happy to acknowledge some of the members who are here today who are affected by this bill, and they're looking forward to the resolution: Mr Gursharan

Singh Puar, Swarn Singh Karron, Mann Singh Aulakh, Bhupinder Singh Gill, Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, Gurmej Singh Dhillon, Daljinder Singh Puar, Gurmeet Singh, Karam Singh Punia, Tehal Singh Thabal,

Jaswinder Brar, Khushwinder Gill and Nick Dhaliwal.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for this ballot item. I will place the question to dispose of this matter at 12 o'clock

noon.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

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

Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while a person is driving on a highway / Projet de loi 3, Loi

modifiant le Code de la route pour interdire l'utilisation de téléphones et d'autres équipements pendant qu'une personne conduit sur une voie publique.

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

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is indeed my pleasure. In fact, I've been waiting for a number of days to get back to the Legislature to bring

this important issue before the House once again. For those viewing and listening today, I'd like to remark at the beginning that our Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Frank Klees, is

here, and he is listening. I know he is interested in this important issue, because it's about the broader issue of road safety on our provincial highways, which is a top priority with Minister

Klees.

I'm also impressed with the list of people who have sought me out to speak on this bill, including Joe Tascona, the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. He

seldom speaks on private members' business. He is a person whose voice I want on the record; also Toby Barrett of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. He is from southwestern Ontario, as you know, and drives a

lot. He's also a person who has taken some interest in the statistics part of the issue of accidents on our public roadways. And of course the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, Mr Miller, who has

actually doggedly been after me to speak on this bill because he takes a great interest in road safety, as he also commutes from northern Ontario, or the near north, if we'd call it that.

In the interest of those viewing, this bill was discussed in the House, as you might know, and passed second reading. When the House was prorogued, the bill

was dropped from the order paper, obviously. But that bill had passed under some scrutiny at that time. We worked with staff in the Ministry of Transportation as well as with legislative counsel

staff to improve the bill. I want to bring to the attention of those who have been following this that the bill has been strengthened. The bill has been strengthened in the following ways since the

second reading in the last session.

It now bans all novice drivers from using cellphones at any time while operating a motor vehicle -- these are the G1s, the progressive driver licensing system

we have in Ontario -- whether they use hands-free devices or not. So persons without experience would be prohibited from using electronic devices while driving. I think it's the driver distraction

issue that you will hear repeated throughout the debate this morning.

The second improvement allows the Minister of Transportation, Mr Klees, to add visual devices.

Interruption.

Mr O'Toole: Pardon me. I have to turn this off. They are very distracting, as you can see -- the Sergeant at Arms here is going to come and

take the phone -- but it was for demonstration purposes only. I commit to you that it won't happen again, but it does demonstrate how it does intrude into our space. As long as he doesn't take it

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: No, you're not getting it, Wayne. Give it to me afterwards. That's a very important thing: you can't disagree with the Sergeant at

Arms here. You can actually be arrested. You'll be charged with failing to yield your cellphone.

Actually, one of the persons who has been watching this phoned me. Probably the cellphone companies were calling me to say, "Stop. Stop now."

I will demonstrate the number of electronic devices. This device here, Mr Speaker, you'd know, is not on and Wayne won't take this one. It is actually a

personal data device, and that device allows you to -- this is interesting. I'd like everyone to pay attention a little more closely. I could actually e-mail Europe and Australia from here. I would

never do that, because that isn't allowed in the House. But, for instance, I could receive an e-mail from my daughter in England right now. In fact, I think I did get one this morning. This is

growing. In fact, this device is now available in your car. So really, I'm talking about electronic devices, and what I'm suggesting is that the Minister of Transportation, through regulation,

would be able to add and delete devices that would keep our roads safer. That's all technology.

We all know, if we're paying attention, about OnStar systems within cars -- very convenient. They're hands-free; they're voice-activated. They're very much a

safety aid in the car -- someone who's lost, someone who's in need of aid, an accident. These devices are the leading edge of safety in the vehicle. There are other technologies, but OnStar is the

preferred one at the moment.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): General Motors.

Mr O'Toole: General Motors happens to be a leader in the auto industry, and I respect them for that.

I would say the last amendment that we made is to address recommendations that I heard throughout the extensive consultations I've had on this bill --

consultations with the Ontario Safety League as well as with the police chiefs and the police associations. I know some of the other speakers will be putting some of that information on the

record.

But the broader issue with which I'm challenging the members here today, specifically the Minister of Transportation, is that in driver tests we address the

issue of driver distraction. Driver distraction is the multi-tasking that I see every day as I drive to Queen's Park from my riding in Durham, which, by the way, is a terrific riding. During that

drive, I see people having toast and coffee, doing their hair, reading the paper, reading a book. In fact, I was speaking yesterday after the throne speech with Chief Fantino of the Toronto police

and he said to me the worst case -- Mr Smitherman, you should pay attention. Chief Fantino is watching and he supports this bill. He said to me the worst case he has seen is a person driving a Land

Rover down Bay Street with two cellphones. I wouldn't misquote Chief Fantino.

I was also speaking yesterday with the commissioner of the OPP, Gwen Boniface, and I asked her views on this bill. So I have consulted from the top to the

bottom, and that would include Mr Smitherman. But I would say that the quotes I'm most enthralled with are working with my own constituents, and in that case I must put on the record Chief Kevin

McAlpine from the Durham Regional Police. This is his quote: "Driving is a full-time responsibility that requires total concentration. We certainly support any move that enhances a driver's ability

to concentrate by reducing the number of distractions inside the vehicle." It is a driver's decision when, where and how to use any of these devices, whether it's a radio or, indeed, interacting

with people in the vehicle.

The second person is Frank Murphy, the executive director of the Head Injury Association of Durham Region. Frank says, "... we strongly oppose the use of

cellphones while driving; and, subsequently, we support legislation that means to control cellphone use in cars."

Clearly, I would say that we've had support across the region. In fact, I would say we've had support across the sectors.

Udo Rauk, of Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, says, "We congratulate you on your effort to focus on driver distractions and to identify preventative

measures for safety and security for drivers/passengers of motor vehicles."

I'd have to say that I'm interested in the debate this morning and in clearly asking for your support, because I hear on a daily basis from the drivers in the

province of Ontario. I can tell you they overwhelmingly support measures that will improve road safety. At the very top of their list they put the use of cellphones while driving as generally

inappropriate. They also quickly acknowledge that having a cellphone in the vehicle while travelling alone -- perhaps younger people needing to access instructions on how to get to a destination or

to access safety support on the road. There is appropriate time for their use, and I guess my advice to the people is to reduce the distractions in the driver's space. That would include all

distractions: road signs, multi-tasking, coffee, arguing with someone else in the car, trying to correct the dog that's barking in the back seat -- any of these distractions you have to respond

to.

I believe the current tools that are available to the police are too restrictive, and I would say there has been no evidence that the courts have upheld the

careless driving charge, which carries with it a significant fine as well as six points. I'm asking for your support this morning. I believe it's the right thing to do to keep our roads safer in

the province of Ontario.

I know there was a very serious incident in the riding of Durham the last time I introduced this bill in the House. A young man and his young daughter were

tragically killed, and from that there was an inquest. Officer Stone, it was reported at the inquest, said he would like to support the reduced use of cellphones while operating a vehicle. Out of

respect for that family, and for all families that are affected by this, this is the right thing to do.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I'm going to be sharing my time with the members for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, St Catharines and Hamilton

East.

I'd like to say, off the top, our condolences to the family who suffered this tragedy. But I just don't think this legislative response is the way to go.

I find it passing strange that this bill is being introduced by a Conservative member. This is the kind of regulation that Conservatives ordinarily have great

trouble with. If you look at the distractions that are out there causing accidents, cellphones are way down the list. I say to the member opposite, what's next? A ban on Big Macs in the driver's

seat? Obviously not. The major distractions in the car -- you can get a television in your vehicle now -- are radios, Walkmans, somebody else in the car. The statistics show us that those are the

distractions in the car, and the major distractions are outside the car. It's not the interior distractions but the exterior distractions. Everybody who drives down the Gardiner Expressway and sees

some of those advertisements knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Cellphones are very much a safety device, a way in which we can assist police and emergency workers -- to tip them off as to accidents that are out there in

the streets -- and are very much of enormous assistance to working families leading just-in-time lives. At the end of the day, I don't think this will make our streets safer. Moreover, I'm

concerned that once we head down this path, what other particular activity is going to targeted by this government?

Again, I'm convinced that the Conservatives' answer to gun control is cellphone control. Conservatives tell me that guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Well, it's people who cause accidents, and it requires education and incentives and assistance from government and industry to reduce these accidents. This industry in particular has bent over

backwards to assist governments and the public in educating the public and encouraging safe cellphone use.

Conservatives also say, "Don't punish law-abiding gun owners by restricting their use." In this case, Conservatives are not only punishing responsible users of

cellphones; they are just outright eliminating the use and eliminating all those opportunities for the safe and positive use of cellphones.

I can't support this. I think this government has to work better with the industry to educate people, to ensure that cellphones continue to be a safety device

on the streets. If we're going to tackle the distractions, let's tackle the distractions outside the car and the real distractions in the car and not get bogged down with this particular

effort.

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

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Our caucus is growing, Mr Speaker. Do you see that? It's growing right before my eyes. Oh, it's leaving.

Thanks for the visit.

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Easy come, easy go.

Mr Bisson: Who says you can't have fun in the Legislature of Ontario? It's a wonderful place. We're very privileged individuals, being elected

by our constituents to be here to represent them and do all the fine work we all do in the name of our constituents. Sometimes there actually are some funny moments in this House, and we just saw

one.

Anyway, we had this debate last fall. Do you remember what happened? We debated this, we supported it, the House voted on it, we all said yes. I don't think

anybody voted against it last time. Am I correct in saying it was unanimous? I'm just looking for the member across the way. It was unanimous last time, wasn't it? There were some people who voted

against it? OK. I was a bit surprised.

Anyway, the point is, the majority of people in the House voted in favour of this bill and the bill was referred to committee, which is something we don't see

too often around here. The bill actually got referred to the general government committee. It was sent there on October 17 last year. Guess what happened? Nothing.

Mr Bryant: What? They killed it?

Mr Bisson: Nothing happened. The government never even called it for debate in the committee. It was referred to committee on October 17. We

had an opportunity to deal with this bill at committee level, but the government never chose to call the bill before the committee. So you've got to ask yourself: what's this exercise all about? I

thought we debated this last year, and when we voted at second reading and this thing got passed, I expected that the government was going to deal with the bill because it's an important issue. I

think it doesn't go as far as it needs to, as my good friend pointed out earlier, but it is a step in the right direction. It was sponsored, I think, by the esteemed Mr O'Toole as well. He's

supposedly a heavyweight in his caucus, I'm told.

Mr Bryant: You can see that.

Mr Bisson: You can see by the people who are here now. The government didn't call it forward. So you've got to ask yourself: how heavy is that

weight across the way? Not very heavy, because they never --

Mr Guzzo: You guys blocked it. Who blocked those committees?

Mr Bisson: Oh, we blocked the committees. Give me a break. You guys changed the rules in this House. We couldn't block a committee if we

tried. My God. I go to House leaders' meetings every week. What are you talking about? My Lord. We're reverting over here to voting -- never mind; I'm not even going to go there.

I believe this is a good initiative, but I have to ask my self: how sincere is the government in dealing with this issue? We voted on this at second reading

last fall. Members in good faith engaged in debate and brought forward their ideas about how the bill could be made better. We all concede the point that every bill that comes before this House is

never perfect, but at least this bill was a step in the right direction. We supported, by majority of the House, the bill that was put forward last fall by Mr O'Toole. We voted. We even voted to

refer it to committee, and the government chose to do nothing with it.

You have to ask yourself what happened. Was Mike Harris then the Premier of Ontario? Maybe Mike didn't want it to happen? No. Last time I checked it was EE,

Ernie Eves, who was the guy in charge last fall. Why is it that it wasn't called forward? Why was nothing dealt with?

We know that the province of Newfoundland has dealt with this particular issue. I think they're the first jurisdiction in Canada to bring forward such

legislation. I would hope that Ontario, being the largest province with the most motorists and probably the heaviest proliferation of cellphones in Canada, would want to do something similar. But

the government chose not to call the bill forward before the committee, and by not doing that, allowed the bill to be passed.

So I say to the member across the way, I'll go through the exercise again. I'll support your bill. But I want to know how sincere your government is in wanting

to make this thing happen. I'll just say I'm a little bit pessimistic because they had the chance last fall to pass this bill. In all likelihood, we're here for about two weeks. If you get a little

bump in the polls, we'll probably be out in the election. I suppose this is an attempt on the part of Mr O'Toole -- and God rest his soul, we all have to advocate for the issues that we think are

important to us, and I know he's doing this for all the right reasons -- but this is an attempt for him to say, "I'm back at it again, and I'm the guy who's going to basically run my whole campaign

this spring on banning cellphones out of those cars in Oshawa."

So I say to the member across the way, I'll support it, but I'm not very confident that the government ain't going to sit here long enough for it to pass.

There will be a change of regime. As we liked to say this winter, change of regime has been a very big line used by other people around the world, so maybe we should use it here. We're going to

have a regime change in Ontario in the next election and in all likelihood this government, or should I say this regime, is not going to have an opportunity to deal with this particular bill.

Or maybe -- maybe -- the government ain't going to call an election. Now that brings me to the second part of my debate. What happens if they don't call an

election this spring and decide to go till this fall or next spring? What gives me the confidence -- and I ask Mr O'Toole this question directly -- to believe that the government is going to deal

with this bill any more seriously than it dealt with it last fall?

I need to have an answer to that question. It's not a vote-getter for me, Mr O'Toole. I'm going to support it no matter what you say because I think it's a

step in the right direction. But I want you to answer that question. I think we in the Legislature and, more importantly, the public of Ontario, have to have an answer to that question. If you got

this passed last spring, and the government chose not to make it law, what makes you think you have any confidence that your government will do so, should they not call an election within the next

two weeks?

Now, on to the bill --

Mr Guzzo: Didn't you hear the throne speech?

Mr Bisson: What throne speech? I sat here for 45 minutes yesterday. I read the lines as the Lieutenant Governor was reading them. I was

looking for new initiatives. Ernie Eves said, "I need a big long break because we have to go back and regroup. We're going to come back with this big agenda, and we're going to have all these new

ideas for the people of Ontario."

I thought I'd fallen and gone to sleep a year ago and listened to the budget statement of last year, because most of what was in that throne speech was stuff

that was talked about last year. Seventy percent of it was old stuff, so there wasn't a throne speech in the way that I understand them in this place. This was a pre-election document; that's the

way I saw it.

Anyway, to the cellphone issue. I have to agree with the member: this is an issue. It really is. We're all guilty, I think, in this Legislature. At least I'll

speak for myself; I won't say to other members that they've done it. But I've done it. I've got my cellphone. It's turned off. It's a PalmPilot, Wayne. But I've brought this in just to show it.

It's turned off. I promise it's not going to ring.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that legal in here?

Mr Bisson: It's only a prop. Can I have unanimous consent just to use this as a prop?

The Acting Speaker: Mr Bisson has asked for unanimous consent to use the PalmPilot as a prop. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Bisson: How often have we done this? We don't need to talk on our cellphones as we're driving down the road. We've got it sitting in our

car or inside our pocket, and all of a sudden you're turning a corner and the thing goes, "Ring," and it's just like a reflex. It's like Pavlov's dog. The phone rings, you grab it and you go,

"Hello?" and before you know it, you're driving off the road or trying to run somebody off the sidewalk because you're not where you should be with your car because you're not paying attention. I

think there should be a deterrent for people like me and others not to use these cellphones, quite frankly, when we're driving.

I have really done an extraordinary job of not using it, because I used to be the worst offender. I've got to admit, I say it in this Legislature, I was one of

the worst offenders of using cellphones while driving. I've had a couple of incidents that have shown me that, man, am I ever lucky I didn't run somebody over. There was one incident where I almost

ran into somebody because my cellphone rang as I was at a stop sign at the corner of Commercial and Cameron, out by my place. I stepped on the gas in the time that the phone was ringing, I picked

it up, and somebody came running out in front of my car. I just happened to catch him out of the corner of my eye. It was a truck, actually, a 1995 green Ford truck. I can't afford a big car on my

wages, lowly little MPP that I am. So basically, I was very, very lucky.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Never mind the airplane, the boat, the motorcycle, the trips around the world; I can't afford the truck. Now you know why.

But I have to say, I almost ran this person over, and that taught me a very valuable lesson: that these things should not be allowed in vehicles, and I have

sworn off these things. Turn them off. Don't use them while you're in the car. They're very dangerous things. I support your initiative.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to join in the debate on a very serious issue that is brought forth by the

member for Durham. I would say that the member for Durham has been working on this issue very hard and he's had tremendous stakeholder input with respect to this particular piece of

legislation.

I think what is fundamentally important here and where the members opposite have missed the point, which is not surprising, is that the purpose of the bill is

"to help reduce the number of accidents on Ontario roads by banning the use of hand-held cellphones and other devices while driving."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Tascona: I woke them up, so I'm going to repeat where I was. The purpose of the bill, if you want to read it, is "to help reduce the number

of accidents on Ontario roads by banning the use of hand-held cellphones and other devices while driving." The purpose of the bill in terms of driver safety and also in terms of dealing with driver

education is obviously intended to deal with making the roads safer.

Everybody knows that cars can kill people and that cars are operated by people. The number of people who are killed on our roads is significant enough; we

don't need any more distractions in terms of the type of devices that Mr O'Toole is trying to deal with.

The bill will also collect accident data when investigation cites the use of technology as the cause of the accident. This is similar to the current practice

when alcohol or the failure to use seat belts are a factor in an accident. This is very important information that is going to be collected.

This bill is a different version from the previous bill. There have been some changes that have been made when it was passed for second reading in the last

session, and they include the following: banning all novice drivers from using cellphones, whether they use a hands-free device or not; allowing the Minister of Transportation to add additional

devices to the banned list through regulation -- this will help the legislation keep pace with changing technologies, and we've seen a number of the members today show to the public devices that

are being used: PalmPilots, BlackBerries, cellphones, to name a few; and also mandating that the Ontario driver licence tests include portions on driver distractions. So there are some very

fundamental objectives here with respect to making sure that we make the roads safer. That's what it's all about.

There are some quotes I'd like to refer to from an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 29, 2001: "We need to regulate the use of cell

phones and other driver-distracting devices. This is a no-brainer." You can tell that to the member from St Paul, based on his comments.

Lyne Fortin, Canadian Automobile Association, on CBC.ca, February 24, 2002: "It's as simple as that: don't talk and drive."

Also, the Honourable Heather Forsyth, Solicitor General from Alberta: "It's ridiculous for anyone in this House to believe they are in complete control of

their vehicle while talking on a hand-held cell phone ... Simply talking on a hand-held cell phone has become a dangerous distraction." That's from the province of Alberta.

I just want to say that this is a serious issue. The member has done extensive consultations. I think he's done a very thorough job with respect to working

with the Ministry of Transportation and dealing with the issue.

This is an issue that is very serious because of the volume we have on our roads. There is no room for error with respect to distractions, whether it's the

radio or whether it's a cellphone. How can you drive the vehicle when you've got one hand on a cellphone and the other hand on the steering wheel when you're dealing with a tremendous amount of

traffic volume?

The member from St Paul's missed the purpose of the bill. He also says, "Don't penalize safe cellphone users." Where have we heard that argument? He cites the

gun registry. The arguments on the gun registry were, "Don't penalize people who are responsible gun owners." But he twists it around to his own context with respect to cellphone use because he is

obviously in favour of having cellphone use out there at any time.

There's no doubt that cellphones are used as a safety device in terms of notifying the public and the police with respect to accidents out there, obviously to

tell people or your loved ones where you are if you get into car problems. But the bottom line is, cars kill and guns kill.

What we're dealing with here is a purposeful piece of legislation with respect to safety in dealing with distractions. We're not trying to penalize safe

cellphone use. What we're trying to do is make sure that our roads are safer, making sure that drivers are educated, making sure that drivers know what the rules are and deal with the

technology.

Mr Bradley: My first question to my friend Mr O'Toole is, what on earth happened to the bill? I thought his bill had passed the House

originally. I see in the throne speech it says that all votes are now going to be free in private members' hour. Here, all these years, I was under the impression, listening to government members

speak, that they were all free votes. Now I find out that the government whip was controlling these votes. The fact that they would deep-six his bill is of great concern to me.

I can see why he wants to be persistent about it. I wish him better luck now than before. He knows you have to get it past the whiz kids, the people who told

the caucus 15 minutes before it happened that you were going to have a budget at the Magna Corp. I call it the "Magna Carta." Those people are probably the ones who killed this bill before. I'm

glad to see that the member's persistent enough to sharpen his elbows for that crowd in the Premier's office, who are unelected, highly paid and have much more power than people such as Mr

O'Toole.

I thought he might mention in his bill the fact that there's a need for road improvements through St Catharines on the QEW. We're having some at the Henley

Bridge now, but the access and egress portions of the road are very unsafe. There is a need for those improvements. Now that the federal government is there pulling the province along, I suspect we

might have an announcement from the provincial government because, just as with GO Transit, the federal government said, "Look, we're prepared to have public transit move out into these other

communities." That puts the pressure on the provincial government. Now there will be pressure to improve the road through St Catharines. I know the member would be very supportive of that. He's the

kind of member who would be.

I'm wondering as well if he has checked this with my good friend Frank Sheehan, the head of the Red Tape Commission. I heard your government said that

virtually all regulations are terrible things to have out there, that the opposition parties are too regulatory. I see today now that two bills have come in that call for regulations. I support

both of them, but I wonder where the ideologues in the government are going to stand on this, the people who have the real control and how you're going to go to the folks who send so much money to

you and come to those big fundraisers. What is it going to cost to golf at Kettle Creek?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Ten thousand.

Mr Bradley: Ten thousand, $12,000, something like that at Kettle Creek. I worry about that.

Look, there are distractions for drivers. Those distractions should be removed.

The member has not imposed a total ban. He says that the headsets are available. You can't have both ears covered, you're not dialling and so on. His bill is a

compromise. Even those who are concerned should have those concerns at least met by the provisions of this bill.

It's like seat belts. A lot people to this day would not wear seat belts if it was not the law of the province. It is the law of the province, so people wear

them. I know they'll say it's difficult. A lot of people use cellphones today. Probably all of us in the House have used a cellphone while driving some time or other. If it's the law that you

can't, people won't do it.

So I intend to vote in favour of the legislation that's being proposed. I simply worry that the Red Tape Commission will get hold of this and put another block

on it, as it did last time. But maybe with the so-called free votes we're going to have, things will change.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Like my friend from St Catharines, I also will be supporting the bill standing in the name of Mr

O'Toole, Bill 3.

I would also echo the comments that it is curious that for a government that says public safety is job one, the number one top priority is safety -- I don't

think there are many who would argue the point -- that on an issue from their own backbencher that has been through the process here, been to committee, it's still not the law. So what gives?

I suspect it is exactly what the member for St Catharines has talked about in his final moments and that was the fact that you're worried about the potential

conflict or the inconsistency of saying, "Regulation bad; Mr O'Toole's bill good." But that's the essence of governing and hopefully getting beyond blind ideology. That has been your argument. You

have said all along that any kind of regulation is red tape and red tape is to be cut and therefore any regulation that disappears is a good thing.

We've sat on this side of the House for eight years now --

Mr O'Toole: And you'll sit there for another eight.

Mr Christopherson: I won't be sitting here for another eight. That's a given. That's an absolute. How much longer I sit here, in fact, is more

in your hands than mine at this point, so I don't have a particular political axe to grind here. I just point out the fact that it seems to me, John, that your biggest problem is your own

colleagues. You've got us on side, you've got the process on side, I suspect you've got the public on side. You've got all the people who care about highway safety on side. Everybody is on side

except your cabinet, the de facto government of Ontario. So it does give one pause to wonder how much real commitment there is.

John, they could make you a hero in one fell swoop. You've got to be just drooling at the prospect of being so close to getting this bill passed, where you're

out there saving lives. Innocent people will live a long healthy life because of you and your bill and your initiative. It would be a good thing too. I'm not mocking you; it would be a good

thing.

But what I can't understand is, when you line all those things up behind -- most of us would give our political right arm to have that much political

horsepower behind any bill or initiative we brought before this House. So you've got all that going for you and here we are, private members struggling again to help John let his bill see the light

of day. And we're going to do that for you, John. We're going to do that for you for one important reason: you've got a good bill in front of the House.

I don't think there's one of us who hasn't already shared or could share stories about why this makes a lot of sense. The only reason one wouldn't do it is if

you take libertarianism to its extreme, where you just don't believe in any kind of government regulation or any kind of government control. If that's where you're at, then you're probably an

individual who hates with a great deal of passion virtually all the laws that are on the books, save and except maybe a few fundamental ones. Other than that, you've got everybody on side, and you

should. I can only hope that we give enough support in this House that we can help you embarrass the government to get past the fact that they don't want to be seen to be regulating.

But there's a bigger issue here and in the last minute that I have I want to be very serious and say I was not kidding when I talked about saving lives. This

will. If there are people who feel that their rights are being violated, I think we need to take that very seriously. Government needs to start from the premise that rights that individuals have

are theirs under the Constitution, and that government only steps in and starts to curtail those rights when they have a justifiable reason within a democratic society. The best examples, of

course, and the most recent, are seat belts, motorcycle helmets and, not that long ago, helmets for kids riding bikes. These are cases where we've said, "No. We, as a society, are going to remove

your individual right to choose." That's a big thing. We ought only to do that when we think the severity of the issue warrants it. This does. Innocent people die and get hurt every day because the

use of cellphones is distracting and it's causing drivers to create accidents.

So I say to my honourable friend that you have a good bill, you have a good issue, you've got all the political horsepower you could hope for, and all we need

now is -- once again, the opposition finds itself trying to shake the cabinet to open its eyes and see the reality of what needs to be done.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): As we've heard today and in previous cellphone debates, the purpose of this legislation is to help

reduce accidents; to do that by banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. I also wish to speak in favour of this legislation introduced by John O'Toole, our member for Durham. I commend

the member for Durham for his perseverance, and I wish to commend him for his tenacity and his dedication to this issue. He has done the work. He may well be too modest to acknowledge that, but he

has done the work. He has the knowledge and the experience from his work on this, the kind of experience that will serve this cause well on the road ahead.

Cellphones are very important for someone like myself, a rural MPP. But I have also seen the evidence of distraction and have noticed fellow motorists who have

lost sight of the goal when they're moving from one destination to another in their mobile office.

During the initial debate on this bill, I related to the Legislature some of the tribulations of shuttling between several offices and operating out of several

vehicles. Very clearly, hand-held cellphones and driving don't mix. It's a bad mix when you throw in other things such as changing channels on the radio, people who have tape decks or CD players,

CB radios; oftentimes you'll see a pen and a notepad on the front seat.

Mr Christopherson: Cigarettes.

Mr Barrett: Cigarettes and cigars. Some people, perhaps, read novels or newspapers when they drive. Again, the cumulative effect really gives

new meaning to that old expression "driven to distraction." It was the difficulty in this kind of distraction that drove me to incorporate a hands-free system in my vehicle. I merely screwed a

cradle into the floor of my vehicle, and immediately noticed the improvement: the fact that I could talk on the phone and have both hands on the wheel.

We do recognize that cellphones are key to doing business in Ontario; they're key to doing business on farms and in small towns in my riding. This legislation

cannot be considered a barrier to doing business. It does not ban cellphones. It bans the hand-held cellphones when driving and favours the hands-free system that I have adopted.

Business and a strong economy underpin the success of Ontario over the past seven years, and this bill is business friendly. This legislation will contribute,

in part, to the continued growth of our strong economy, just as tax cuts and the attendant job creation have contributed to our strong economy. Only a strong economy, unfettered by any modicum of

red tape, permits investment in health, education, environmental initiatives and safe communities -- all the good things we value in the province of Ontario. Only a strong economy bankrolls the

services that we need for a better quality of life. Only a strong economy has created well over one million jobs in this province. Only a strong economy has enabled us to assist well over 600,000

people get off welfare.

This cellphone legislation is a compromise. It does create a balance. It is cognizant of the demands of business and our ever-growing economy and balances that

with road safety.

There have been a number of studies conducted to demonstrate the dangers of using hand-held cellphones: in 1997, the University of Toronto indicated that a

person using a cellphone is four times more likely to be in a collision than a non-user; and the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 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. There is a plethora of other resource papers but time does not permit to go through

them.

I feel that this legislation is based on research evidence and will go a long way to better enable drivers to understand the dangers of using this equipment. I

encourage all members to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I am pleased to stand and have an opportunity to participate in the debate. I say off the top,

as I did when this bill was before the House some time ago, that I will be voting against it. I will be voting against it not because I disagree with the argument that there are distractions for

people operating motor vehicles in our province. In fact, the distraction piece I think is the fundamental issue at stake here, but the bill that is proposed deals with something like issue number

six, the scientific distraction list. This is that cellular phone use is the sixth most-noted distraction in the causes of motor vehicle accidents. The last time there were derisive comments

because I dared to suggest in the debate that I would move the veal parmigiano sandwich amendment.

Interjection.

Mr Smitherman: There he goes again. Mr O'Toole has been rattled by the suggestion in this debate that maybe there is something to be

considered here about other distractions that cause accidents when people are operating motor vehicles in our province: dealing with things like the radio, kids in the back seat, food, the

application of makeup. There are other concerns. What do we have to do to deal with those things?

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Where do you put your makeup on?

Mr Smitherman: He just puts a bag over his head.

If we look at the issues, perhaps the way to deal with this is the way the law does now, which is to give our police officers the opportunity to issue other

Highway Traffic Act summonses for dangerous or careless driving. If there is evidence that a distraction that is occurring behind the wheel is contributing to an unsafe driving situation, our

police officers already have an array of tools at their disposal.

This member comes from a GTA riding and he will know that the issue of gridlock in the greater Toronto area, which has been made much worse under the hands of

this so-called government, means that countless thousands and thousands of people spend hours and hours a day behind the wheel -- otherwise less productive time -- often hardly moving at all. I

think that this bill seeks to limit their capacity to be efficient, to stay in touch with their family, to let them know that they are coming home late again.

One of the other members raised the issue of CB radios. It is interesting to me -- my father was a trucker -- that CB radios weren't outlawed, that there

wasn't a prohibition on the use of CB radios over time, because the evidence was so clear that the distraction was causing motor vehicle accidents. We didn't see that because we weren't at that

time having an Ontario Legislature, I guess, that sought to find little populist wedge issues. But I think at the end of the day there is a fundamental hypocrisy: that the government on the one

hand that likes to say that all red tape is bad, seeks to pile it on, when already in legislation and available to police officers are serious tools to deal with the distractions that may occur

behind the wheel.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in this debate today and support the member from Durham. John O'Toole has been

working so hard on this private member's bill. So I'd like to support Bill 3,

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

a highway.

It's certainly worth noting what the purpose of this bill is, and the purpose "is to help reduce the number of accidents on Ontario roads by banning the use of

hand-held cellphones while driving." I think that's a very worthy purpose, and it's certainly backed up by recent studies, as is the case with the recent study done by the Harvard Center for Risk

Analysis, which suggests that cellphone use contributes to 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries a year on US roads. If we can do anything to reduce needless injuries and deaths on the roads of

Ontario, I think we should be doing that.

It is also worth noting, of course, that Ontario has made great success in reducing injuries on the highways. In fact, we have the safest highways in North

America. I certainly do a lot of driving as an MPP and involved with Northern Development and Mines, and in fact, 50,000 kilometres a year, getting around the beautiful riding of Parry

Sound-Muskoka. This week, I was up to Pointe au Baril, to Restoule, and also in parts of northern Ontario, up to Elk Lake, to Elliot Lake, to Thessalon, Sault Ste Marie, Garden River First

Nation.

Mr O'Toole: Do cellphones work up there?

Mr Miller: Actually, yes, we're getting more and more coverage across the province. Pretty much that whole route, with the exception of

Restoule, had cellphone coverage.

The fact is that a lot of people use cellphones and there's a lot of good that comes from cellphones, particularly in remote areas where you can get help when

your car breaks down, when you have an accident. There certainly are a lot of positives.

I think the key part of this bill is that it's not banning cellphone use completely. There are exemptions, and one of the exemptions is that you'll be able to

use a hands-free-type technology to be able to use a cellphone. Certainly my experience with using hands-free technology is that you are much less distracted, you're able to keep two hands on the

wheel and still make use of a cellphone. It's much less distracting than using a cellphone in the normal way. As well, as technology improves, I'm sure there are going to be systems built right

into automobiles so that they'll be voice-activated and you won't have to dial numbers.

Certainly my own personal experience of using a cellphone prior to using hands-free is that you are distracted and you find -- I know my own experience is I

tried to dial a number and ended up in the next lane while on the highway, which is not what you should be doing.

Recently we see cellphone service expanding all across the province. Recently in North Bay, there was the NOHFC, the Ontario government announced funding to

assist getting cellphone coverage across Algonquin Park so there now will be cellphone use available in Algonquin Park.

I think this is a very worthwhile bill. If it saves one life, that will be worth it, without question. I know that Mr O'Toole has worked very hard on bringing

this bill forward. He made improvements to it when it went to committee last year, and I look forward to fully supporting this bill. I'm sure it's going to be a benefit to all the people of the

province of Ontario.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise for a few minutes to speak to this bill. I opposed this bill last time, and certainly have heard

absolutely nothing today that would change my view on this.

I guess this is the third time this member has brought this bill forward. I do commend his commitment to the cause, but I guess I question his caucus's

commitment and his cabinet's commitment to this, how they keep hanging it out to dry. They allow the member to bring this bill forward, they string him along and then they cut it off. Every

opportunity that this government across the floor has had to bring this forward, unfortunately, they've shafted their own member.

I don't understand why the member's colleagues don't like this idea. It certainly seems to have a lot of support when we're here in private members' hour, but

then he can't get it through the cabinet. So I certainly think if you're serious about this bill, you're probably going to have to spend a lot more time convincing your caucus, your Minister of

Transportation and your cabinet rather than convincing the opposition. Certainly the lack of support you're receiving in your caucus is embarrassing and probably insulting to the cause you're

trying to fight and bring forward.

This is, to me, a simplistic solution to a complicated problem.

You talk about distractions. Well, there are hundreds and hundreds of drive-through Tim Hortons doughnuts, a great Hamilton company, in this province. How many

of us stop, go through a drive-through, pick up the coffee, put it in the car and off we go? I would argue with you that the distraction of having a hot coffee in your hand is probably as much as

having a cellphone when you're driving.

When you drive through a McDonalds or Wendy's -- now, I don't do that, because I don't eat that kind of food -- but if you do and you've got a hamburger and

sauce dripping all over the place and you're trying to eat as you're driving, let me suggest to you that that distraction is probably greater than it would be with a cellphone. Are you now going to

ban drive-throughs? Are we now going to say drive-throughs are not allowed because if the driver, whether it's a coffee or a hamburger or fries, is going to be distracted and possibly it's going to

be illegal here in Ontario?

You've got billboards across the province, down the highway, and you've got these flashing billboards, these television screens that now act as billboards. Is

that a distraction? I would argue it is. Are we going to take that step now and ban that?

There's very little evidence to suggest that an increase in cellphones in this province has led to an increase in accidents. In the last 10 years across

Canada, cellphone use has gone from about a million cellphones to approximately 10 million. Accidents have dropped by 10% across this country. So there's very little evidence that suggests a

correlation here.

What we need to do is ensure that the police officers have the tools to enforce the current laws that are in place when it comes to careless driving, because

the argument is that the distraction is not speaking or concentrating on what you're saying, but holding the phone. So the argument my colleagues would like to put forward is that if you have the

hands-free device, you're not distracted. I don't think that the distraction is having the phone in your hand. I think if you follow your argument, the distraction is concentrating on the

conversation you're having, rather than this phone in your hand. So if your argument was that generally talking on the phone is a distraction, you'd ban it outright, not simply a hand-held compared

to a hands-free cellphone.

I think there needs to be better driver education here and better enforcement of current laws. There has to be a commitment across this province that we're

going to give police officers the resources and the tools, and ensure we have enough police officers on the roads, which this government has cut, to enforce the laws that are there. The laws are in

place to enforce careless driving distractions that now occur, but I would say that this is a very simplistic, hot-button, topic-of-the-day approach.

Again, I say to my colleague across the floor, you don't have to convince us. You've got a job to do to convince your colleagues. They're the ones that keep

shooting you down every time you bring this forward.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate. The response? The member for Durham.

Mr O'Toole: I am very pleased to be sitting beside the Honourable Brad Clark, who was the Minister of Transportation, who's been listening to

this debate this morning, as well as, in front of me, Mr Turnbull, a former Minister of Transportation, and Mr Klees.

This is an important issue. In fact, all members come to this House to make a difference and to make a contribution. If you by coincidence save a life, then

we've made a contribution.

I also want to take a moment to thank Mr Murdoch, the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, for allowing me this opportunity by trading his time with me.

But I have to respond. I was happy there were four members from the Liberal Party who spoke. It appears that this time they're evenly split, which is usual.

But I commend Mr Bradley's insight for asking the right questions. He did put to us a very important question: why did not the caucus or the government move forward? Clearly, we prorogued the House

and that's the reason it didn't go forward in the general government committee.

Many members have had the opportunity to speak on this issue, but the member from Hamilton West, Mr Christopherson, I think put it best. Out of respect, he

said that this is a good bill that's before the House. This will save lives. That's what this is about. When you come to vote, think about the fact that you have an opportunity to save lives.

Of course, the members from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant and Parry Sound-Muskoka all made very worthy contributions.

I put to you this question today to have an opportunity to vote to do the right thing: to put road safety first. My commitment to you is to continue to work

with the Honourable Frank Klees to do this bill, to get it right, to continue the consultations. It's my intention to send it to the general government committee. I'm confident that our Premier

will allow this to go as a free vote. I'm confident that the members from Hamilton East and St Paul's and George Smitherman will come to their senses and do the right thing.

With that, thank you for the time.

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(NO CONVEYING OF PASSENGERS

FOR COMPENSATION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(AUCUN TRANSPORT DE PASSAGERS

MOYENNANT RÉMUNÉRATION)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now deal with ballot item number 1.

Mr Gill has moved second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to restrict the conveyance of passengers for compensation.

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

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I request unanimous consent to move this bill to the committee on finance, please, if I

may.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Gill has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance. Agreed? No.

All those in favour of referral to the standing committee on finance will please stand and be counted.

All those opposed will please stand.

A majority being in favour, this bill is referred to the standing committee on finance.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now deal with ballot item number 2.

Mr O'Toole has moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while a person is

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. Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

All business relating to private members' public business now --

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I would move that this be referred to the general government committee.

The Acting Speaker: You're just in time.

Mr O'Toole has asked that this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed. This bill will be referred to the standing

committee on general government.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1330.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Renfrew on a point of privilege.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'm rising this afternoon pursuant to standing order 21

on a point of privilege regarding what I believe to have been, and to be, a serious contempt of this Legislative Assembly. I beg your indulgence to take a few moments this afternoon to make my

submission to you. In saying that, I want to say to you, Speaker, and to my colleagues that I am very mindful that this is the first day back and important public business awaits us all this

afternoon in question period and beyond. I speak this afternoon as a member of the Legislature to other members of the Legislature about what I really do believe to be a matter of very serious

importance to each and every one of us as members of the Legislature.

Let me begin by arguing that the so-called budgetary process that was engaged in by the Eves government in the month of March 2003 is, in my view, at its core

the contempt about which I will now complain.

Let me begin my submission this afternoon by referring to the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada very quickly to establish

what we understand or at least what the authorities have told us represents contempt in the Canadian parliamentary tradition. Quoting from page 225 of the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary

Privilege in Canada, I read, "Contempt is more aptly described as an offence against the authority and the dignity of the House."

He goes on to observe something that was highlighted in a ruling by Madam Speaker Sauvé in the Canadian Parliament in 1980, the following: "While" -- he,

Maingot, says -- "privilege may be codified, contempt may not, because new forms of obstruction are constantly being devised and Parliament must be able to invoke its penal jurisdiction to protect

itself against these new forms; there is no closed list of classes of offences punishable as contempts of Parliament."

I just simply want to make the point again. At its core, contempt, we are told -- I think rightly so -- is, I repeat, an offence against the authority and the

dignity of Parliament.

In making that observation, I'm also mindful and would like to quickly reference a judgment made in this House in 1997 by Speaker Stockwell. In the judgment of

January 22, 1997, where Speaker Stockwell found a prima facie contempt at the time against the government, he said -- and time does really not permit this afternoon for me to go through

chapter and

verse of quite an interesting judgment four, five, six years ago by Speaker Stockwell, but he basically said the government of the day, I think particularly the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing, was in contempt, at least to a prima facie degree, by virtue of an action they had undertaken by issuing advertising around a matter of legislative activity that was still before the

House.

As important as Speaker Stockwell's decision of that day, where he found a prima facie case of contempt on the basis of government advertising around a matter

then before the Legislature, he, I think, wisely observed in that judgement that he, in 1997, was able to make that finding of contempt on a prima facie basis mindful of what Speaker Warner had

said here in 1994 and what Speaker Fraser had said in Ottawa in 1989 in judging similar issues.

I think the point of Mr Speaker Stockwell's opinion that day that I want to highlight, not to diminish his finding of a prima facie case of contempt, was his

drawing our attention to what Mr Speaker Fraser said in Ottawa in 1989, when Mr Speaker Fraser made it very clear to the Parliament and the public service of Canada that in Canada we have a

parliamentary democracy, not an executive democracy and not an administrative democracy.

I think it is a very important point. It was very clear in Mr Speaker Stockwell's judgment that he recognized the growing impatience of Speakers -- the Warner

case here in 1994, the Fraser case in Ottawa in 1989 -- that there was a clear pattern of encroachment upon the authority of Parliament. In most of those cases the question that was before the

House -- this Legislature or the federal Parliament -- was government advertising around matters then before the Parliament of Canada or the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

With that in mind, the question has to be asked: how is it that what Conway alleges about March 2003 represents a contempt? Let me very quickly deal with the

events of March 12 through March 27, 2003.

On March 12, 2003, the operative assumption of all members of this assembly was clearly that the Legislature, according to the timetable, would reconvene and

meet on March 17. On March 12, five days before the expected reconvening of the Legislature, the cabinet recommended to the Lieutenant Governor that the session be prorogued, which it was that day,

March 12.

Almost at the same time, the Minister of Finance for Ontario, our colleague Ms Ecker, announced that there would be a presentation of the Ontario provincial

budget, 2003, outside the Legislature. Let me read very briefly from her remarks -- these remarks were made, as far I can tell, just moments after the Premier recommended to the Lieutenant Governor

the prorogation of the legislative session. The Minister of Finance said moments later, "We have completed our pre-budget consultations, we have listened to the people and we intend to deliver our

budget at a yet-to-be-disclosed location outside the Legislature and while the Legislature is not in session." We found out a few days later that in fact the budget, so-called, would be presented

at Brampton at the Magna training centre on the afternoon of Thursday, March 27.

I want to say to all honourable members on both sides of the aisle that this was a clear, deliberative choice made by the leader of the government and his

colleagues in cabinet. It is not as though there was a very significant happening --

an act of God, a flood, a fire or something unexpected -- that intervened; not at all. This was a clear,

conscious choice to recommend to His Honour the prorogation of the session on March 12, five days before it was to reconvene, and moments after that recommendation from cabinet to His Honour for

prorogation, the announcement by the Minister of Finance that there would be a provincial budget, so-called, presented outside the Legislature, outside the legislative session, at a place to be

decided sometime in the future, which as I indicated we found out not long afterwards would be the Brampton training centre of Magna International.

My invitation, like I expect all of your invitations, came by fax from the Minister of Finance to my Queen's Park office on the afternoon of March 24. I was

invited -- I was invited -- as the duly elected member of the Legislature for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke to join others from the assembly and outside to be part of this novel presentation of the

provincial budget for 2003.

I want to say to you that there was no question about what the government planned to do. All the language in the literature and the statements of the Minister

of Finance, and later the Premier and other members of the cabinet, made plain that this would be the provincial budget, complete with a lock-up and budgetary papers. That is what happened between

March 12 and March 27, 2003. I repeat, it was not accidental. It was not driven by circumstances that were well beyond the control of mere mortals, including the First Minister and the Minister of

Finance; it was a clear, deliberate, conscious choice to do this, for no good reason that I can see, other than advancing the partisan position of the current government. That is the chronology of

March 12 to March 27, 2003, about which I want to complain most seriously.

I want to say this -- dare I say it as a senior member of the Legislature? -- to all of my colleagues, and I'm going to proceed now as quickly as I can in a

serious and fair-minded way, which has not always been the way I have behaved in this place. I want to say as well that while I've spent a long time here in opposition, I spent some memorable time

as a busy senior minister of the provincial government. I understand the pressures that my friends on the government bench, particularly the cabinet, face on a daily basis. But what happened in

March, in my view, is a very serious matter and it is in my view a very serious contempt. Why? Because it goes to the core of who we are as members of Parliament and what it is we do in

Parliament.

What do I mean by that? Speaker Fraser rightly observed in a very almost angry way 15 years ago, "We are not an executive democracy. We are not an

administrative democracy. We are a parliamentary democracy that pivots on the doctrine of responsible government."

I'm not going to bore you with all of the authorities but I'm going to cite a couple. I can't think of one more relevant and more eminent than the late, great

Eugene A. Forsey. He has written much on our system of parliamentary government, some of it from a highly traditional and classical point of view, I will admit. Let me just cite a couple of

references from Dr Forsey's submission to the federal parliamentary committee reviewing these matters in Ottawa in the fall of 1985. What does Dr Forsey tell us, as practitioners in this ancient

and important business, that is at the core of our business, our responsible parliamentary government? Let me just quote briefly from a couple of his references.

principle of redress of grievance before supply....

confidence of the Commons." That's us. "Without the confidence or support of the Commons, taxes and aids could not be raised to supplement the prerogative and casual revenues of the crown, revenues

which were wholly inadequate in themselves to sustain government. The continuing poverty of our kings ensured the growth of the popular element of our Constitution."

Later on: "`Responsible government' is the term we use to describe the harmony between the executive and the Legislature that we have already achieved. It is

the essential and the distinctive feature of the British parliamentary system. In essence, it is simple. The executive is accountable to and owes its continuing existence to Parliament. The

executive is accountable and answerable not only for its budget, its money measures and its legislative proposals but also for the whole of its range of activities. The servants of the sovereign

can continue in office only so long as they retain the confidence of the Legislature, which means only so long as they can secure the grant of supply, the making of appropriations from the

consolidated revenue fund necessary to carry on the important business of government."

Finally, I think perhaps most tellingly, he says the following: "The House of Commons" -- that's us -- "owes its origins, its growth in power, its pre-eminence

and its ultimate authority over government to money."

He goes on finally to observe, "The parliamentary guardianship of taxation and expenditure is the pivot of our Constitution and the keystone of the arch of our

personal liberty."

That is coming from one of the great authorities of our system. I don't want to sound too professorial or pedantic, but it is